- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,575
- Reaction score
- 6,767
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
No, the honorable thing to do is what I've already done, treat you with kid gloves, as you fell into both categories: clueless, and, you'll never get it.
You can run as this guy.
Obama is YOUR guy and I hope you keep supporting him.Wow a personal attack, sure sign of someone losing.
Face it McCain was a REPUBLICAN picked by REPUBLICANS. There is no way out of that one.
He was YOUR GUY.
Trolling. You posted no facts to refute.Typical Lerxst answer. You can't refute the facts, so you feign laughter.
You feign a lot of things...lmao..
Trolling.Wrong again.The bold text highlights just how stupid your statement is.
Not according to the statistics.McCain lost, because the angry base didn't show up or voted third party.
More name calling for no reason.No, no conspiracy there 'ol brilliant one. People stayed home. I've already outlined this several times. You too have fallen into both categories: clueless, and, you'll never get it.
The reverse of that argument is that Republicans will do the same thing. GWB and John McCain are primes examples. There was no stand being made by Republicans, clearly they showed up to vote for McCain. In that regard, Dems and Reps are the same. They'll show up and vote so their party can win.No, you just can't fathom that people are actually willing to stand by their principles. As I'ved previously stated, time and time again, democrats will vote for anyone in order to win.
You brought it up, I was just responding.Tell someone who cares.
I wouldn't want to talk about it either if I was a conservative who witnessed my party pick a moderate despite my cries to do otherwise.Wow.<insert bouncing ball here>
Please explain why or stop trolling.Epic Fail.
Not whining, sage advise. Don't listen to Rush Limbaugh. He's didn't help you in the last election.Indeed, on national TV, reaching out to the masses to not listen to Rush :lamo
Time will tell, but I don't agree with you at this point.Not even, quite elated really. The Obama administration is actually responsible for rallying the Republicans, and soon the independents, and after the rest of the union idiots slog into the ranks of the unemployed, they too will turn.
I agree, this is problematic for his administration.One fiasco nomination after another. Foreign policy thats a complete riot, you know, Clinton threatening the Chinese, Hollywood delegation in Iran smoothing things over, and Obama going all in before the hand is even dealt with the Russians. :lamo
Thank you. I was wondering when you would get to this.Nuff said on that here though, this is the Limbaugh thread.
It's been done, where have you been? Well, besides trolling and insulting me and others repeatedly.Wanna talk Limbaugh, bring it.
Already been done.Wanna offer your "insight", your "analysis"
Wow, that didn't take long.or more bloviating on what you consider your "expert" opinion to be in regard to the Republican party,
Strong finisher to boot huh?move along, you've got no game.
Trolling. You posted no facts to refute... ...?
Yes, these are considered negatives, hence why the witch Hunt when Clinton cheated on his wife.
Wow a personal attack, sure sign of someone losing.
Face it McCain was a REPUBLICAN picked by REPUBLICANS. There is no way out of that one.
He was YOUR GUY.
More insults and trolling.I took the liberty of condensing your blabbering.
No trolling on my part, in any of the instances in which you once again, falsley accused me of. Typical drama queen whining, trying to play the victim card. Like so many of your posts, no one is being fooled.
Refuted? Yes, refutation is a response. The quality of which is not convincing. You've yet to prove any case other than your personal opinion about what certain voters did or didn't do. If it's anything more than your opinion you should be able to back that up with some corroborating information.You've had everything you've posted refuted, you just fail to accept it.
Of course they're not when they debunk your case.You continue blabbering on about statistics, they're not relevent.
Well, if your assertion is true, you should be able to support it with corroborating information. If this is truly the case, back it up.Seriously, they're not, but in your mind, you need them to win at any cost, because you can't fathom the idea, that people actually voted for a candidate that they did not believe in, a candidate that did not necessarily hold the same views and principles that they held.
I hear the conservatives claim this, yet nobody has ever quantified it. It's just a theory they seem to proliferate to come up with an excuse for why the GOP got beaten. "Well yeah Obama won, because we didn't like our candidate." Really, seems a lot of Republicans did. Prove otherwise, and your personal opinion sans some corroborating information doesn't cut it.That's called voting for "the lesser of evils". It's painfully obvious that you just don't get it.
You really don't like getting walked on in this debates.Go ahead, come back with yet another one of your *nuh uh posts. It's par for your course.
:rofl* (Brutal smackdown RH, I would have thanked you twice, but it's not allowed.)
I'm not going to get into a detailed discussion of the back and forth between a couple of posters during the past few pages...
But I'll add my two cents, anyway.
I've noted on more than a few occasions in this thread that a fact or facts seem to be completely ignored by certain posters, who have a tendency to respond to the facts with emphatic but entirely subjective claims.
I'm also HUGELY suspect of those who 'claim victory' on message forums when their opponent politely decides to back out of the discussion.
There is rarely 'victory' on message boards. There are rarely even changes of opinion.
Well since you didn't want to get involved but did anyway, why don't you cite some examples of "facts" that were presented and then ignored for us?
Because it would lead to exactly the same result as it did the first time.
That's why.
:cheers:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?