• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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.

Poor Nate might have a problem..

TurtleDude said:
You have been around long enough to see the schooling others have laid on the dearly departed clown who used to question my status
Click to expand...

I'm not questioning that you're a lawyer. I'm saying that the idea that you should be trusted because you're a lawyer is yet another bit of delicious irony, that apparently they don't teach in law school ;)

It's ok. We get it. You're a very, very important person who should be trusted because of your status, the seiu and any group that swings democratic are nothing but felons out to destroy america and republican groups are god fearing patriots that at night damn capes with the constitution printed on the back and fight back communism and socialism in an effort to save the country and revert it back to the good old days.
 
Last edited:
roughdraft274 said:
I'm not questioning that you're a lawyer. I'm saying that the idea that you should be trusted because you're a lawyer is yet another bit of delicious irony, that apparently they don't teach in law school ;)

It's ok. We get it. You're a very, very important person who should be trusted because of your status, the seiu and any group that swings democratic are nothing but felons out to destroy america and republican groups are god fearing patriots that at night damn capes with the constitution printed on the back and fight back communism and socialism in an effort to save the country and revert it back to the good old days.
Click to expand...

Just to pick one of many items - do you support the SEIU? Do you think what they do is good for America?

OK - another one - which party (conservative vs liberal) is more interested in constitutional rights?

or fighting communism/socialism for that matter?

The TEA party is conservative - it is for constitutionally based government - and it's primary interest is the tax situation as it correlates to the massive national debt.

In short it wants to attack the debt problem by stopping the inexcusable (if not unconstitutional) spending, and to stop pretending that the massive spending can be afforded just by raising taxes - hence = Taxed Enough Already.

Wiggen said:
Who cares if a bunch of angry old white guys unable to come to terms with a black President is alive or not?
Click to expand...

(OK you didn't say this but your compatriot a few posts above did. This is for him)
There is not a racist meme in the entire TEA party movement. Nobody is excluded from joining them in their quest for common-sense taxation solutions to the biggest problem the nation faces = the unsustainable national debt.

To bring 'angry old white men' into a discussion about the TEA party's mission is an admission of abject ignorance, uncommon mendacity, complete partisan hackishness, or a combination of all three. Unworthy.
 
Last edited:
Rokkitsci said:
Just to pick one of many items - do you support the SEIU? Do you think what they do is good for America?

OK - another one - which party (conservative vs liberal) is more interested in constitutional rights?

or fighting communism/socialism for that matter?

The TEA party is conservative - it is for constitutionally based government - and it's primary interest is the tax situation as it correlates to the massive national debt.

In short it wants to attack the debt problem by stopping the inexcusable (if not unconstitutional) spending, and to stop pretending that the massive spending can be afforded just by raising taxes - hence = Taxed Enough Already.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to answer your question because you're putting the cart in front of the horse. I'm not complaining that there is a tea party, I'm not saying that the SEIU is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I'm saying that this notion that these groups equate to good vs evil is ****ing retarded, and I don't like it.

Also, you're notion that one party is more interested in protecting constitutional rights is flawed and silly. They are each interested in preserving the ones that they support and they are interested in ****ting on the ones that they don't like. Period. That's why we have democrats thinking that gun rights are optional, and republicans thinking that voting rights are dependent on your ability to shell out money for an ID. And there are tons of examples on both sides.

Get rid of the US vs THEM mentality, and see the forest through the trees.
 
AdamT said:
Yep, cherry picking the best polls for your candidate is pretty silly. But Romney is a slight favorite to win Florida, and you better hope he does. Otherwise he's going to get thumped pretty good.
Click to expand...

I was being what is called sarcastic, because you guys love polls.
 
TurtleDude said:
YOu'd be hard pressed to find a bigger bunch of scumbags in America short of going to a maximum security state or federal penitentiary to match the thugs and assholes that make up the SEIU leadership and its hard core followers
Click to expand...

Or a lawyer's convention!
 
Amigo said:
Based on the fact that you love polls, and that Adam lives in Florida. I think I'll show you something!

Times/Bay News 9/Herald Florida Poll: Mitt Romney 51, Barack Obama 45 - Tampa Bay Times

:peace
Click to expand...

Yes, I do think Romney carries Florida by about 2 points... but the only polls that have much credence with me are those on RCP.... and there, I take no single poll in absolute, but look at the preponderance of the evidence and changes in within a particular poll (ie, what is the change from one Rasmussen poll to the last)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/fl/florida_romney_vs_obama-1883.html
 
Last edited:
Amigo said:
You really have no proof to back up what you just said.
Click to expand...

I watched their rallies, complete with their racist signs and their guns. It's all the proof I need.
 
johnny_rebson said:
If it wasn't for the women's vote, Mourdock would be winning.
Click to expand...

If Mitt gets elected and the Republicans take both houses maybe you guys can do something about getting those women back in the kitchen where they clearly belong.
 
Wiggen said:
I watched their rallies, complete with their racist signs and their guns. It's all the proof I need.
Click to expand...

Show me the photos that are "racist". And btw, what is wrong with guns?
 
Wiggen said:
If Mitt gets elected and the Republicans take both houses maybe you guys can do something about getting those women back in the kitchen where they clearly belong.
Click to expand...

Quite funny liberal rhetoric that has no proof to back it up. "Right wingers wanna take women back to the stone age!". :lamo
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You are not seriously going to claim that there are not racists within the teabaggers?
Click to expand...

I've never ever known, heard of, read about, or talked to a Tea Partier who is racist, never. If there are, it is only about 2% of us.
 
roughdraft274 said:
you're notion that one party is more interested in protecting constitutional rights is flawed and silly. They are each interested in preserving the ones that they support and they are interested in ****ting on the ones that they don't like. Period. That's why we have democrats thinking that gun rights are optional, and republicans thinking that voting rights are dependent on your ability to shell out money for an ID. And there are tons of examples on both sides.
Click to expand...

I hope you didn't pick your two most exemplary examples, because your point is invalid in both instances. To even consider that there is validity in the anti-gun rights stance is beyond silly. The constitution is abundantly clear on that - and 200 years of continuous understanding of that stance is proof that it is absolutely the point intended by the constitution. IF there were any fuzz at all on that understanding it would have surfaced sometime before the SCOTUS decided they could re-write the meaning of the constitution any time they wanted.

Nope there was 200 uncontested years of private gun ownership since the founding of the nation. And if there were any indication that the constitution did NOT mean that, the 2nd amendment would never have been adopted in the first place.

And as for the right to vote shibboleth - nobody is saying any CITIZEN should be denied the right to vote. All we want to know is 'are you a citizen, or has your right to vote been taken away for being a felon." In order to ensure the integrity of the voting process it is kinda important to know WHO you are. Are do you think it is OK for non-citizens or non-registered people to vote? And if not, how on earth do you propose to make that decision on election day?

There is NO financial impediment to getting a valid ID. You cannot register to vote without one, so what is so hard about showing it when you go to vote?

You know very well why this is a sore point for the DEM party - they have squeezed out election victories forever by knowing which dead people are still on the voting rolls and they have been shuffling in people for years to cast votes for them. The DEMs are the party of colossal voter fraud and they have become to feel it is their "RIGHT" to do so forever.

if you oppose voter ID, you are complicit in a problem - period - end of discussion.

[/QUOTE]Get rid of the US vs THEM mentality, and see the forest through the trees.[/QUOTE]

I agree that we should strive toward some kind of cooperation = at least on the big problems facing the nation. Both parties have shown obstruction for obstructions sake at times. I think the DEMs did it to Bush and you think the GOP is doing it to Obama. It may well be a draw on that one, but surely there is no credible argument to be made that the DEMs are better at cooperating that are the GOP.

In fact, the DEMs have pretended to negotiate and when they get the GOP to agree to give up on X if the DEMs promise to do Y, it always turns out that X is really given up - and Y NEVER occurs.

The prank they played on Bush41 still grates my craw. The DEM 'promised' that if he would just allow this one tiny tax increase they "PROMISED" to reduce spending by a like amount. Then of course the tax increase occurred and they immediately INCREASED spending and laughed at Bush41 for being so foolish as to fall for the same trick they played on Reagan in the prior administration.

BUT - to top it all off - the DEMs actually ran the ensuing CAMPAIGN on 'Read my lips - no new taxes.' So they cajoled Bush41 into cooperating with them on his no-tax pledge and then they charged him with going back on the pledge because HE DID WHAT THEY WANTED him to do.

I do believe that the success of this campaign made Bush41 say 'screw it' - if the media was going to allow the DEMs to get away with that kind of mendacity (even abetted the DEMs in propelling it) he wanted no more of the process. He had too much class to engage in the dirty politics the DEMs and Media were heaping on him.

Yeah - I still hold a grudge over that one. I have never seen such an obvious miscarriage of decency no unchallenged by the media. That is when I completely lost any respect for the media - and they have never failed to live up to their new mission of running interference for any DEM pursuing political office. If not, we would have never had Obama heard of outside his congressional district in Chicago.
 
Rokkitsci said:
I agree that we should strive toward some kind of cooperation = at least on the big problems facing the nation. Both parties have shown obstruction for obstructions sake at times. I think the DEMs did it to Bush and you think the GOP is doing it to Obama. It may well be a draw on that one, but surely there is no credible argument to be made that the DEMs are better at cooperating that are the GOP.

In fact, the DEMs have pretended to negotiate and when they get the GOP to agree to give up on X if the DEMs promise to do Y, it always turns out that X is really given up - and Y NEVER occurs.

The prank they played on Bush41 still grates my craw. The DEM 'promised' that if he would just allow this one tiny tax increase they "PROMISED" to reduce spending by a like amount. Then of course the tax increase occurred and they immediately INCREASED spending and laughed at Bush41 for being so foolish as to fall for the same trick they played on Reagan in the prior administration.

BUT - to top it all off - the DEMs actually ran the ensuing CAMPAIGN on 'Read my lips - no new taxes.' So they cajoled Bush41 into cooperating with them on his no-tax pledge and then they charged him with going back on the pledge because HE DID WHAT THEY WANTED him to do.

I do believe that the success of this campaign made Bush41 say 'screw it' - if the media was going to allow the DEMs to get away with that kind of mendacity (even abetted the DEMs in propelling it) he wanted no more of the process. He had too much class to engage in the dirty politics the DEMs and Media were heaping on him.

Yeah - I still hold a grudge over that one. I have never seen such an obvious miscarriage of decency no unchallenged by the media. That is when I completely lost any respect for the media - and they have never failed to live up to their new mission of running interference for any DEM pursuing political office. If not, we would have never had Obama heard of outside his congressional district in Chicago.
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point. You say that there should be some kind of cooperation then go on a tirade about how evil the dems are.

What ever dude. Just keep going through life only able to see when the other side ****s up. Makes your decision making process much easier if you only see one side of the coin.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Thanks for proving my point. You say that there should be some kind of cooperation then go on a tirade about how evil the dems are.

What ever dude. Just keep going through life only able to see when the other side ****s up. Makes your decision making process much easier if you only see one side of the coin.
Click to expand...

What don't you just argue with his claims? Wait, you can't!
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You are not seriously going to claim that there are not racists within the teabaggers?
Click to expand...

I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that the percentage of racist memebers of the Tea Party is about the same percentage that ccan be found in the Republican and Democratic Parties.
 
Amigo said:
What don't you just argue with his claims? Wait, you can't!
Click to expand...

His claims, even if completely true, have nothing to do with the accuracy of my claim. You'd know that if you'd bother reading our entire exchange.
 
Amigo said:
Show me the photos that are "racist". And btw, what is wrong with guns?
Click to expand...

Nothing is wrong with guns. Only racist nutjobs take them to political rallies, however. Which of course is exactly what the Tea Party celebrates.

As far as the racist crap emanting from these losers, here's one of many:

Image Detail for - tea party rally racist sign
 
Rokkitsci said:
You are not seriously going to claim that there are not racists within the White House??
Click to expand...

Would you name some of the racists? Or better yet, give us some examples of their racism?

Or are you just another one of those poor white victims who are so oppressed by the notion of a black President?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom