I'm not sure Pawlenty is any of these things. You should take a look at what he's done in Minnesota.notyou2 wrote:No choices here. They are all crooks, liars, and has-beens.
Know any good democrats?
Moderator: Community Team
I'm not sure Pawlenty is any of these things. You should take a look at what he's done in Minnesota.notyou2 wrote:No choices here. They are all crooks, liars, and has-beens.
Know any good democrats?
saxitoxin wrote:Uhhhh ... you started an anti-Obama thread and now, by just a few pages in, you've flipped and have started savaging anti-Obama comments?ViperOverLord wrote:
Thanks for the blog post based soley on an alleged anonymous source. I think you should shut yourself down.
You're like a newborn vampire in Stephanie Miller's uber-romantic series TWILIGHT! (Love it, gang!) Runnin' about, attacking anything regardless whether it's friend or foe, fighting whatever moves, suckin' on lotsa stuff ...
... to each according to his need.ViperOverLord wrote:
Wow. Now you're referencing Twilight.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 0#p5349880
WE ALL GONNA DIE!!!ViperOverLord wrote:RP's winning the poll. That's just libs being mad that there is no Obama wins option lol. Again, RP has no spine. He'd be a great economic president but he'd just let the terrorism garden grow.
http://www.caivn.org/article/2010/07/26 ... n-pakistan
For all you sell-outs - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is fundamental. If you can't vote for a guy that believes in that then you're off. RP would not preserve the life part.
As opposed to sowing the seeds of terrorism in the garden like we have been for quite some time now?ViperOverLord wrote:RP's winning the poll. That's just libs being mad that there is no Obama wins option lol. Again, RP has no spine. He'd be a great economic president but he'd just let the terrorism garden grow.
Bla bla blanotyou2 wrote:VO thanks for treating us to your vastly superior opinion. We should all just become sheeple to your intellect and ask you how we should vote. You are a breath of hot air.
Excuse me but I don't remeber any American soldiers being in Afghanistan when 911 hit. That's just some weak sauce guy.Woodruff wrote:As opposed to sowing the seeds of terrorism in the garden like we have been for quite some time now?ViperOverLord wrote:RP's winning the poll. That's just libs being mad that there is no Obama wins option lol. Again, RP has no spine. He'd be a great economic president but he'd just let the terrorism garden grow.
Are you asserting that you believe that the only way the US has sown the seeds of terror is via its invasion of Afghanistan?ViperOverLord wrote:Excuse me but I don't remeber any American soldiers being in Afghanistan when 911 hit. That's just some weak sauce guy.
So all of terrorism lies within that one act? That's is the sum total of terrorism in your view? THAT is some "weak sauce", though it would explain a lot.ViperOverLord wrote:Excuse me but I don't remeber any American soldiers being in Afghanistan when 911 hit. That's just some weak sauce guy.Woodruff wrote:As opposed to sowing the seeds of terrorism in the garden like we have been for quite some time now?ViperOverLord wrote:RP's winning the poll. That's just libs being mad that there is no Obama wins option lol. Again, RP has no spine. He'd be a great economic president but he'd just let the terrorism garden grow.
You're presumption was that an American presence in Afghanistan fosters terrorism. I pointed out that they were not there when 911 hit. Try to keep up.Woodruff wrote:So all of terrorism lies within that one act? That's is the sum total of terrorism in your view? THAT is some "weak sauce", though it would explain a lot.ViperOverLord wrote:Excuse me but I don't remeber any American soldiers being in Afghanistan when 911 hit. That's just some weak sauce guy.Woodruff wrote:As opposed to sowing the seeds of terrorism in the garden like we have been for quite some time now?ViperOverLord wrote:RP's winning the poll. That's just libs being mad that there is no Obama wins option lol. Again, RP has no spine. He'd be a great economic president but he'd just let the terrorism garden grow.
All "presumption" here lies with you. Where did I mention Afghanistan? Try again...this time without the presumption. I'm about to lap you...that must be why you think I'm not keeping up.ViperOverLord wrote:You're presumption was that an American presence in Afghanistan fosters terrorism. I pointed out that they were not there when 911 hit. Try to keep up.Woodruff wrote:So all of terrorism lies within that one act? That's is the sum total of terrorism in your view? THAT is some "weak sauce", though it would explain a lot.ViperOverLord wrote:Excuse me but I don't remeber any American soldiers being in Afghanistan when 911 hit. That's just some weak sauce guy.Woodruff wrote:As opposed to sowing the seeds of terrorism in the garden like we have been for quite some time now?ViperOverLord wrote:RP's winning the poll. That's just libs being mad that there is no Obama wins option lol. Again, RP has no spine. He'd be a great economic president but he'd just let the terrorism garden grow.
Can you debate my points rather than twist them. I will not be responding to you much longer if you insist on continually putting words in my mouth as a tactic to ignore what was just spoken.Woodruff wrote:So all of terrorism lies within that one act? That's is the sum total of terrorism in your view? THAT is some "weak sauce", though it would explain a lot.ViperOverLord wrote:Excuse me but I don't remeber any American soldiers being in Afghanistan when 911 hit. That's just some weak sauce guy.Woodruff wrote:As opposed to sowing the seeds of terrorism in the garden like we have been for quite some time now?ViperOverLord wrote:RP's winning the poll. That's just libs being mad that there is no Obama wins option lol. Again, RP has no spine. He'd be a great economic president but he'd just let the terrorism garden grow.
It's not a relevant question. It's a shameless attempt to esteem your weak arguments as being superior. If you insist on making personal attacks rather than debating than I will have no problem parting the debate, knowing that you are not capable of sufficiently debating points.Woodruff wrote:
All "presumption" here lies with you. Where did I mention Afghanistan? Try again...this time without the presumption. I'm about to lap you...that must be why you think I'm not keeping up.
Serious question here...how old are you? Yes, I do believe that's a relevant question.
He isn't twisting you points, he's demonstrating why your original statement was stupid.ViperOverLord wrote:Can you debate my points rather than twist them. I will not be responding to you much longer if you insist on continually putting words in my mouth as a tactic to ignore what was just spoken.
Wat?ViperOverLord wrote:RP's winning the poll. That's just libs being mad that there is no Obama wins option lol. Again, RP has no spine. He'd be a great economic president but he'd just let the terrorism garden grow.
Anyone he disagrees with is a liberal. He assumes liberals back a quasi-nutter like Paul because the others are more cookie cutter Republican.Snorri1234 wrote:Wat?ViperOverLord wrote:RP's winning the poll. That's just libs being mad that there is no Obama wins option lol. Again, RP has no spine. He'd be a great economic president but he'd just let the terrorism garden grow.
TWIST THEM? I didn't twist a damn thing! I stated that we've been sowing the seeds of terrorism for some time now, to which YOU responded with some crap about Afghanistan and 9/11, as if that's particularly relevant to my point. My response to that was to question why you'd even bring that irrelevance up. I didn't twist anything.ViperOverLord wrote:Can you debate my points rather than twist them.Woodruff wrote:So all of terrorism lies within that one act? That's is the sum total of terrorism in your view? THAT is some "weak sauce", though it would explain a lot.ViperOverLord wrote:Excuse me but I don't remeber any American soldiers being in Afghanistan when 911 hit. That's just some weak sauce guy.Woodruff wrote:As opposed to sowing the seeds of terrorism in the garden like we have been for quite some time now?ViperOverLord wrote:RP's winning the poll. That's just libs being mad that there is no Obama wins option lol. Again, RP has no spine. He'd be a great economic president but he'd just let the terrorism garden grow.
I didn't put any words in your mouth. In fact, I directly quoted you. Sucks when someone's response doesn't fit into your preconceived ideas, doesn't it? Stop being a pathetic weasel and discuss the situation...or don't and get the hell out of the thread.ViperOverLord wrote:I will not be responding to you much longer if you insist on continually putting words in my mouth as a tactic to ignore what was just spoken.
NOT A RELEVANT QUESTION?!!?!? Let's review (since you removed the ACTUAL relevant information), shall we?:ViperOverLord wrote:It's not a relevant question.Woodruff wrote:
All "presumption" here lies with you. Where did I mention Afghanistan? Try again...this time without the presumption. I'm about to lap you...that must be why you think I'm not keeping up.
Serious question here...how old are you? Yes, I do believe that's a relevant question.
Ok, following the discussion there (I'm going to presume for the moment that you are, in fact, capable of reading it)...I responded to your idiotic statement about Ron Paul's ability to deal with terrorism by stating that we've already been sowing the seeds of terrorism for quite some time. You responded to that with a reference to Afghanistan and 9/11, which is pretty irrelevant to my point. So I called you out on your response regarding Afghanistan and 9/11, making it clear that it was irrelevant to the point I was making. And now finally...you claim I'm making shit up and asking irrelevant questions when in reality all I'm doing is shooting the f*ck out of your argument, you little weasel.Woodruff wrote:All "presumption" here lies with you. Where did I mention Afghanistan? Try again...this time without the presumption. I'm about to lap you...that must be why you think I'm not keeping up.ViperOverLord wrote:You're presumption was that an American presence in Afghanistan fosters terrorism. I pointed out that they were not there when 911 hit. Try to keep up.Woodruff wrote:So all of terrorism lies within that one act? That's is the sum total of terrorism in your view? THAT is some "weak sauce", though it would explain a lot.ViperOverLord wrote:Excuse me but I don't remeber any American soldiers being in Afghanistan when 911 hit. That's just some weak sauce guy.Woodruff wrote: As opposed to sowing the seeds of terrorism in the garden like we have been for quite some time now?
You've pretty much defined "shameless attempt" with your statement right here. If you want to be taken seriously (and you seem to want to be), then you're going to have to learn not to throw bullshit into a discussion, because someone's going to call you on it. If you just run away from it as you are here, all you're doing is making yourself look silly. Your call on whether you'd prefer to be taken seriously or whether you'd prefer to look silly, though...so it's really up to you.ViperOverLord wrote:It's a shameless attempt to esteem your weak arguments as being superior. If you insist on making personal attacks rather than debating than I will have no problem parting the debate, knowing that you are not capable of sufficiently debating points.
Lootifer wrote:I earn well above average income for my area, i'm educated and I support left wing politics.
jbrettlip wrote:You live in New Zealand. We will call you when we need to make another Hobbit movie.
...is what a brainwashed FOX Drone would say.bradleybadly wrote:Anybody would be better than that assclown Obama
No, he cannot debate your points rather than twist them. He does this constantly. My advice would be to depart from any so called discussion that this pompous jerk engages in because he just uses it as a platform to declare his intellectual superiority and judge others who disagree with him.ViperOverLord wrote:Can you debate my points rather than twist them. I will not be responding to you much longer if you insist on continually putting words in my mouth as a tactic to ignore what was just spoken.