Static Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Either that or his other VP candidates were even worse. Nah' date=' thats not possible.[/u'] You are so ignorant. Palin was the best choice he had. The most good looking, the best speaker, the best debater, what else do you want? Is everyone forgetting about the ACTUALLY DECENT CHOICE he had for VP? Yeah, Joe Liberman. Easily the BEST Republican candidate for the PRESIDENTS office, and easily the best for VP while we're at it. Probably picked Palin over this guy because Palin is a "Good Christian Woman" and Liberman is a Jew. A lot of people wouldn't vote for McCain if he had a Jewish VP, and the Female VP did him wonders with some feminists and lower class "White America" moms. Pfft... White America shouldn't be allowed to vote.. ... I mean, Brownies anyone? :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willieh Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Either that or his other VP candidates were even worse. Nah' date=' thats not possible.[/u'] You are so ignorant. Palin was the best choice he had. The most good looking, the best speaker, the best debater, what else do you want? Is everyone forgetting about the ACTUALLY DECENT CHOICE he had for VP? Yeah, Joe Liberman. Easily the BEST Republican candidate for the PRESIDENTS office, and easily the best for VP while we're at it. Probably picked Palin over this guy because Palin is a "Good Christian Woman" and Liberman is a Jew. A lot of people wouldn't vote for McCain if he had a Jewish VP, and the Female VP did him wonders with some feminists and lower class "White America" moms. Pfft... White America shouldn't be allowed to vote.. ... I mean, Brownies anyone? :D John McCain picked Sarah Palin in some desperate attempt to get the women's votes. And dividing the voting poles by race wouldn't really help anything.And if White America wasn't allowed to vote... there would probably be like 200 votes... >_> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Static Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Either that or his other VP candidates were even worse. Nah' date=' thats not possible.[/u'] You are so ignorant. Palin was the best choice he had. The most good looking, the best speaker, the best debater, what else do you want? Is everyone forgetting about the ACTUALLY DECENT CHOICE he had for VP? Yeah, Joe Liberman. Easily the BEST Republican candidate for the PRESIDENTS office, and easily the best for VP while we're at it. Probably picked Palin over this guy because Palin is a "Good Christian Woman" and Liberman is a Jew. A lot of people wouldn't vote for McCain if he had a Jewish VP, and the Female VP did him wonders with some feminists and lower class "White America" moms. Pfft... White America shouldn't be allowed to vote.. ... I mean, Brownies anyone? :D John McCain picked Sarah Palin in some desperate attempt to get the women's votes. And dividing the voting poles by race wouldn't really help anything.And if White America wasn't allowed to vote... there would probably be like 200 votes... >_> "White America" isn't a structure to imply "The white people who live in America." It implies the bigots who would like to see an entirely "White America." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willieh Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Either that or his other VP candidates were even worse. Nah' date=' thats not possible.[/u'] You are so ignorant. Palin was the best choice he had. The most good looking, the best speaker, the best debater, what else do you want? Is everyone forgetting about the ACTUALLY DECENT CHOICE he had for VP? Yeah, Joe Liberman. Easily the BEST Republican candidate for the PRESIDENTS office, and easily the best for VP while we're at it. Probably picked Palin over this guy because Palin is a "Good Christian Woman" and Liberman is a Jew. A lot of people wouldn't vote for McCain if he had a Jewish VP, and the Female VP did him wonders with some feminists and lower class "White America" moms. Pfft... White America shouldn't be allowed to vote.. ... I mean, Brownies anyone? :D John McCain picked Sarah Palin in some desperate attempt to get the women's votes. And dividing the voting poles by race wouldn't really help anything.And if White America wasn't allowed to vote... there would probably be like 200 votes... >_> "White America" isn't a structure to imply "The white people who live in America." It implies the bigots who would like to see an entirely "White America." Skin Heads or Neo-nazis? :? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Static Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Either that or his other VP candidates were even worse. Nah' date=' thats not possible.[/u'] You are so ignorant. Palin was the best choice he had. The most good looking, the best speaker, the best debater, what else do you want? Is everyone forgetting about the ACTUALLY DECENT CHOICE he had for VP? Yeah, Joe Liberman. Easily the BEST Republican candidate for the PRESIDENTS office, and easily the best for VP while we're at it. Probably picked Palin over this guy because Palin is a "Good Christian Woman" and Liberman is a Jew. A lot of people wouldn't vote for McCain if he had a Jewish VP, and the Female VP did him wonders with some feminists and lower class "White America" moms. Pfft... White America shouldn't be allowed to vote.. ... I mean, Brownies anyone? :D John McCain picked Sarah Palin in some desperate attempt to get the women's votes. And dividing the voting poles by race wouldn't really help anything.And if White America wasn't allowed to vote... there would probably be like 200 votes... >_> "White America" isn't a structure to imply "The white people who live in America." It implies the bigots who would like to see an entirely "White America." Skin Heads or Neo-nazis? :? Skin heads and members of the ANP alike. Klan members, anyone who is "pro white power." Nationalists are the natural enemy of social justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparta™ Posted August 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 So, does anybody have anything else to say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Shadow Thief~ Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 I don't mean to offend any republicans but I know a few that are very, very, very, arrogant and ignorant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparta™ Posted August 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 I don't mean to offend any republicans but I know a few that are very' date=' very, very, arrogant and ignorant[/quote'] Name them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMGAKITTY Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 I don't mean to offend any republicans but I know a few that are very' date=' very, very, arrogant and ignorant[/quote'] Name them. That's idiotic. If he knows them, they probably aren't politicians. So what are you going to do after he tells you about "Joe", "Sue", and "Bob"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntar! Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 Because Republicans are Stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exiro Posted August 8, 2009 Report Share Posted August 8, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 I lol'd so many times watching that. Sucks that video was uploaded before McCain + Palin. :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Static Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 I don't mean to offend any republicans but I know a few that are very' date=' very, very, arrogant and ignorant[/quote'] I bet I can name a larger number of arrogant Liberals. Let me start off with one: Perez Hilton Your turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 Static, TBH, make it into a game in the Games section. Name a stupid Republican and name a stupid Democrat. We'll see who runs out first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Static Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 Static' date=' TBH, make it into a game in the Games section. Name a stupid Republican and name a stupid Democrat. We'll see who runs out first.[/quote'] *facepalm* You missed the point, no, it was right there in front of you and you flew with it on your back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 No, actually I did not miss the point. You started naming arrogant people from one party, and I thought it would make a nice game to name arrogant people from both parties, and the party the runs out first loses. (meaning if you run out of arrogant Democrats, Republicans lose) In no means did I miss the point, although I did expand to it in an abstract way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Static Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 No' date=' actually I did not miss the point. You started naming arrogant people from one party, and I thought it would make a nice game to name arrogant people from both parties, and the party the runs out first loses. (meaning if you run out of arrogant Democrats, Republicans lose) In no means did I miss the point, although I did expand to it in an abstract way.[/quote'] Wow... You COMPLETELY missed the point. The original poster, the one whom I replied to, called Conservatives arrogant (albeit, he did sugar-coated it). I'm no conservative, but such an obviously one sided statement needs to be put in it's place. I proposed a Rhetorical challenge to the poster, to see if he could name a larger number of arrogant conservatives, implying that I would beat him in this to prove him wrong. I had no intention of anyone actually throwing names around, I don't have the time to go through a list of Gay Rights advocates nor would I want to. I only replied to him to put the kid in his place to contest his post and show to anyone reading through the thread that what the kid said was absolutely silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dark One Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 No' date=' actually I did not miss the point. You started naming arrogant people from one party, and I thought it would make a nice game to name arrogant people from both parties, and the party the runs out first loses. (meaning if you run out of arrogant Democrats, Republicans lose) In no means did I miss the point, although I did expand to it in an abstract way.[/quote'] Wow... You COMPLETELY missed the point. The original poster, the one whom I replied to, called Conservatives arrogant (albeit, he did sugar-coated it). I'm no conservative, but such an obviously one sided statement needs to be put in it's place. I proposed a Rhetorical challenge to the poster, to see if he could name a larger number of arrogant conservatives, implying that I would beat him in this to prove him wrong. I had no intention of anyone actually throwing names around, I don't have the time to go through a list of Gay Rights advocates nor would I want to. I only replied to him to put the kid in his place to contest his post and show to anyone reading through the thread that what the kid said was absolutely silly.I dislike confrontationalism in this form. When you contest something that someone says, you can politely correct them in such a way that leaves them far more likely to see your point than if you challenge them. Personally, I find it fun to crush people and watch them try to save face, but i avoid "games" like your naming thing for this reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Static Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 No' date=' actually I did not miss the point. You started naming arrogant people from one party, and I thought it would make a nice game to name arrogant people from both parties, and the party the runs out first loses. (meaning if you run out of arrogant Democrats, Republicans lose) In no means did I miss the point, although I did expand to it in an abstract way.[/quote'] Wow... You COMPLETELY missed the point. The original poster, the one whom I replied to, called Conservatives arrogant (albeit, he did sugar-coated it). I'm no conservative, but such an obviously one sided statement needs to be put in it's place. I proposed a Rhetorical challenge to the poster, to see if he could name a larger number of arrogant conservatives, implying that I would beat him in this to prove him wrong. I had no intention of anyone actually throwing names around, I don't have the time to go through a list of Gay Rights advocates nor would I want to. I only replied to him to put the kid in his place to contest his post and show to anyone reading through the thread that what the kid said was absolutely silly.I dislike confrontationalism in this form. When you contest something that someone says, you can politely correct them in such a way that leaves them far more likely to see your point than if you challenge them. Personally, I find it fun to crush people and watch them try to save face, but i avoid "games" like your naming thing for this reason. You don't like rhetoric's because they're not direct. Whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dictator7 Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 Because democrats are lazy. They want the government to do everything for them. I call them communists. But Republicans actually work for money and freedom. They don't want somebody (the government) doing every thing for them. But the dems do. And if the Republicans get guts, they wouldn't let the democrats get away with everything. And possibly the most important reason, the Democrats are scared of the Republicans. No I was wrong, this is the most important reason, DEMOCRATS ARE CRAZY!! They're way too dramatic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Posted August 16, 2009 Report Share Posted August 16, 2009 Because democrats are lazy. They want the government to do everything for them. I call them communists. But Republicans actually work for money and freedom. They don't want somebody (the government) doing every thing for them. But the dems do. And if the Republicans get guts' date=' they wouldn't let the democrats get away with everything. And possibly the most important reason, the Democrats are scared of the Republicans. No I was wrong, this is the most important reason, DEMOCRATS ARE CRAZY!! They're way too dramatic.[/quote'] Read: bolded line. Now: assume a democrat was in the government. Because said democrat is lazy, he wants himself to do everything for himself. :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yugiohrulez! Posted August 16, 2009 Report Share Posted August 16, 2009 K, Washington, Jefferson, all them were non denominational. Bushes RAISE TAXESRemember?"Read my lips, NO MORE TAXES""Sorry, folks, we're gonna admit we lied. We're gonna take the rest of what you live on for our own selfish needs by raising taxes.Reagan was good, but blew a bunch o' cash on "Star Wars" Which didn't even work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMGAKITTY Posted August 16, 2009 Report Share Posted August 16, 2009 K' date=' Washington, Jefferson, all them were non denominational. Bushes RAISE TAXESRemember?"Read my lips, NO MORE TAXES""Sorry, folks, we're gonna admit we lied. We're gonna take the rest of what you live on for our own selfish needs by raising taxes.Reagan was good, but blew a bunch o' cash on "Star Wars" Which didn't even work.[/quote'] Um. False. Washington is the only party-less president of the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dictator7 Posted August 16, 2009 Report Share Posted August 16, 2009 Because democrats are lazy. They want the government to do everything for them. I call them communists. But Republicans actually work for money and freedom. They don't want somebody (the government) doing every thing for them. But the dems do. And if the Republicans get guts' date=' they wouldn't let the democrats get away with everything. And possibly the most important reason, the Democrats are scared of the Republicans. No I was wrong, this is the most important reason, DEMOCRATS ARE CRAZY!! They're way too dramatic.[/quote'] Read: bolded line. Now: assume a democrat was in the government. Because said democrat is lazy, he wants himself to do everything for himself. :/ You don't understand what I said. When I said they want the government doing everything for them, that means that they want the government to give them money when they need it, they want the government to be in controll of EVERYTHING! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yugiohrulez! Posted August 16, 2009 Report Share Posted August 16, 2009 K' date=' Washington, Jefferson, all them were non denominational. Bushes RAISE TAXESRemember?"Read my lips, NO MORE TAXES""Sorry, folks, we're gonna admit we lied. We're gonna take the rest of what you live on for our own selfish needs by raising taxes.Reagan was good, but blew a bunch o' cash on "Star Wars" Which didn't even work.[/quote'] Um. False. Washington is the only party-less president of the US. I did NOT ask you.Still, Republicans take our money and blow it.Democrats are lazy.NEITHER OF THEM KEEP PROMISES[/b] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.