Conquer Club

Posted: **Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:37 am**

notyou2 wrote:No choices here. They are all crooks, liars, and has-beens.

Know any good democrats?

I'm not sure Pawlenty is any of these things. You should take a look at what he's done in Minnesota.

Posted: **Fri Jul 23, 2010 10:53 am**

saxitoxin wrote:
ViperOverLord wrote:
Thanks for the blog post based soley on an alleged anonymous source. I think you should shut yourself down.

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?

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 ...

Well, he certainly sucks a lot, that's for sure...

Posted: **Fri Jul 23, 2010 11:10 am**

ViperOverLord wrote:
Wow. Now you're referencing Twilight.

... to each according to his need.

Posted: **Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:28 pm**

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/dennis-kucinich-and-ron-paul-unite-bid-challenge-obamas-war-expansion-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.

Posted: **Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:36 pm**

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/dennis-kucinich-and-ron-paul-unite-bid-challenge-obamas-war-expansion-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.

WE ALL GONNA DIE!!!

Posted: **Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:49 pm**

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.

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2010 12:40 am**

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.

As opposed to sowing the seeds of terrorism in the garden like we have been for quite some time now?

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2010 1:48 am**

notyou2 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.

Bla bla bla

Would sheeple be an upgrade from drone for you?

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2010 1:50 am**

Woodruff wrote:
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.

As opposed to sowing the seeds of terrorism in the garden like we have been for quite some time now?

Excuse me but I don't remeber any American soldiers being in Afghanistan when 911 hit. That's just some weak sauce guy.

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:46 am**

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.

Are you asserting that you believe that the only way the US has sown the seeds of terror is via its invasion of Afghanistan?

Or is it just that you're too young to remember world events before that occupation began?

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2010 12:18 pm**

ViperOverLord wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
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.

As opposed to sowing the seeds of terrorism in the garden like we have been for quite some time now?

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.

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2010 12:41 pm**

Woodruff wrote:
ViperOverLord wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
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.

As opposed to sowing the seeds of terrorism in the garden like we have been for quite some time now?

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.

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.

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2010 1:47 pm**

ViperOverLord wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
ViperOverLord wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
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.

As opposed to sowing the seeds of terrorism in the garden like we have been for quite some time now?

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.

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.

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.

Posted: **Thu Jul 29, 2010 1:45 am**

Woodruff wrote:
ViperOverLord wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
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.

As opposed to sowing the seeds of terrorism in the garden like we have been for quite some time now?

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.

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.

Posted: **Thu Jul 29, 2010 1:49 am**

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.

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.

Posted: **Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:42 am**

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.

He isn't twisting you points, he's demonstrating why your original statement was stupid.

Just because you don't like him broadening the debate and pointing out why your original contention is illogical doesn't mean that you can stall the conversation with a fallacious moan about 'twisting'.

Posted: **Thu Jul 29, 2010 10:51 am**

Lets just hope the OP gets the opportunity to put his vast knowledge and experience to practical use in 2012, it would be tragic if he was unable to vote on account of being grounded by mumsie.

Posted: **Thu Jul 29, 2010 12:39 pm**

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.

Wat?

Posted: **Thu Jul 29, 2010 1:20 pm**

Snorri1234 wrote:
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.

Wat?

Anyone he disagrees with is a liberal. He assumes liberals back a quasi-nutter like Paul because the others are more cookie cutter Republican.

Posted: **Thu Jul 29, 2010 1:26 pm**

ViperOverLord wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
ViperOverLord wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
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.

As opposed to sowing the seeds of terrorism in the garden like we have been for quite some time now?

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.

Can you debate my points rather than twist them.

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.

Just because you PRESUMED I was talking about something else doesn't mean you're right in thinking that. That you appear to believe terrorism against the United States started with 9/11 shows your ignorance.

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.

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.

I also notice you didn't answer my question at the end...which answers it thoroughly.

Posted: **Thu Jul 29, 2010 1:34 pm**

ViperOverLord wrote:
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.

It's not a relevant question.

NOT A RELEVANT QUESTION?!!?!? Let's review (since you removed the ACTUAL relevant information), shall we?:

Woodruff wrote:
ViperOverLord wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
ViperOverLord wrote:
Woodruff wrote:As opposed to sowing the seeds of terrorism in the garden like we have been for quite some time now?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Posted: **Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:11 pm**

Whoah!

Sounds like Woodruff is heading towards a big ol' Rage-Splosion.

Calm down there buddy, don't make me summon Saxi down here to spread some love and tolerance up your ass.

Posted: **Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:13 pm**

Anybody would be better than that assclown Obama, but I'll go with Mitt Romney for the sake of the poll. I think governors make better presidents than senators or house reps in general. I guess my 2nd pick would be Jindal.

Posted: **Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:19 pm**

bradleybadly wrote:Anybody would be better than that assclown Obama

...is what a brainwashed FOX Drone would say.

Posted: **Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:28 pm**

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.

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.

Conquer Club

Beating Obama 2012 Poll

Re: Beating Obama 2012 Poll

Re: Beating Obama 2012 Poll

Re: Beating Obama 2012 Poll

Re: Beating Obama 2012 Poll

Re: Beating Obama 2012 Poll

Re: Beating Obama 2012 Poll

Re: Beating Obama 2012 Poll

Re: Beating Obama 2012 Poll

Re: Beating Obama 2012 Poll

Re: Beating Obama 2012 Poll

Re: Beating Obama 2012 Poll

Re: Beating Obama 2012 Poll

Re: Beating Obama 2012 Poll

Re: Beating Obama 2012 Poll

Re: Beating Obama 2012 Poll

Re: Beating Obama 2012 Poll

Re: Beating Obama 2012 Poll

Re: Beating Obama 2012 Poll

Re: Beating Obama 2012 Poll

Re: Beating Obama 2012 Poll

Re: Beating Obama 2012 Poll

Re: Beating Obama 2012 Poll

Re: Beating Obama 2012 Poll

Re: Beating Obama 2012 Poll

Re: Beating Obama 2012 Poll