• 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!

Bachmann wins Iowa straw poll, keeps momentum

Ockham said:
There was an entire political party on drugs in 2008. It's not out of the realm of possibility it could happen again.
Click to expand...

Lets see the republicans nominated John McCain of the Keating Five and Sarah Palin, I can only draw two possible reasons
1- drug use
2- they wanted to lose
 
Ockham said:
I know I had to counteract EarlzP's asinine statement to balance out the universe. "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" you see.
Click to expand...

That's not counteracting it. That's continuing to pollute the discussion by "contributing" the very same sort of worthless tripe.

Ockham said:
Who suggested that?
Click to expand...

It was there by implication, because you slandered one "side" without applying similar slander to the other "side."
 
lpast said:
Her winning shows just how screwed up the republican party is....When obama ran and I did not vote for him...it was all about how unqualified he is...and now Bachman is qualified to be president? you gotta be kidding me....
Click to expand...

The GOP is going through a prolonged idenity crisis after the 8 year failure of their last chosen leader. We will see if they can get it together by the 2016 election. Obviously, they are saving all their credible presidential candidates for then.
 
EarlzP said:
Lets see the republicans nominated John McCain of the Keating Five and Sarah Palin, I can only draw two possible reasons
1- drug use
2- they wanted to lose
Click to expand...

And let's look at the coke snorting unprepared and unqualified academic Barack Obama, rope a dope promiser of all things and I can only draw one reason:
- Ideological stupidity
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
That's not counteracting it. That's continuing to pollute the discussion by "contributing" the very same sort of worthless tripe.
Click to expand...
Not a fan of Newton I see.



TacticalEvilDan said:
It was there by implication, because you slandered one "side" without applying similar slander to the other "side."
Click to expand...
Ah, so if one side is mentioned and the other is omitted it automatically means something to you. That's not implication, that's just being thin skinned.
 
Catawba said:
The GOP is going through a prolonged idenity crisis after the 8 year failure of their last chosen leader. We will see if they can get it together by the 2016 election. Obviously, they are saving all their credible presidential candidates for then.
Click to expand...

You know what I love about Progressive types - they all are such experts on the GOP. :lamo
 
Ockham said:
Not a fan of Newton I see.
Click to expand...

You weren't doing "equal and opposite," you were doing exactly the same thing.

Ockham said:
Ah, so if one side is mentioned and the other is omitted it automatically means something to you. That's not implication, that's just being thin skinned.
Click to expand...

Well, then, by all means talk about the other "side." I'd like to see you prove that I was just being thin-skinned.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
You weren't doing "equal and opposite," you were doing exactly the same thing.
Click to expand...

I did exactly the opposite... like I said you must not be a fan of Newton, or your not understanding my unorthodox application. You will one day I'm sure.

TacticalEvilDan said:
Well, then, by all means talk about the other "side." I'd like to see you prove that I was just being thin-skinned.
Click to expand...

I have something to prove to you? :lamo

Go use the thing at the top of the page, right side. It's called "advanced search". Have fun.
 
Ockham said:
And let's look at the coke snorting unprepared and unqualified academic Barack Obama, rope a dope promiser of all things and I can only draw one reason:
- Ideological stupidity
Click to expand...

Really? A cocaine habit is honestly a point against Barack Obama, considering who the Republicans gave us last time around?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Really? A cocaine habit is honestly a point against Barack Obama, considering who the Republicans gave us last time around?
Click to expand...

Huh.. I always thought he only tried it a few times but now you say it's a "habit". Ok, I'll take you're word for it. It was a habit. A point against? I sure wasn't giving him cookies and rainbows for it so yeah, I think a "drug habit" as you described with a person who has at his fingertips the nuclear arsenal could be interpreted as a point against... could be. Could be.
 
Ockham said:
I did exactly the opposite... like I said you must not be a fan of Newton, or your not understanding my unorthodox application. You will one day I'm sure.
Click to expand...

If you can't understand that you did exactly the same thing is that other fellow did, I guess I have nothing more to add on the subject.

Ockham said:
I have something to prove to you? :lamo

Go use the thing at the top of the page, right side. It's called "advanced search". Have fun.
Click to expand...

You said I'm just being thin-skinned. I'm giving you the opportunity to illustrate just how thin-skinned I am by talk about the Republicans in the same light as you did the Democrats. Of course, if your plan was just to blow smoke up my ass, feel free to continue doing so.
 
Ockham said:
Huh.. I always thought he only tried it a few times but now you say it's a "habit". Ok, I'll take you're word for it. It was a habit. A point against? I sure wasn't giving him cookies and rainbows for it so yeah, I think a "drug habit" as you described with a person who has at his fingertips the nuclear arsenal could be interpreted as a point against... could be. Could be.
Click to expand...

I take it, then, that you voted against Bush?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
If you can't understand that you did exactly the same thing is that other fellow did, I guess I have nothing more to add on the subject.
Click to expand...
Frankly, you had nothing to add to begin with.

TacticalEvilDan said:
You said I'm just being thin-skinned. I'm giving you the opportunity to illustrate just how thin-skinned I am by talk about the Republicans in the same light as you did the Democrats. Of course, if your plan was just to blow smoke up my ass, feel free to continue doing so.
Click to expand...
Which is why I'm not about to provide former dissertations. If you want to learn go find it. It's all there - advanced search, click that and search my former posts. You don't rate to get special treatment. Do I need to be more blunt or are you getting it yet?
 
Ockham said:
Frankly, you had nothing to add to begin with.

Which is why I'm not about to provide former dissertations. If you want to learn go find it. It's all there - advanced search, click that and search my former posts. You don't rate to get special treatment. Do I need to be more blunt or are you getting it yet?
Click to expand...

Oh, I get it. You, as usual, are wielding turns of phrase, innuendo, and logical fallacy instead of actual arguments to wear other people down until they give up on you and permit you to declare victory.
 
Ockham said:
You know what I love about Progressive types - they all are such experts on the GOP. :lamo
Click to expand...

How else do you explain the GOP party withholding credible candidates for this election?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Oh, I get it. You, as usual, are wielding turns of phrase, innuendo, and logical fallacy instead of actual arguments to wear other people down until they give up on you and permit you to declare victory.
Click to expand...

Declaring victory over what? You haven't said anything worth declaring victory over.
 
Ockham said:
Yes I voted for Bush against Gore, no I didn't vote for Bush against Kerry.
Click to expand...

Bush's substance abuse problems came to light prior to the apex of his first Presidential contest, so I'd appreciate it if you'd stop alluding to, well, anybody else's alleged issues with drugs in the future.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Bush's substance abuse problems came to light prior to the apex of his first Presidential contest, so I'd appreciate it if you'd stop alluding to, well, anybody else's alleged issues with drugs in the future.
Click to expand...

I can't say I was aware of it prior to the first election, but I certainly was during. G.W. was alcohol and as I do a little research he swore off it in 1986 and (allegedly) never touched it again. Was that a "habit"? Hm... Now Obama it seemed had his demons with week and coke. Two illegal drugs, whereas well, alcohol technically is legal right? So back to the original point... is that a point against him? I have to say yes, it probably still is. Is it a point against both... yes, I'd have to say it probably is a point against both.

And don't get me wrong - I'm not alluding to anything. I'm SAYIN' it is.
 
Catawba said:
Viable candidates (not nut cases in other words) with a chance of winning.
Click to expand...

Yeah... you didn't answer the question.... just a reminder:

Ockham said:
Who do you deem credible?
Click to expand...

You can take from that question and the word choice of "who", that the response you should give might possibly, (just a suggestion) have a name attached to it.
 
Ockham said:
I can't say I was aware of it prior to the first election
Click to expand...

It hit the press in 1999. You'd have to have been living in cave (or maybe in another country) to have missed it.,

Ockham said:
G.W. was alcohol and as I do a little research
Click to expand...

George W. Bush substance abuse controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do a little more.

Ockham said:
Now Obama it seemed had his demons with week and coke. Two illegal drugs, whereas well, alcohol technically is legal right?
Click to expand...

Same as Bush.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom