- Joined
- May 19, 2009
- Messages
- 28,721
- Reaction score
- 6,738
- Location
- Redneck Riviera
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Personal attacks are the best you can do? Purdy much proves that you know you're full of ****.
When Obama comes on his wife's tits tonight, he'll be thinking about Sarah Palin.
That makes two of us. Well, except I won't be coming on Obama's wife's tits.
Well, that's a damned shame. They're purdy.
Okay, weak sauce. You challenged my patriotism. You did that first, in this thread. Do you really want to go there?
Your ass is fixing to be owned in ways that will make you think a badger has eaten your intestines. I'll see your pretty white cheeks in the basement, if you have the cojones
I enver challenged your patriotism, before you devalued my contribution to this country. Only a fair weather patriot would devalue another citizen's vote, the way you did.
I didn't see any devaluing of a vote. What was said is that the GOP is going to have to recapture lost votes in order to consistently be able to win elections, espeically on the national level. Because of the departure from conservative values and political platforms undergone by the GOP, they lost votes to maybe the Democrats, third parties, and/or apathy. Those lost votes have taken down the number of absolute votes the GOP has traditionally gathered to such an extent as to allow the Democratic Party to have a much easier time winning elections as they can then aggregate enough absolute votes to win an election. Thus the Republican party has to recapture lost votes, it needs to bring up the aggregate number of votes it can obtain to compete with and defeat Democratic nominees. Saying that the GOP needs the vote of the lost voters isn't saying their votes are worth more; but rather that the GOP must increase the number of absolute votes it can aggregate and in order to do that it will be necessary for them to return to traditional conservative platforms to recapture the voters which left it when the GOP abandoned conservative values.
I didn't see any devaluing of a vote. What was said is that the GOP is going to have to recapture lost votes in order to consistently be able to win elections, espeically on the national level. Because of the departure from conservative values and political platforms undergone by the GOP, they lost votes to maybe the Democrats, third parties, and/or apathy. Those lost votes have taken down the number of absolute votes the GOP has traditionally gathered to such an extent as to allow the Democratic Party to have a much easier time winning elections as they can then aggregate enough absolute votes to win an election. Thus the Republican party has to recapture lost votes, it needs to bring up the aggregate number of votes it can obtain to compete with and defeat Democratic nominees. Saying that the GOP needs the vote of the lost voters isn't saying their votes are worth more; but rather that the GOP must increase the number of absolute votes it can aggregate and in order to do that it will be necessary for them to return to traditional conservative platforms to recapture the voters which left it when the GOP abandoned conservative values.
Of course someone whose called me a liar on multiple occasions is going to take advantage of this situation. Right? You still think that science and religion are two different things.
Right? You still think that science and religion are two different things.
Huh? One is totally made up. That would be a big difference right there.
Don't get him started on that one. He's an anti-scientist it seems and wishes to fully purge science from the government despite the fact that it would ruin the country.
Don't get him started on that one. He's an anti-scientist it seems and wishes to fully purge science from the government despite the fact that it would ruin the country.
Well, if you purged science would Congress just float away? Gravity is science after all. I like the idea.
I'm anti-basing policy decisions and passing legislation based on junk science.
I'm not anti-science. I'm anti-basing policy decisions and passing legislation based on junk science.
Wait... what? You think science and religion are the SAME thing? :lol:Of course someone whose called me a liar on multiple occasions is going to take advantage of this situation. Right? You still think that science and religion are two different things.
Wait... what? You think science and religion are the SAME thing? :lol:
You still think that science and religion are two different things.
Are you pro-basing policy decisions on imaginary voices?
Wait... what? You think science and religion are the SAME thing? :lol:
They are only imaginary if YOU don't hear them. I bet he hears them just fine. Sarah does, too, no doubt.
He's becoming one of my new favorite trolls. Right next to Joe Steel, his Liberal counterpart.Does this really surprise you? He also believes Palin is the REAL DEAL.
He's becoming one of my new favorite trolls. Right next to Joe Steel, his Liberal counterpart.
I believe that the sentiment is that legislation by science is just as bad if not worse than that done by science. Despite the fact that many acts of legislation, especially as it relates to food and drug, are made with science and understanding the interactions. It was then claimed that there needs to be a forced separation of science and state, despite the obvious consequences of destroying the Republic.
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?