• 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.

So why did Obama lose

Your Star said:
First off, there's no such thing as a nuclear gun.
Click to expand...

I don't mean to nit pick you, but that's not true.

A uranium gun type nuclear weapon is essentially a gun that fires a sub-critical mass of uranium at another sub-critical mass to achieve a critical mass.
 
melons said:
:2bigcry:Well, I call bull **** on your statement because there is no way in the world that you are capable of "knowing" that about enough people to place them all in a group together and make it sound like everyone who believes homosexuality is wrong, hates the ones who commit it. There are evil conservatives and evil liberals alike. You can't place the entire group into one category and pretend to know their true feelings. That would be humanly impossible.
Click to expand...

I haven't even seen on non-racist conservative yet. So please tell us. sounds like your crying more that anything else. :violin
 
Your Star said:
Your just pissed your guy was wrong.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. But as usual the libs prefer to ignore the facts:



"ROMNEY: I think (it's) interesting the president just said something which -- which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.

OBAMA: That's what I said.

ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're saying?

OBAMA: Please proceed governor.

ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

OBAMA: Get the transcript.

CROWLEY: It -- it -- it -- he did in fact, sir ... call it an act of terror."


She even knew she was wrong but couldn't restraint herself when it was time to save her man.


"Crowley, during and following the debate, pointed out that despite Obama's Sept. 12 remarks his administration was peddling a different story to the public. She said it took two weeks for officials to say more definitively that the attack was more than an out-of-control protest.

And she continued to clarify on CNN that Romney was making a legitimate point.

"Right after that I did turn around and say, 'but you are totally correct that they spent two weeks telling us that this was about a tape'," she said.


Four days after Obama's Rose Garden remarks, Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., went on five networks' Sunday shows and cast the attack as hardly a coordinated strike by terrorists."


Read more: Moderator Crowley says Romney 'right in the main' on Libya, despite debate intervention | Fox News
 
RenoCon said:
I don't think so. But as usual the libs prefer to ignore the facts:



"ROMNEY: I think (it's) interesting the president just said something which -- which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.

OBAMA: That's what I said.

ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're saying?

OBAMA: Please proceed governor.

ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

OBAMA: Get the transcript.

CROWLEY: It -- it -- it -- he did in fact, sir ... call it an act of terror."


She even knew she was wrong but couldn't restraint herself when it was time to save her man.


"Crowley, during and following the debate, pointed out that despite Obama's Sept. 12 remarks his administration was peddling a different story to the public. She said it took two weeks for officials to say more definitively that the attack was more than an out-of-control protest.

And she continued to clarify on CNN that Romney was making a legitimate point.

"Right after that I did turn around and say, 'but you are totally correct that they spent two weeks telling us that this was about a tape'," she said.


Four days after Obama's Rose Garden remarks, Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., went on five networks' Sunday shows and cast the attack as hardly a coordinated strike by terrorists."


Read more: Moderator Crowley says Romney 'right in the main' on Libya, despite debate intervention | Fox News
Click to expand...

Strawman+(light).jpg
 
I think he lost because of the Libya issue. He was trying his best to get out of answering anymore questions about it and even told the so called moderator to move on.
 
Vallista said:
I haven't even seen on non-racist conservative yet. So please tell us. sounds like your crying more that anything else. :violin
Click to expand...

Tell you what? Your statement doesn't make sense, go back and read it. What are you trying to say? Are you saying you've never seen a non racist conservative? You don't get out much, if that is what you are saying.
 
melons said:
Tell you what? Your statement doesn't make sense, go back and read it. What are you trying to say? Are you saying you've never seen a non racist conservative? You don't get out much, if that is what you are saying.
Click to expand...

Nativism is considered to be primarily a conservative trait by research. Egalitarianism and internationalism is liberalism
 
Panopticon said:
Nativism is considered to be primarily a conservative trait by research. Egalitarianism and internationalism is liberalism
Click to expand...

Sounds like a bunch of wordy crap to be - an excuse to be prejudice against someone which is what it boils down to. If you are a conservative, you are racist. A very prejudice thought in my opinion.
 
melons said:
Sounds like a bunch of wordy crap to be - an excuse to be prejudice against someone which is what it boils down to. If you are a conservative, you are racist. A very prejudice thought in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Of course you think that, since it doesnt paint you in a good light. Sadly, for you, Ill take (blindingly obvious) science over an anonymous poster on the internet. I recommend you do some research rather than just spout from your belly
 
Panopticon said:
Of course you think that, since it doesnt paint you in a good light. Sadly, for you, Ill take (blindingly obvious) science over an anonymous poster on the internet. I recommend you do some research rather than just spout from your belly
Click to expand...

I don't think that I need you telling me what I am or what I am not. It honestly doesn't matter if you believe me, it only matters that you are wrong and I know it. Whether you know it or not is your own problem.
 
melons said:
I don't think that I need you telling me what I am or what I am not. It honestly doesn't matter if you believe me, it only matters that you are wrong and I know it. Whether you know it or not is your own problem.
Click to expand...

If Im wrong, an anonymous, biased poster on the internet just proved science wrong without even researching the subject! This is breaking news!

here, start with easy wikipedia and then continue, if you dare to subject yourself to research

In politics, racism is commonly located on the far right due to the far right’s common association with nativism, racism, and xenophobia.[
Click to expand...

Racism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to Fetzer, (2000) opposition to immigration is common in many countries because of issues of national, cultural or religious identity. The phenomenon has been studied especially in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States, as well as Europe in recent years. Thus nativism has become a general term for 'opposition to immigration' based on fears that the immigrants will distort or spoil existing cultural values. This may be expressed through criticism of multiculturalism.[3]
Click to expand...


Oh no! Common nationalistic, religious, culturalist conservative desires we all recognize that liberal internationalists hate, as we all also know!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativism_(politics)

Liberals believe in internationalism, e.g., the scientific fact that nation state borders are human inventions and not real borders and thus, the people living on one side of a imaginary border cannot possibly be more destined to be supreme than those on the other side (American exceptionalism, etc, a conservative notion). Consrvatives are the religious ones generally, and believe in the supremacy of their religion, as well. And so on. They also think that the nation state is a creature of God or destiny, another ridiculous assumption that science scoffs at, especially since the concept of the nation state is a modern invention created by kings to expand their territory. All this is anathema to liberals. I could go on with examples for days, but you need to educate yourself through your own work.
 
Last edited:
Your Star said:
Strawman+(light).jpg
Click to expand...

I falsely assumed that you might be interested in facts. Then again, I really didn't have anything touchy feely, hopey changey to come back to you with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom