• 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!

Sarah Palin: Is she spinning her record in Alaska politics?

haymarket said:
Comparing a political election contest to martial arts is like comparing apples to cinderblocks and complaining about chipping your teeth on that grey pie filling.
Click to expand...


yes, on one hand one group wants to pit themselves against the best, in the latter, one loser hopes the other is a bigger loser. :lamo
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I love the mentality that Obama is such a loser his only chance is that the Republicans nominate an even bigger loser that he can beat..... Christmas indeed.....
Click to expand...

Obama sucks but the Republicans are only interested in Tea Party lunatics, not providing a viable alternative.

Lesser of two evils isn't a satisfying win, but it's still a win. It worked pretty well for Dubya when the Democrats nominated Kerry. It'll work for Obama, too, unless the Republicans get their heads out of their asses and get behind Romney.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Obama sucks but the Republicans are only interested in Tea Party lunatics, not providing a viable alternative.

Lesser of two evils isn't a satisfying win, but it's still a win. It worked pretty well for Dubya when the Democrats nominated Kerry. It'll work for Obama, too, unless the Republicans get their heads out of their asses and get behind Romney.
Click to expand...

Romney won't get it, he's a Big government type, this isn't the time for more of the same fail. You can bad mouth the Tea Party all you want, and you can opine that the GOP Needs to get behind a Candidate that's "moderate". Why? Why the **** shoudl we support someone that doesn't support US.
 
BDBoop said:
Shock -n- Awe, y'all! Rev just called Sarah Palin an even bigger loser than Obama!

I should make this my sig.
Click to expand...

So...again...what is Obama going to run on, in 2012? I would love to hear what Obamabots think his platform will be. I've yet to get and answer to that question, other than he got UBL.
 
Hatuey said:
Have you read a single book on politics? Ever? Please quit bringing in your irrelevant experience in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu to a conversation about politics. They're not even remotely similar. A win in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu is static. A win in an election is active.
Click to expand...

When Obama loses, will he be a static loser?
 
MrVicchio said:
Romney won't get it, he's a Big government type, this isn't the time for more of the same fail. You can bad mouth the Tea Party all you want, and you can opine that the GOP Needs to get behind a Candidate that's "moderate". Why? Why the **** shoudl we support someone that doesn't support US.
Click to expand...

This is a perfect example of the idiotic Tea Party scorched-earth demagoguery that is going to lead to a second term for Obama.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Obama sucks but the Republicans are only interested in Tea Party lunatics, not providing a viable alternative.

Lesser of two evils isn't a satisfying win, but it's still a win. It worked pretty well for Dubya when the Democrats nominated Kerry. It'll work for Obama, too, unless the Republicans get their heads out of their asses and get behind Romney.
Click to expand...




The undercurrent of the tea party is what America is about.'you strip away the coopting by republicans the pinning the movement on palin and you are left with.

Lower taxes
SmallermGovernment
More accountable reps.

Who would be against this? This is the foundation that far left and thier ilk like you want to destroy in the name of statism.
 
from the rev

Lower taxes
SmallermGovernment
More accountable reps.

Who would be against this?
Click to expand...

The first two are bumper sticker cliches rendered meaningless without details. The third is begging the question "more accountable to who exactly and how do you do this?".

While I have nothing against bumper stickers in principle - they make for lousy and lazy public policy.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
No....
Click to expand...

Obviously because if you'd know anything about politics, you believe your candidate has a stronger platform and the others is by default weaker. So a weak oponent is desired on the other side so that their ideas can be implemented. Now, piss off with your "two losers" fortune cookie bull****. You sound like a person who has not a f'n clue as to what politics is.
 
apdst said:
When Obama loses, will he be a static loser?
Click to expand...

apdst adds incoherent babbling to the thread. Good lord. You're like one of those little kids who has not a clue as to what they're discussing but just needs to say something so that somebody will pay attention to them.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
It's sad that one has to hope for a bigger loser so that thier loser wins... This is not the American way.
Click to expand...

Well, the is the argument many Convervatives tried to paint when McCain lost. He's a Moderate-Republican. As such, many people started complaining that the reason they didn't vote for him (if at all) was because:

1) McCain wasn't Conservative enough; and,

2) Obama was the lessor of two evils.

I'm not saying I buy the latter as opposed to the former, but that was the chatter immediately following the 2008 Presidential election.
 
haymarket said:
from the rev



The first two are bumper sticker cliches rendered meaningless without details. The third is begging the question "more accountable to who exactly and how do you do this?".

While I have nothing against bumper stickers in principle - they make for lousy and lazy public policy.
Click to expand...


The Good Reverend has gone into detailamy times on this topic. Repeating myself here would be an exercise in futility. :shrug:
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
The Good Reverend has gone into detailamy times on this topic. Repeating myself here would be an exercise in futility. :shrug:
Click to expand...

A good chunk of what almost everybody says here is a variation on the same theme over and over again. When you throw out solutions, it is best to provide details when asked or risk having your ideas dismissed out of hand.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
The undercurrent of the tea party is what America is about.'you strip away the coopting by republicans .
Click to expand...

You strip away the coopting by Republicans, sure. It's hard to take it seriously when you know that most of the people claiming "Tea Party cred" are the same old Republicans that had no problem with deficit spending when it was their idea.
 
rocket88 said:
You strip away the coopting by Republicans, sure. It's hard to take it seriously when you know that most of the people claiming "Tea Party cred" are the same old Republicans that had no problem with deficit spending when it was their idea.
Click to expand...



This is simply not true. The tea party revved up right during the Bush stimulous :prof
 
haymarket said:
A good chunk of what almost everybody says here is a variation on the same theme over and over again. When you throw out solutions, it is best to provide details when asked or risk having your ideas dismissed out of hand.
Click to expand...



Please name 5 right wing or libertarian posters you don't "dismiss out of hand". :roll:


For example we had a discussion regarding your lies about the Good Reverend being a "right winged extremist" when i demonstrated numerous positions i hopd that slaughtered this lie, you continued.

Again. It would be an exercise in futility.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
This is simply not true. The tea party revved up right during the Bush stimulous :prof
Click to expand...

False. The Tea Party did not begin until 2009, during the presidency of Barack Obama:
Tea Party protests - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Tea Party's road to legitimacy: A timeline - The Week
History of the Tea Party Movement — Infoplease.com

The Tea Party was and is a racist reactionary response to the election of a black president. Nothing more.

Pretending that it started as a reaction to the excesses of the Bush administration is absurdly counterfactual.
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
False. The Tea Party did not begin until 2009, during the presidency of Barack Obama:
Tea Party protests - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Tea Party's road to legitimacy: A timeline - The Week
History of the Tea Party Movement — Infoplease.com

The Tea Party was and is a racist reactionary response to the election of a black president. Nothing more.

Pretending that it started as a reaction to the excesses of the Bush administration is absurdly counterfactual.
Click to expand...

This is so strange. I could swear Rev was right, but you're the one with the links.
 
rocket88 said:
You strip away the coopting by Republicans, sure. It's hard to take it seriously when you know that most of the people claiming "Tea Party cred" are the same old Republicans that had no problem with deficit spending when it was their idea.
Click to expand...

If you stripped away republicans from the tea party all you would have left is a dried up used old Liptons tea bag. Not even a better quality Bigelow one either. ;)
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Please name 5 right wing or libertarian posters you don't "dismiss out of hand". :roll:


For example we had a discussion regarding your lies about the Good Reverend being a "right winged extremist" when i demonstrated numerous positions i hopd that slaughtered this lie, you continued.

Again. It would be an exercise in futility.
Click to expand...

Are you giving me license to prove with your own posts that you are a right wing extremist like I have done so many times before? And are you promising me that this will not end up getting me thread banned or incurring violation points after "somebody who shall remain anonomyous' seems to repeatedly report me after those sort of challenges are issued?

I have been through this before. I have proven you an extremist before. And I have ended up thread banned and with violations and suspension before for the price I had to pay.

Sorry rev, but you are just not worth it and anybody who wants the historical record knows how to get it using a search function.

Your little ruse did not work so try try again.

btw - Guy Incognito.... Elijah Galt ..... both are self identified libertarians and I think they make thought provoking posts that I do not dismiss out of hand. As I told you before when you trot out this tired and worn strawman - I do not keep a scorecard on such things..... even though you seem to do so.

However, if you want three more, simply provide me with a list of posters who are either libertarian or conservative in their leans and I will find three more for you. But I simply DO NOT keep track of such things as I really do not care that much.
 
Last edited:
ReverendHellh0und said:
This is simply not true. The tea party revved up right during the Bush stimulous :prof
Click to expand...

No. It didn't.

History of the Tea Party Movement — Infoplease.com

Since its inception in February 2009, the Tea Party movement—with the help of viral videos and social networking sites, such as Facebook and Twitter—almost instantly found a large and loyal following that has gained traction and supporters.

In fact, Gallup poll in late March 2010 revealed that 28% of Americans have a positive perception of the Tea Party movement.

Read more: History of the Tea Party Movement — Infoplease.com History of the Tea Party Movement — Infoplease.com
Click to expand...

Tea Party movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Tea Party movement (TPM) is an American populist[1][2][3] political movement which is generally recognized as conservative and libertarian,[4][5] and has sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009.[6][7][8] It endorses reduced government spending,[9][10] opposition to taxation in varying degrees,[10] reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit,[9] and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.[11]
Click to expand...

The interwebz is a horrible thing.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I love the mentality that Obama is such a loser his only chance is that the Republicans nominate an even bigger loser that he can beat..... Christmas indeed.....
Click to expand...

So your saying you hated McCain's vp pick?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Again, you are hoping to win by simply not losing... I have a higher standard for my candidates and my POTUS I guess.
Click to expand...

In case you haven't noticed, that's how all of them win. None of them are worth the **** they talk. That's why so many people vote for the "lesser evil."
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Again, you are hoping to win by simply not losing... I have a higher standard for my candidates and my POTUS I guess.
Click to expand...

So your saying you didn't vote for McCain? *cough* bull**** *cough
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom