• 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.

CNNredd, Republican in name only...

FreeThinker said:
Does that mean you have no answer as to where was the major conservative media before the late 90's?

Thought not. Before you start spouting off stuff like "the conservatives have had a voice in the media forever" maybe you should do your homework?
Click to expand...

Its more like" I don't give a ****".:mrgreen:
 
Originally posted by 'lil redd (AKA pstdkid):
****Terrorism on the increase? Oh yeah, where here in America is it on the increase...your neighborhood? Elephants eat balls for lunch, donkey's lick other donkey assholes to get a sense of direction in life.
Click to expand...
If you would stop staring at animal genitals you would see there are more terrorists now than ever before as a direct result of our invasion ya 'lil bitch!
 
I hate that! As soon as I log on, the 'lil bitch takes off and runs away!
 
Stace said:
You do realize that it was the Dems that strongly pushed for the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, right?

Your blind allegiance never ceases to amaze me.

Hmmm....1993 bombing - killed six people and injured a little over 1,000 people. Six persons were convicted for the crime. Not a whole lot of damage to the tower itself. Bill Clinton assumed office on January 20, 1993. The bombing occured on February 26, 1993, meaning Clinton only had a month to work with any intelligence available.

2001 attack - The attack occured on Spetember 11, 2001, meaning that Bush had nearly 9 months to work with the intelligence available.

Yeah, sorry, can't compare the two.
Click to expand...


****I sure hope the rest of the females here aren't as scatterbrained as you. Pushing for the creation of Homeland Security and actually favoring laws and taking steps to keep it viable as a deterrent agency against terrorism are two different things. If you accept the idea that the Patriot Act and Homeland Security are two mutually binding agencies, and you realize the liberals in Congress have done everything in their power to undermine the Patriot Act--then you'll understand that the safety and security of the American people are not of the uppermost importance on the liberal agenda.
Clinton treated the 1993 bombings of the twin towers as a felon criminal act, to be dealt with by city and state police. He never linked or viewed the bombings as that of being a foreign terrorist attack. So Clinton's **** poor judement on that bombing coupled with his unwillingness to address foreign terrorism as a whole--led to the preparation to our infamous 9/11 attack in N.Y.C.
Don't you remember the news telling us that the 19 terrorists had set up home in the states so as to take flying lessons from private airports? This planning took nearly two years; that was two years here in America while Clinton was president. Bush just happened to be president when the terrorists struck. Bush took immediate action overseas by fighting the terrorists on their own turf, thus helping Clinton to soothe out his many foreign affairs faux pas so as to further skew his legacy to the liking of the liberal press. Just what here isn't sinking in yet?
 
Well now, the 'lil bitch is back! What ya got to say punk-ass?
 
ptsdkid said:
****I sure hope the rest of the females here aren't as scatterbrained as you. Your Blatant disrespect for anything female places serious doubts on your sexual preference. Pushing for the creation of Homeland Security and actually favoring laws and taking steps to keep it viable as a deterrent agency against terrorism are two different things.Agreed If you accept the idea that the Patriot Act and Homeland Security are two mutually binding agencies, and you realize the liberals in Congress have done everything in their power to undermine the Patriot Act If this were true there would BE no patriot act--then you'll understand that the safety and security of the American people are not of the uppermost importance on the liberal agenda.Yet, You seem to actually believe otherwise of the Republicans?
Clinton treated the 1993 bombings of the twin towers as a felon criminal act, to be dealt with by city and state police. He never linked or viewed the bombings as that of being a foreign terrorist attack. So Clinton's **** poor judement on that bombing coupled with his unwillingness to address foreign terrorism as a whole--led to the preparation to our infamous 9/11 attack in N.Y.C. Your ability to grasp things in hindsight is....truly dizzying.
Don't you remember the news telling us that the 19 terrorists had set up home in the states so as to take flying lessons from private airports? This planning took nearly two years; that was two years here in America while Clinton was president. Bush just happened to be president when the terrorists struck. Bush took immediate action overseas by fighting the terrorists on their own turf, thus helping Clinton to soothe out his many foreign affairs faux pas so as to further skew his legacy to the liking of the liberal press. Just what here isn't sinking in yet?
Click to expand...

What is not sinking in is the inability of some...well namely YOU to see anything negative in the republican party. Also I think most in this forum now look to anything you post as entertainment....rather than discussion....for you, are definately a confused individual. Virtually everything you have to say is so rediculous as to be painful. At first I simply thought you were joking, or lacked some level of functional neuralcapacity.....but you have led me to believe otherwise.

You are just plain F@cked up as a human.......I mean, as in mental.

Get Some Freakin' Help....Please.
 
ptsdkid said:
****Sorry, but I took my abnormal sayings cue from Billo Really. I'm sure you could find a lot more normal writings from Billo Really. HeHeHe!

I would be honored if you were to take time out from your busy schedule to read my one of my latest postings in the 'Conspiracy Theory' section or in the Political forum up above. You do consider yourself worthy enough to rise from this basement staleness to the forums above by taking in some of my fresh air right-thinking postulates....don't you? Good on you siss.
Click to expand...

What is **** is that a word in your big Vocabulary, or lack there of? I believe **** is merely indicative of your intelligence and lack there of. I would read one of your post for comical reasons and nothing more. I think you belong on the comedy channel. Actually, I shouldn't even waste my precious time reading your trolling garbage.
 
alphieb said:
What is **** is that a word in your big Vocabulary, or lack there of? I believe **** is merely indicative of your intelligence and lack there of. I would read one of your post for comical reasons and nothing more. I think you belong on the comedy channel. Actually, I shouldn't even waste my precious time reading your trolling garbage.
Click to expand...

Eh, he's not good enough for Comedy Central. Maybe he could try a local access channel or something.
 
Stace said:
Eh, he's not good enough for Comedy Central. Maybe he could try a local access channel or something.
Click to expand...

Maybe he should just dress up like Bozo the Clown and walk the streets.
 
Stace said:
Eh, he's not good enough for Comedy Central. Maybe he could try a local access channel or something.
Click to expand...
I think they should do like a Fear Factor-like show and put ptsdkid in a room with a group of attractive young people and see how long it takes for them to claw their way through the wallboard. Now that would be worth watching. First one out gets to give him a colonoscopy while wearing a Bill Clinton mask.
 
Originally posted by mixedmedia:
I think they should do like a Fear Factor-like show and put ptsdkid in a room with a group of attractive young people and see how long it takes for them to claw their way through the wallboard. Now that would be worth watching. First one out gets to give him a colonoscopy while wearing a Bill Clinton mask.
Click to expand...
That's pretty brutal, don't you think. I mean the colonoscopy's painful, but with the Clinton mask! You're a mod, for Christs-sake!
 
I'd like to take a moment to just reflect on the joy I found when logging in today and seeing that both ptsdkid and freethinker completely changed tacts and withdrew from the "Bushs govt not being conservative" argument that was put forth earlier when faced with their own version of kryptonite: facts.

Guys, I'd love to hear a rebuttal from either one of you. Anybody?
 
Billo_Really said:
That's pretty brutal, don't you think. I mean the colonoscopy's painful, but with the Clinton mask! You're a mod, for Christs-sake!
Click to expand...
Hey, it just came out, what can I say. Assholes who don't think I should be allowed to vote bring out the best in me. When in the basement....do like the....basement people....do.
 
Originally posted by RightatNYU:
I'd like to take a moment to just reflect on the joy I found when logging in today and seeing that both ptsdkid and freethinker completely changed tacts and withdrew from the "Bushs govt not being conservative" argument that was put forth earlier when faced with their own version of kryptonite: facts.

Guys, I'd love to hear a rebuttal from either one of you. Anybody?
Click to expand...
That 'lil bitch takes off like a gazel everytime I log on. I've never seen such a bigger *****. Then again, I haven't met Ivan yet.
 
Navy Pride said:
GWB is a social Conservative and a fiscal moderate.........
Click to expand...
your favorite "rapist" was more fiscally conservative than GWB
 
Engimo said:
Much better? :confused:
Click to expand...

Yeah lots ot tax increases to pay for failed programs and a dozen more terrorist attacks becasue the nutcase thinks the war on terror should be fought in a sensitive way....:roll:
 
scottyz said:
your favorite "rapist" was more fiscally conservative than GWB
Click to expand...

Yeah, thanks ro Newt, the Republican congress and the contract with America that forced Clinton to make cuts......
 
Navy Pride said:
Yeah lots ot tax increases to pay for failed programs and a dozen more terrorist attacks becasue the nutcase thinks the war on terror should be fought in a sensitive way....:roll:
Click to expand...

A dozen? I mean, I know you don't like the guy, but I'd think you'd be able to think of criticisms without lying.
 
Kelzie said:
A dozen? I mean, I know you don't like the guy, but I'd think you'd be able to think of criticisms without lying.
Click to expand...

Your right kelzie it would probably be more then a dozen.........We would have to wait for the Frenc and the Germans to give us permission to go after terrorists............
 
Navy Pride said:
Your right kelzie it would probably be more then a dozen.........We would have to wait for the Frenc and the Germans to give us permission to go after terrorists............
Click to expand...

Oh I see, you were talking about a hypothetical future in which you have no idea what might happen. I though you were talking about Clinton. Nevermind. Keep rubbing that crystal ball. :2wave:
 
Kelzie said:
Oh I see, you were talking about a hypothetical future in which you have no idea what might happen. I though you were talking about Clinton. Nevermind. Keep rubbing that crystal ball. :2wave:
Click to expand...


Nah, can't blame Clinton on this one..........It was Kerry that wanted to fight a sensitive war with terrorists that want to kill us....
 
RightatNYU said:
I'd like to take a moment to just reflect on the joy I found when logging in today and seeing that both ptsdkid and freethinker completely changed tacts and withdrew from the "Bushs govt not being conservative" argument that was put forth earlier when faced with their own version of kryptonite: facts.

Guys, I'd love to hear a rebuttal from either one of you. Anybody?
Click to expand...

Oh I'm sorry, you didn't say much worth responding too. I was too busy sparring with the other 50 billion liberals JUST LIKE YOU on this site.

The only thing more annoying than a liberal is someone who says they are conservative and then attacks conservative leadership.

Aright here goes mr. iknowmoreaboutspendingthanyoudo:

While pumping more money into the Pentagon and foreign aid programs, the budget for the 2006 fiscal year would slash funding for a broad array of other government services as part of the deepest domestic reductions proposed since the Reagan era. In the long term, the fiscal plan envisions holding non-security discretionary spending flat for the next five years to fulfill Bush's promise to cut the deficit in half by 2009.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4563-2005Feb7.html

Spending more on the military and less on useless social programs is not what I call liberal spending.

I want a stong military to kick the hell out of our enemies overseas. I want our military to be so strong that any 3rd world POS nation that thinks about genocide will know that it would mean absolute death for their leaders. I want the capability to put a 2 inch missle in between Kim Jong-il's beady little eyes from 2,000 miles away the day he decides to cross the DMZ (which he will).

I'm tired of paying for people to have 8 kids and not work. America is the land of opportunity, and I believe that if you live in poverty here in america and you are not:

1. Retarded
2. Physically Disabled
3. In Prison

Then you are not working hard enough. There are a million jobs out there from stocking groceries to driving cabs to fixing computers. You just have to be willing to get off your fat ass and do something.

And I have no pity for families that have over 3 kids living in poverty. If you knew that you woulnd't earn more than 15,000 per year why in the hell did you decide to have so many kids? Wear a ****ing condom. Have an abortion (yes I believe in abortion as long as it is done early in the pregnancy). It is the most selfish thing on earth to have a child that you cannot provide for, and I'm tired of ****ing paying for it.

Also, paying people to do nothing is throwing money away. Paying defense contractors and military personel is not throwing it away. That money is used by our service men and women to inject much needed money into the crappy economies where they are stationed overseas. The defense spending goes into the pockets of domestic defense companies, which in turn is spent again inside the US economy.

I would ask where you got your information, but then again you go to NYU. Lol. What a terrible school.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/30/elec04.cv.nyu/
 
FreeThinker said:
Oh I'm sorry, you didn't say much worth responding too. I was too busy sparring with the other 50 billion liberals JUST LIKE YOU on this site.

The only thing more annoying than a liberal is someone who says they are conservative and then attacks conservative leadership.

Aright here goes mr. iknowmoreaboutspendingthanyoudo:

While pumping more money into the Pentagon and foreign aid programs, the budget for the 2006 fiscal year would slash funding for a broad array of other government services as part of the deepest domestic reductions proposed since the Reagan era. In the long term, the fiscal plan envisions holding non-security discretionary spending flat for the next five years to fulfill Bush's promise to cut the deficit in half by 2009.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4563-2005Feb7.html

Spending more on the military and less on useless social programs is not what I call liberal spending.

I want a stong military to kick the hell out of our enemies overseas. I want our military to be so strong that any 3rd world POS nation that thinks about genocide will know that it would mean absolute death for their leaders. I want the capability to put a 2 inch missle in between Kim Jong-il's beady little eyes from 2,000 miles away the day he decides to cross the DMZ (which he will).

I'm tired of paying for people to have 8 kids and not work. America is the land of opportunity, and I believe that if you live in poverty here in america and you are not:

1. Retarded
2. Physically Disabled
3. In Prison

Then you are not working hard enough. There are a million jobs out there from stocking groceries to driving cabs to fixing computers. You just have to be willing to get off your fat ass and do something.

And I have no pity for families that have over 3 kids living in poverty. If you knew that you woulnd't earn more than 15,000 per year why in the hell did you decide to have so many kids? Wear a ****ing condom. Have an abortion (yes I believe in abortion as long as it is done early in the pregnancy). It is the most selfish thing on earth to have a child that you cannot provide for, and I'm tired of ****ing paying for it.

Also, paying people to do nothing is throwing money away. Paying defense contractors and military personel is not throwing it away. That money is used by our service men and women to inject much needed money into the crappy economies where they are stationed overseas. The defense spending goes into the pockets of domestic defense companies, which in turn is spent again inside the US economy.

I would ask where you got your information, but then again you go to NYU. Lol. What a terrible school.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/30/elec04.cv.nyu/
Click to expand...


OH, so you promote starvation for the children of our country? How compassionate. What about people that truly are "retarded, phyically disabled" or what if they have ONE very ill child and cannot work due to constant around the clock care. Should they just starve to death?

Ironically, "8 kids" could be an economic advantage. The more kids the merrier and serves in the long run as an economic asset. I suppose I will explain why, those "8 kids" grow up obtain an education or maybe not, regardless, they may work and spend money, hence putting money back into the economy. The economic BOMB of the 1990's was resulted in part of the BABY BOOMERS.

The best thing JFK did was create the food stamp program. It is cruel and unusual to let your own people starve. By the way, those people on welfare do not have a life of luxury.
 
It is not hard to keep your head above water in america. A 40 hour job even at minimum wage pays for a studio apartment and utilities. And 40 hours per week isn't even that much work.

If you give people free lunch, they will take it. If they have a choice between working or not eating, they will choose to work.

Accommodating sloth does nothing but make more sloth.
 
FreeThinker said:
It is not hard to keep your head above water in america. A 40 hour job even at minimum wage pays for a studio apartment and utilities. And 40 hours per week isn't even that much work.

If you give people free lunch, they will take it. If they have a choice between working or not eating, they will choose to work.

Accommodating sloth does nothing but make more sloth.
Click to expand...

1. How old are you?

2. Are you sure you live in America?

3. Do you have any kids?

4. "A studio apartment" what state are you talking about?

5. Do you support yourself or are you a college student being supported by mommy and daddy?

6. If you don't give them a free lunch they will starve to death and never be able to work.

Stop being so naive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom