• 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!

Palin says she's not leaving politics

Personal attacks are the best you can do? Purdy much proves that you know you're full of ****.

Okay, weak sauce. You challenged my patriotism. You did that first, in this thread. Do you really want to go there?

Your ass is fixing to be owned in ways that will make you think a badger has eaten your intestines.
 
Last edited:
When Obama comes on his wife's tits tonight, he'll be thinking about Sarah Palin.

That makes two of us. Well, except I won't be coming on Obama's wife's tits.
 
Okay, weak sauce. You challenged my patriotism. You did that first, in this thread. Do you really want to go there?

I enver challenged your patriotism, before you devalued my contribution to this country. Only a fair weather patriot would devalue another citizen's vote, the way you did.

Your ass is fixing to be owned in ways that will make you think a badger has eaten your intestines. I'll see your pretty white cheeks in the basement, if you have the cojones

Do you want to debate, or do you want to flirt??
 
I enver challenged your patriotism, before you devalued my contribution to this country. Only a fair weather patriot would devalue another citizen's vote, the way you did.

I didn't see any devaluing of a vote. What was said is that the GOP is going to have to recapture lost votes in order to consistently be able to win elections, espeically on the national level. Because of the departure from conservative values and political platforms undergone by the GOP, they lost votes to maybe the Democrats, third parties, and/or apathy. Those lost votes have taken down the number of absolute votes the GOP has traditionally gathered to such an extent as to allow the Democratic Party to have a much easier time winning elections as they can then aggregate enough absolute votes to win an election. Thus the Republican party has to recapture lost votes, it needs to bring up the aggregate number of votes it can obtain to compete with and defeat Democratic nominees. Saying that the GOP needs the vote of the lost voters isn't saying their votes are worth more; but rather that the GOP must increase the number of absolute votes it can aggregate and in order to do that it will be necessary for them to return to traditional conservative platforms to recapture the voters which left it when the GOP abandoned conservative values.
 
I didn't see any devaluing of a vote. What was said is that the GOP is going to have to recapture lost votes in order to consistently be able to win elections, espeically on the national level. Because of the departure from conservative values and political platforms undergone by the GOP, they lost votes to maybe the Democrats, third parties, and/or apathy. Those lost votes have taken down the number of absolute votes the GOP has traditionally gathered to such an extent as to allow the Democratic Party to have a much easier time winning elections as they can then aggregate enough absolute votes to win an election. Thus the Republican party has to recapture lost votes, it needs to bring up the aggregate number of votes it can obtain to compete with and defeat Democratic nominees. Saying that the GOP needs the vote of the lost voters isn't saying their votes are worth more; but rather that the GOP must increase the number of absolute votes it can aggregate and in order to do that it will be necessary for them to return to traditional conservative platforms to recapture the voters which left it when the GOP abandoned conservative values.

Thanks for having high school level reading skills. They rock.
 
I didn't see any devaluing of a vote. What was said is that the GOP is going to have to recapture lost votes in order to consistently be able to win elections, espeically on the national level. Because of the departure from conservative values and political platforms undergone by the GOP, they lost votes to maybe the Democrats, third parties, and/or apathy. Those lost votes have taken down the number of absolute votes the GOP has traditionally gathered to such an extent as to allow the Democratic Party to have a much easier time winning elections as they can then aggregate enough absolute votes to win an election. Thus the Republican party has to recapture lost votes, it needs to bring up the aggregate number of votes it can obtain to compete with and defeat Democratic nominees. Saying that the GOP needs the vote of the lost voters isn't saying their votes are worth more; but rather that the GOP must increase the number of absolute votes it can aggregate and in order to do that it will be necessary for them to return to traditional conservative platforms to recapture the voters which left it when the GOP abandoned conservative values.

Of course someone whose called me a liar on multiple occasions is going to take advantage of this situation. Right? You still think that science and religion are two different things.
 
Of course someone whose called me a liar on multiple occasions is going to take advantage of this situation. Right? You still think that science and religion are two different things.

HAHAHAHA, science and religion are two different things.

That post explained very clearly why what was said was not a devaluation of a vote. Clearly states it, if you read it objectively you'd see that there was no accusation of one's vote being worth less than another. But it seems like, as per usual, you'd rather not read and instead write a one line dismissive post. Well, I tried; but you seem to wish to be stubborn as a mule on this one. Your loss.
 
Last edited:
Right? You still think that science and religion are two different things.

Huh? One is totally made up. That would be a big difference right there.
 
Huh? One is totally made up. That would be a big difference right there.

Don't get him started on that one. He's an anti-scientist it seems and wishes to fully purge science from the government despite the fact that it would ruin the country.
 
Don't get him started on that one. He's an anti-scientist it seems and wishes to fully purge science from the government despite the fact that it would ruin the country.

I'm not anti-science. I'm anti-basing policy decisions and passing legislation based on junk science.
 
Don't get him started on that one. He's an anti-scientist it seems and wishes to fully purge science from the government despite the fact that it would ruin the country.

Well, if you purged science would Congress just float away? Gravity is science after all. I like the idea.
 
Well, if you purged science would Congress just float away? Gravity is science after all. I like the idea.

Hahah...no. Ignoring science doesn't distract from reality unfortunately. Damned physics.
 
I'm anti-basing policy decisions and passing legislation based on junk science.

And of course it's junk science, because you say so. :roll:
 
Of course someone whose called me a liar on multiple occasions is going to take advantage of this situation. Right? You still think that science and religion are two different things.
Wait... what? You think science and religion are the SAME thing? :lol:
 
You still think that science and religion are two different things.

Tell us what FACTUAL things religion has proven true. I bet I can list more facts from science than you can facts from religion.
 
Are you pro-basing policy decisions on imaginary voices?

They are only imaginary if YOU don't hear them. I bet he hears them just fine. Sarah does, too, no doubt.
 
Wait... what? You think science and religion are the SAME thing? :lol:

I believe that the sentiment is that legislation by science is just as bad if not worse than that done by science. Despite the fact that many acts of legislation, especially as it relates to food and drug, are made with science and understanding the interactions. It was then claimed that there needs to be a forced separation of science and state, despite the obvious consequences of destroying the Republic.
 
They are only imaginary if YOU don't hear them. I bet he hears them just fine. Sarah does, too, no doubt.

Sarah hears them better and more frequently than most. She has her god radar tuned right in.
 
I believe that the sentiment is that legislation by science is just as bad if not worse than that done by science. Despite the fact that many acts of legislation, especially as it relates to food and drug, are made with science and understanding the interactions. It was then claimed that there needs to be a forced separation of science and state, despite the obvious consequences of destroying the Republic.

If you separated science from state you would need to shut down the military. And NASA. And the FDA. And the CIA. And the NSA. And the FBI. Wait, I'm starting to like this idea!
 
Back
Top Bottom