• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Romney VP Nominee Will Be...

Oh please go on. You said it had nothing to do with the GOP yet Dick Armey endorses it, thereby refuting your argument.

Your link was a JOKE SIGHT!!!!!! You have not a clue.... youre just running BS... you got hosed. ( drudge RETORT?)

everybody knows Rules is about how the " liberal victims want to take the power away from the perceived "Man" and the tactics needed to tear down the American system and replace it.. ..ITS LIBERAL 100% its part of OWS...

who you jiving? really.........

if I need a thimble like I said..
 
Last edited:
Your link was a JOKE SIGHT!!!!!! You have not a clue.... youre just running BS... you got hosed. ( drudge RETORT?)

There are two sources -- both conservative leaning: the Wall Street Journal, and Drudge. Give it up homey. Desperation is so unattractive.
 


Please... just stop..FAIL...

go run this BS to a bunch of stoned teenagers..


You can read correct? well if you read that it shows Newts DISDAIN for Obama and Alinsky...its an OPINION piece by some libtard trying to tear down Newt and its factless..just his libtard opinion that He think Newt does the same..

Pathetic.. give up on debate..
 
Last edited:
There are two sources -- both conservative leaning: the Wall Street Journal, and Drudge. Give it up homey. Desperation is so unattractive.

WTF are you trying to spin here?.. you need to go into the proffession of spin...
 
WTF are you trying to spin here?.. you need to go into the proffession of spin...

Calm down, Chief. Three sources all refute your claim. You're just looking more and more desperate. Relax, there are plenty of other bogus talking points for you to choose from. How about ol' Rev. Wright? :lol:
 
Last edited:
Calm down, Chief. Three sources all refute your claim. You're just looking more and more desperate. Relax, there are plenty of other bogus talking points for you to choose from. How about ol' Rev. Wright? :lol:

Have you considered a career in comedy?..what 3 sources?... and are we actually going to try to say Rules is for the GOP?...LOL
 
:lamo :lamo

The Wall Street Journal, Drudge, the Chicago Tribune, Politico, the Washington Post, CNN ... THEY'RE ALL LYING!!!!!!

Saul Alinsky lives on in GOP rhetoric - The Washington Post

My God... NONSENSE.... The Wapo?... thanks for the punch line.. the joke is even funnier now..again it was Drudge RETORT... and the whole thing is nonsense...

Next time try to sell me "Dreams of my Frank Marshall" is about the life of GWB....LOL
 
Last edited:
My God... NONSENSE.... The Wapo?... thanks for the punch line.. the joke is even funnier now..again it was Drudge RETORT... and the whole thing is nonsense...

Next time try to sell me "Dreams of my Frank Marshall" is about the life of GWB....LOL

You can ignore the facts and three articles that refute your claim. You can cover your eyes and plug your ears, screaming "La La La La La." But, you see the letters up at the top that say "D-E-B-A-T-E?" Yeah, you aren't really engaging in that. You might want to go elsewhere and search for a forum that promotes emotional attachment to non-factually based claims.
 
You can ignore the facts and three articles that refute your claim. You can cover your eyes and plug your ears, screaming "La La La La La." But, you see the letters up at the top that say "D-E-B-A-T-E?" Yeah, you aren't really engaging in that. You might want to go elsewhere and search for a forum that promotes emotional attachment to non-factually based claims.


Yea sure... you are a powerful debator..

You got destroyed.. but the funniest part is it was YOU who took you down...

you are trying to prove that for some bizarre reason you think Rules by Alinsky is written for and used by the GOP.. when you are so out there that the book was writen as I said for liberals to use to try to take down the system... just becasue some light in the head libs want to say it does not make it true.. your links are joke, your premise is stupider then the links..

reality sucks..huh..?
 
Last edited:
You can ignore the facts and three articles that refute your claim. You can cover your eyes and plug your ears, screaming "La La La La La." But, you see the letters up at the top that say "D-E-B-A-T-E?" Yeah, you aren't really engaging in that. You might want to go elsewhere and search for a forum that promotes emotional attachment to non-factually based claims.
re-posted just because it deserves to be read
 
re-posted just because it deserves to be read


yea its powerful stuff..

as powerful as a Drudge RETORT link to a bogus made up parady of an article to be used the basis of FACT...

LOL....

repost that
 
Last edited:
Yea sure... you are a powerful debator..

You got destroyed.. but the funniest part is it was YOU who took you down...

you are trying to prove that for some bizarre reason you think Rules by Alinsky is written for and used by the GOP.. when you are so out there that the book was writen as I said for liberals to use to try to take down the system... just becasue some light in the head libs want to say it does not make it true.. your links are joke, your premise is stupider then the links..

reality sucks..huh..?

It's used by both sides. That's called "bipartisanship" and you should try it sometime. You claim it was written for liberals "to use to try take down the system" which is funny because Cons like to fight the system as well. It is utilized by both sides so to stand up and proclaim otherwise is just ignorance on a massive level. Also, just because you want to say they're liberal does not make it so. If you disagree, they aren't automatically liberal. Finally, my premise is stupid? Well it's backed up by facts, it's not stupid. I'll let everyone else decide which is stupid: denying bipartisanship and facts, or stating facts and making an objective observation based on said facts.
 
It's used by both sides. That's called "bipartisanship" and you should try it sometime. You claim it was written for liberals "to use to try take down the system" which is funny because Cons like to fight the system as well. It is utilized by both sides so to stand up and proclaim otherwise is just ignorance on a massive level. Also, just because you want to say they're liberal does not make it so. If you disagree, they aren't automatically liberal. Finally, my premise is stupid? Well it's backed up by facts, it's not stupid. I'll let everyone else decide which is stupid: denying bipartisanship and facts, or stating facts and making an objective observation based on said facts.


FAIL... really..I love when a lib tries to tell me what us GOP care about or use..

let me know when you want to make a real point.. because your blathering about this invalid angle of your that sounds like some grade school homework assignment is a bore..your links were BS and DISPROVED YOU..

Its written for and and used by LIBERALS..it was the premise if the book..The GOP is facile on it to COMBAT the tactics as they are dangerous and radical..so the GOP is made aware of them, they do NOT use those tactics..

have you read it?..do you know what the books is about?
 
Last edited:
FAIL... really..I love when a lib tries to tell me what us GOP care about or use..

Lib better be short for Libertarian.

let me know when you want to make a real point.. because your blathering about this invalid angle of your that sounds like some grade school homework assignment is a bore..your links were BS and DISPROVED YOU..

Well if they are BS you should have no problem refuting them with facts. I'll be waiting.

Its written for and and used by LIBERALS..it was the premise if the book..

have you read it?..do you know what the books is about?

It's about organizing movements. It's a "how-to" for activists.
 
Lib better be short for Libertarian.



Well if they are BS you should have no problem refuting them with facts. I'll be waiting.



It's about organizing movements. It's a "how-to" for activists.



yea sure it is... whatever you need to tell your teacher to get that A...


now please get back to the thread topic ..
 
yea sure it is... whatever you need to tell your teacher to get that A...


now please get back to the thread topic ..

So you have nothing to back up what you complained about? How hilariously ironic and dishonest of you.
 
Sorry, it showed up for me because I'm a subsriber. Here's the relevant part:


Still didn't answer my original, good Red Herring but . . . . here you go again" "Also, which Tea Party group is the "radical" group. ".

Like I said every group has it's agitators, just look at the NAACP booing Romeny, did Romney run home crying foul? No.
 
Back
Top Bottom