Jump to content

Republicans are funny...

Rate this topic


hipkvw

Recommended Posts

your a_ _ must be good and sore with that picket up there all the time......

 

just not assertive Huh..? Namby, Pamby maybe even........sort of on the non-confrontational side are ya...? Wife wears the pants in the family...huh.? Maybe a bit submissive.....

 

Well there's a place for you guys too, I guess.......the "Little Girls Room".

"Law enforcement’ is not something sovereign citizens seize from police officers. It is a societal function that citizens delegate to civil police.

In so doing, we do not abdicate our own sovereignty, nor our duties as citizens. Ultimate responsibility is still ours. When those we hire as our “Protectors” are either unwilling or unable to perform that function at the critical moment, there is no law, nor standard, that says we cannot perform it for ourselves"........ John Farnam.

 

"Gird Your Loins"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

View PostI will vote for him because he wants to make abortion illegal or I will vote for him because he is for abortion

 

I will vote for him because he is black or NOT vote for him because he is black(racism went both ways on this one)

 

They are both STUPID reasons to vote on the person who will be the President of the U.S. and especially in a time of desperate need for good leadership. One is racist OR could be Racial PRIDE...the other is personal belief which may have to do with PERSONAL MORALS OR RELIGION...key word being personal. BOTH will have NO impact on the future of this country as a whole. Those are both individual reasons to vote on someone and I think it is irresponsible to vote like that. Its my opinion...you dont have to agree or spin it any other way..its just my opinion. If you want to vote on someone because they are black or white or because they want to ban abortion...so be it. Thats your right and I dont have to agree with it....this is America and anyone can vote the way they want.

 

I cant imagine a textbook ever stating an opinion or theory.

 

So I think you are saying that you don't think voting that is based on racism and personal feelings about abortion will have any appreciable affect on the country as a whole. And because you don't think it will affect the country as a whole, you feel it is irresponsible to pull the lever because of either of these two issues.

 

First, I don't agree that racism and abortion won't have an effect on the future. I think those two issues, in particular, shape a great deal of the character of this country.

 

So what, may I ask, is a valid enough reason to vote for someone? Should we vote solely based on their capacity to lead?

 

What you don't consider is where the voter wants to be led? Have you considered that a voter would rather have a leader that is inept at leadership than a leader who will enhance access to abortion?

 

Being a good leader is not enough. Heck, Hitler was probably one of the best leaders the world has ever known. He was elected because he was a good leader. He took Germany from hyper-inflation depression to the most powerful individual country on Earth in a very short time. His values left a little to be desired. I mean, I think Jews have a right to live. But by your logic, it doesn't matter that Hitler thinks Jews should be exterminated (a personal belief) because he was a good leader.

 

See how silly that is?

How we wish to catch a fish so juicy sweet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

View PostThe year of the coup d'etat? A highly questionabe election. There was basis for dissent.

 

Seriously Skitter, would it have been a less questionable election if your boy won?

 

I'm tired of the democrats continuing to protest the results of the election from 8 years ago! There is a basis for dissent for virtually EVERY controversial decision the Supreme Court has ever decided! How long are you going to carp about the one you lost?

 

Not directed towards you in particular Skitter, but I think it is very disrespectful of the electoral process and the country in general to not accept the decided result of the election. Both sides gave their best argument. The gears of the system moved and a decision was reached. After the election decision is made by the highest court in the land, it is over. Accept it. Someone wins. Someone loses. 8 years later - after ANOTHER election is too long to still be complaining about it.

How we wish to catch a fish so juicy sweet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

View PostThat is exactly what you said! Tell me where I either don't understand what you are saying or where the reasoning is wrong!

 

 

I am talking about voting for inadequite people for personal gain over the public good...your talking about a sick person that brainwashed a nation.

 

Nobody voted for Hitler because they wanted 12 million people killedkooky.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

View PostSeriously Skitter, would it have been a less questionable election if your boy won?

 

I'm tired of the democrats continuing to protest the results of the election from 8 years ago! There is a basis for dissent for virtually EVERY controversial decision the Supreme Court has ever decided! How long are you going to carp about the one you lost?

 

Not directed towards you in particular Skitter, but I think it is very disrespectful of the electoral process and the country in general to not accept the decided result of the election. Both sides gave their best argument. The gears of the system moved and a decision was reached. After the election decision is made by the highest court in the land, it is over. Accept it. Someone wins. Someone loses. 8 years later - after ANOTHER election is too long to still be complaining about it.

 

 

 

It was a reply to why people complained in 2000 my friend. Many had reason to.

(*member formerly known as 'Skitterpop')

Link to comment
Share on other sites

View PostI am talking about voting for inadequite people for personal gain over the public good...your talking about a sick person that brainwashed a nation.

 

Nobody voted for Hitler because they wanted 12 million people killedkooky.gif

 

So you think McCain was inadequate? Or did he just put his personal gain over the public good? Is a good example when he chose to stay in the Hanoi Hilton rather than go home as an important man's son?

 

If you are going to suggest people are voting for an inadequate person, you are going to have to show that one of the choices was inadequate.

 

But, your sole qualification was good leadership. Hitler was a good leader. It's that kind of leadership that results in the ability to make 6 million dead Jews.

How we wish to catch a fish so juicy sweet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

View PostIt was a reply to why people complained in 2000 my friend. Many had reason to.

 

I've got no problem with complaints, up to a point. But once the point is made and the decision is final, we just have to live with it.

 

I still like ya though. biggrin.gif

How we wish to catch a fish so juicy sweet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

View PostI am talking about voting for inadequite people for personal gain over the public good...your talking about a sick person that brainwashed a nation.

 

Nobody voted for Hitler because they wanted 12 million people killedkooky.gif

 

The other problem is your definition of the "public good?" Who decides what the "public good" is?

 

Maybe the racists think the "public good' is that Obama win or lose.

 

Maybe the pro-lifers think the "public good" is that Roe is overturned.

 

Maybe the pro-choicers think the "public good" is to let Roe stand.

 

The point is who has the right to tell anyone else what the "public good" is?

How we wish to catch a fish so juicy sweet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

View PostSo you think McCain was inadequate? Or did he just put his personal gain over the public good? Is a good example when he chose to stay in the Hanoi Hilton rather than go home as an important man's son?

 

If you are going to suggest people are voting for an inadequate person, you are going to have to show that one of the choices was inadequate.

 

But, your sole qualification was good leadership. Hitler was a good leader. It's that kind of leadership that results in the ability to make 6 million dead Jews.

 

 

So you are a bitter McCain supporter? He lost...sorry I cant help you there.

I am talking about voting for ANYONE. I never said either was inadequite. An intelligent voter should vote for who they believe can do the best for the whole country, state, county, town, etc. not just their own beliefs or religion although they do have that right.....I just think it is a poor way to vote.

 

If Hitler was running and promised to ban abortion forever....he would get a lot of votes and that is what I am saying. People wouldnt vote against him because he is a sick ****...they will vote for him so they can stop the killing of babies...MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO MEkooky.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, and probably most intelligent people, it means a strong, safe, and peaceful nation with a good economy and prosperity for hard workers.

 

If someones main concern is whether some woman can go get an abortion or not...that is just LAME...im my opinion of course. Add anything in there that dosnt impact in a major way my definition of the public good....it dosnt just have to be about abortion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

View PostSo you are a bitter McCain supporter? He lost...sorry I cant help you there.

I am talking about voting for ANYONE. I never said either was inadequite. An intelligent voter should vote for who they believe can do the best for the whole country, state, county, town, etc. not just their own beliefs or religion although they do have that right.....I just think it is a poor way to vote.

 

If Hitler was running and promised to ban abortion forever....he would get a lot of votes and that is what I am saying. People wouldnt vote against him because he is a sick ****...they will vote for him so they can stop the killing of babies...MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO MEkooky.gif

 

I am not a McCain supporter. I never liked him. Do a search. I think he was better than the alternative, but that's not saying much.

 

That's the problem though, what you think is best and what Joe the Plumber thinks is best are two very different things. Maybe Joe thinks voting an anti-abortion ticket is the best thing for the future.

 

Remember the beginning of this thread? You said Republicans are silly because they are already after a man who has done nothing. But, according to you all he has to do is be a good leader and he's qualified.

How we wish to catch a fish so juicy sweet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

View PostFor me, and probably most intelligent people, it means a strong, safe, and peaceful nation with a good economy and prosperity for hard workers.

 

If someones main concern is whether some woman can go get an abortion or not...that is just LAME...im my opinion of course. Add anything in there that dosnt impact in a major way my definition of the public good....it dosnt just have to be about abortion.

 

Would it completely shock you to think that maybe some people think abortion isn't peaceful?

 

If both McCain and Obama are adequate leaders, who then, in the presidential election, could have voted for someone inadequate? Maybe they voted for some obscure 6th or 7th party candidate?

How we wish to catch a fish so juicy sweet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...