• 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!

Rand Paul Calls Benghazi "Worst Tragedy Since 9/11"

Tell me about oil for food..

tell me how that effected GWB's legal war on Iraq...

I know its hard to type with Obama pom poms on your hands..

Many Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq, that is true.

What about Obama, was he on board with it?
 
Many Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq, that is true.

What about Obama, was he on board with it?

who cares... Obama is a complete enemy of the USA... maybe that worthless Alinsky clone voted "present"...who cares...Obama is a zero ...

Now again tell me about Oil for Food since you mock GWB...oh wait that was Catwaba...
 
Many Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq, that is true.

What about Obama, was he on board with it?
Maybe Obama was too busy performing fellatio and a rim job in Saddam Hussein's nether regions.
 
Rand Paul is the latest far right wing GOP wet dream fulfillment. He embodies the full complement of wacko beliefs that the far right so dearly loves. My fondest hope is that he does indeed run for the GOP presidential nomination in 2016, gets royally screwed out of it, and goes rogue forming his own third party and mounts a serious run that way.

He will lack no support from the tri-cornered folks on this site on others. The only drawback with that is that they spend lots of time fighting the political wars on a computer and do next to nothing our on the streets where the actual door to door work is done to win elections.

Actually, Rand Paul is a mixed bag for me. He espouses a lot of my own Libertarian views, but sometimes goes a bit too far. I do have a lot of Libertarian leanings, but Objectivism and Anarcho-Capitalism are not among them. I don't have a problem with him being in the Senate. His extremist views will be tamped down there, while his sensible views will be among those that are a legitimate contribution to the discussion of America's future.
 
Last edited:
Got that cost down and saved the people of his State and the Country that money.....huh? ;)

While he may have spent less money on his staff, all the money he spent was wasted because he accomplished nothing
 
While he may have spent less money on his staff, all the money he spent was wasted because he accomplished nothing

That's the great thing he stopped all unnecessary spending with his Office. That's called an Accomplishment and Achieving one of his goals. Maybe the Democrats.....should learn to actually read and write. So they can take Notes!
 
While he may have spent less money on his staff, all the money he spent was wasted because he accomplished nothing

Yea Obama spending us into the abyss for social reengineering is "doing something"...right?

Obama destroying the country is "doing something"... let me guess..its working right?
 
That's the great thing he stopped all unnecessary spending with his Office. That's called an Accomplishment and Achieving one of his goals. Maybe the Democrats.....should learn to actually read and write. So they can take Notes!

Nope, spending money (which he did) to accomplish nothing is not called "saving money"; it's called "wasting money"
 
Calling the Benghazi incident the "worst tragedy since 9/11" is utterly hysterically ignorant.
I can think of a handful way worse.
 
who cares... Obama is a complete enemy of the USA... maybe that worthless Alinsky clone voted "present"...who cares...Obama is a zero ...

Now again tell me about Oil for Food since you mock GWB...oh wait that was Catwaba...

It always tickles me when our more extreme rightwingers take it upon themselves to speak for the "USA." I always think to myself, "You got a mouse in your pocket?"

He may be your enemy Travis, but most of the USA, certainly the majority, support Obama and not you or your brand of politics. Mathmatically, where the majority rules, doesn't that make you an enemy to the USA moreso than Obama?
 
Last edited:
It always tickles me when our more extreme rightwingers take it upon themselves to speak for the "USA." I always think to myself, "You got a mouse in your pocket?"

He may be your enemy Travis, but most of the USA, certainly the majority, support Obama and not you or your brand of politics. Mathmatically, where the majority rules, doesn't that make you an enemy to the USA moreso than Obama?

Didn't you mean the majority out of the 2/3rds of the population that didn't vote?
 
Actually, Rand Paul is a mixed bag for me. He espouses a lot of my own Libertarian views, but sometimes goes a bit too far. I do have a lot of Libertarian leanings, but Objectivism and Anarcho-Capitalism are not among them. I don't have a problem with him being in the Senate. His extremist views will be tamped down there, while his sensible views will be among those that are a legitimate contribution to the discussion of America's future.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. When Rand Paul goes around talking stupid **** it damages any credibility he might have when he get's one right. Kinda like the boy who cried wolf. Know what I mean?
 
Nope, spending money (which he did) to accomplish nothing is not called "saving money"; it's called "wasting money"

Billy Paul talked in Circles too. It just sounded good when he sang it.....Just Sayin! :2razz:
 
Didn't you mean the majority out of the 2/3rds of the population that didn't vote?

We can only speculate where these people who didn't vote stand. But the majority of voters voted for Obama. No spin or diversion in the world can negate that fact.
 
He another one of these people Jingal is talking about.

Which is ironic because Jingal is one of the people Jingal is talking about. The republcian party won't be able to recover from its losses for decades. They have a long history of hating every group but the rich white upper 1%.
 
We can only speculate where these people who didn't vote stand. But the majority of voters voted for Obama. No spin or diversion in the world can negate that fact.

Turnout in this year's presidential and Senate primaries was the lowest on record, at 15.9 percent of eligible citizens, a new report found.

Turnout reached record lows for presidential election years in 15 of 41 states which held statewide primaries in both parties. Democratic turnout dropped to record lows in 26 of 41 primaries. In the 46 states where Republican primaries were held, there were eight record lows and three record highs," according to the report by the Center for the Study of the American Electorate.

The findings run counter to the common-sense notion that a close election means high turnout.

Democratic turnout was at record lows in Alabama, at 5.3 percent of eligible voters, and 25 other states, including Maryland, at 8 percent. Presidential primaries in most states have been in place since 1972, so the national Democratic turnout was lower than in all recent cycles in which Democrats did not have a contested presidential primary.

Read more: Voter turnout for 2012 statewide primaries was lowest on record - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

He won.....but that's about all they can say.
burp.gif
 
Which is ironic because Jingal is one of the people Jingal is talking about. The republcian party won't be able to recover from its losses for decades. They have a long history of hating every group but the rich white upper 1%.

Well, I don't know how long the history is but one certainly cannot argue that it isn't what they are about today.

I am old enough to remember when the GOP was an honorable party on the side of the people over their corporate special interests. I long for the day when that becomes reality again. Some GOP'er's seemed to have got the message. Some are fighting tooth and nail in their denial.

Time will tell if the GOP get's with the program or not.
 
Well, I don't know how long the history is but one certainly cannot argue that it isn't what they are about today.

I am old enough to remember when the GOP was an honorable party on the side of the people over their corporate special interests. I long for the day when that becomes reality again. Some GOP'er's seemed to have got the message. Some are fighting tooth and nail in their denial.

Time will tell if the GOP get's with the program or not.

My guess is, it will take the shock of losing the House in 2014, to bring about the change.
 
My guess is, it will take the shock of losing the House in 2014, to bring about the change.

Did you forget the 30 Republican states already? Plus the 10-12 Democratic Senators that wont be running for re-election?

Indeed it will more than likely come as shock should the Democrats lose more States plus the Senate.
burp.gif
 
Did you forget the 30 Republican states already? Plus the 10-12 Democratic Senators that wont be running for re-election?

Indeed it will more than likely come as shock should the Democrats lose more States plus the Senate.
burp.gif


You mean like the "Republican" states, California and Florida?
 
Turnout in this year's presidential and Senate primaries was the lowest on record, at 15.9 percent of eligible citizens, a new report found.

Turnout reached record lows for presidential election years in 15 of 41 states which held statewide primaries in both parties. Democratic turnout dropped to record lows in 26 of 41 primaries. In the 46 states where Republican primaries were held, there were eight record lows and three record highs," according to the report by the Center for the Study of the American Electorate.

The findings run counter to the common-sense notion that a close election means high turnout.

Democratic turnout was at record lows in Alabama, at 5.3 percent of eligible voters, and 25 other states, including Maryland, at 8 percent. Presidential primaries in most states have been in place since 1972, so the national Democratic turnout was lower than in all recent cycles in which Democrats did not have a contested presidential primary.

Read more: Voter turnout for 2012 statewide primaries was lowest on record - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

He won.....but that's about all they can say.
burp.gif

I can agree with most of what you said. Let me add that the Tea Party had a lot to do with many Republican voters not voting. IMHO, the extremism in the party kept them from voting.
 
Did you forget the 30 Republican states already? Plus the 10-12 Democratic Senators that wont be running for re-election?

Indeed it will more than likely come as shock should the Democrats lose more States plus the Senate.
burp.gif

the conservative delusion continues: you're going extinct guys. Nobody wants more tax cuts for Paris Hilton and deregulation for Goldman Sachs.
 
Back
Top Bottom