[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I am hoping the Mayans are right, only 54 more days.[/quote]
That date already passed a long time ago. The Mayans didn’t account for leap years.
Cortes,
the fact that you took my post as rude and classless is beyond belief. your response on the other hand was both classless and childlike. I merely pointed out why I think your side lost a winnable race, if you want to read something insulting into that be my guest. if you read my posts from several months ago you know I don’t usually hold my tongue, so you may be reading a wee bit too much into what I said.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
ZEB is notably absent, no joke here, I hope he’s okay. [/quote]
I’ve been waiting to hear from him, too.
Where are you, Zeb?[/quote]
Hey pal, started my own thread: “Why Obama Won.”
Come on over and share your thoughts and bring usmccds with you.
TBolt,
“Just to highlight how silly your response is, Romney didn’t say he would repeal Roe v. Wade - he couldn’t, it isn’t a law, genius.”
- Actually Romney said that overturning Roe V Wade would be one of his primary goals. Yes I know he can’t do it, I never said he could, but he ran on repealing it. Candidates never take into account HOW they will do things, they just promise to do them. If you look at all of his plans they all need some help from other branches to accomplish, but he promised to repeal the ACA as well, build a wall, cut spending etc. The President is not a dictator Tbolt, how would Romney have done any of it?
As far as the election results, Romney lost moderates to Obama when in reality (if you look at his governance of Mass.) their records aren’t too dissimilar (although Obama would admittedly be farther left if allowed), I for one the GOP feels they need to be more conservative in 2016, it would be nice to see the results of that race.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
ZEB is notably absent, no joke here, I hope he’s okay. [/quote]
I’ve been waiting to hear from him, too.
Where are you, Zeb?[/quote]
Hey pal, started my own thread: “Why Obama Won.”
Come on over and share your thoughts and bring usmccds with you.
[/quote]
Hey Zeb. Good to see you. I’ll get over there (my) tomorrow morning. It’s 3:30am here and I need to get my butt off T-Nation and to bed.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Cortes,
the fact that you took my post as rude and classless is beyond belief. your response on the other hand was both classless and childlike. I merely pointed out why I think your side lost a winnable race, if you want to read something insulting into that be my guest. if you read my posts from several months ago you know I don’t usually hold my tongue, so you may be reading a wee bit too much into what I said.[/quote]
Have you forgotten that I don’t talk to you? Consider this a kindness you will not receive again. Bye.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
I don’t think you have ground to stand on if your going to argue against the views of my mentor, a holder of a PhD in History who also happens to be a devout Christian and ordained Baptist minister. He has no agenda to propagate.
[/quote]
My lib professor has more letters after his name than your lib professor! You don’t know nuthin’.[/quote]
Lib? I’m not sure if you are aware, but there are conservatives in academia. If anything the conservative professors I had proselytized more than any “lib” ones. So SexMachine, care to look at this “lib” professor’s resume?
“Yes, a PhD holder who has published a plethora of academic work on Christianity in America and is incredibly involved in ministry is surely not credible. Not to mention his professional expertise as a Intelligence Analyst both in the military and the Central Intelligence Agency, as well as numerous postings as an American Ambassador.”
What a douche right? Serving his country in militarily, diplomatically,in the Intelligence Community, and now an educator passing on his knowledge to the next generation.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
- Actually Romney said that overturning Roe V Wade would be one of his primary goals. Yes I know he can’t do it, I never said he could, but he ran on repealing it. Candidates never take into account HOW they will do things, they just promise to do them.[/quote]
Romeny is a trained lawyer, he knew exactly what he was talking about - you can’t repeal a Supreme Court decision, Einstein.
You don’t say? Since the American people still don’t like or support the law, and half support repeal, I’m not exactly sure how it amounts to “radicalism” to endorse repealing it.
And, by the way, we’re done. Have a great one.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Your party is not the party of the Edmund Burke conservative brand. It is the Sarah Palin brand. And that’s dangerous to the future of that party.[/quote]
smh is a 1980-2004’s style Democrat.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I want a faster recovery too, but presidents can’t pull that out of their ass and I think deregulation would kill us again -
[/quote]
The wrong regulation can kill as well. Just as fast.
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
Not meaning to throw stones in a spiteful way. I am an independent. I am very concerned about our deficit. I believe in fiscal responsibility and am personally debt-free. But I just can’t vote for a candidate who heads up a party that is turning into a private, exclusionary club:[/quote]
Didn’t mean you where doing such as much as making a point.
[quote]If you’re gay, you can’t join.
If you’re part of the 47%, you can’t join. (Never mind the fact that many of these people work in jobs that are ESSENTIAL to the running of this country.)
If you’re not Christian, you can’t join.
If you’re pro-choice, you can’t join.
You get the idea.
I’m old enough to know it wasn’t always this way. I voted for Reagan in my first election.
[/quote]
Can’t join? Don’t be silly.
You won’t be rejected for any of those reasons, and gay marriage will be a moot issue soon as there isn’t much legal wiggle room there. It will pass.
A lof of your post and smh’s following it is demagoguing and branding from the left, and not reality.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:<<< a holder of a PhD in History who also happens to be a devout Christian and ordained Baptist minister.[/quote]Forgive me man, but a cereal box is more reliable than many people allegedly educated in history and being ordained means almost nothing anymore. In fact, you may think I’m blaming the non Christian citizenry of this nation for her ills. No sir. The CHURCH, who has forsaken the very gospel that was utterly mainstream in the 18th and 19th centuries here, the one I preach, has been seduced by every imaginable form of compromise modernistic heresy and immorality. WE are the salt and the light of the earth. Jesus said so. He also said that if the salt loses it’s saltiness it is useless. Salt is a metaphor for preserving from rot. We have lost our saltiness. With continued civility and respect, the fact you and dozens of others here call just about anything Christian demonstrates my point. I’m not being sarcastic. “Christian” meant something then that just everybody agreed on in the essentials. The essentials that I talk about here every day. I’m simply what they were. Ya’ll are the weird ones by the standard of our early history. I’m not being a jackass man. That is the truth though.
[/quote]
Yes, a PhD holder who has published a plethora of academic work on Christianity in America and is incredibly involved in ministry is surely not credible. Not to mention his professional expertise as a Intelligence Analyst both in the military and the Central Intelligence Agency, as well as numerous postings as an American Ambassador. You obviously come out on top with your divinely revealed knowledge of scripture in spite of of such incredibly rigorous training and professional experience.[/quote]That’s entirely possible. “Incredibly rigorous training and professional experience” prove nothing in these kinds of topics by themselves. None of that necessarily gets me excited and ministry means what? The worst enemies of the gospel today are ministers allegedly of it. I’m only being honest. Bring him here. I’d be happy to talk to him. However, I don’t have any unique extra sanctified “divinely revealed knowledge of scripture”. I simply see what millions of other historic Christians have and do see there.
[/quote]
Ummm they really, really do. I’m sure you also think your knowledge surpasses his own concerning foreign affairs and the national security apparatus due to the “ton of studying on your own.” I just read the wiki-page on theoretical physics. I’m ready for Steven Hawking now.
Since Hoover, the Republican Party has a trend of putting up centrists in the 20th and 21st century for president: Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Bush 1, Bush 2, McCain, and now Romney. The obvious exception being Reagen. The party must see what Eisenhower did which is in a pluralistic society you can only govern from the centre to reach the most amount of people.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
In other news christy isn’t getting on the R ticket nationally, ever.[/quote]
For my own small part, I will fight his fat ass every step of the way, if he thinks he will. [/quote]
So continued obstructionism, instead of bipartisan cooperation, is the answer? Got it.[/quote]
I’d be “obstructing” a Republican, genius.
Do you have anything intelligent to add? If not, the adults are having a discussion here. [/quote]
I clearly meant you would be endorsing obstructionism politics as opposed to the ideas that Christie may have been espousing, including cooperation. But this point obviously went right over your tiny little head, genius.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
A lof of your post and smh’s following it is demagoguing and branding from the left, and not reality.[/quote]
Eh, I think there’s a lot to be said about the right wing’s political missteps during this election. If you looked at the economic data over the last four years and were forced to make a 2012 Presidential race prediction based on those indicators alone, you’d think that the incumbent would be in pretty serious trouble. Part of last night’s results are explained by a febrile cult of Obamania among the President’s supporters, a viciously effective and uncomfortably negative reelection campaign (especially in Ohio), and a media that was unusually willing to cheer-lead in the open.
But part of it falls on the right-wing extremists (again, a plurality of Republican primary voters believed that Obama wasn’t born in the US) whose demands for ideological purity pushed Mitt Romney to make some seriously damaging statements in the primary season and who sent up absolutely terrible candidates like Todd Akin.
TBolt,
I missed the part where I said radicalism, but regardless, if the GOP doesn’t expand their base they will be nothing more than a footnote in political history.
As for the repeal issue, his exact quote was this:
"When asked if the repeal of Roe v. Wade would be a good day for America, former Gov. Romney responded, “Absolutely.” (Sounds like he responded to the word repeal doesn’t it?) he supports overturning the law, in fact his website states :
Mitt believes that life begins at conception and wishes that the laws of our nation reflected that view. But while the nation remains so divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Tbolt you and Cortes both seem to have an issue with any sort of civil argument about the election, and I get it, your guy lost and your worldview took a hit, still you might want to attempt to act a little less like an angry six year old and more like the thoughtful adult you present yourself as. Enjoy the next four years, you will be spiraling into irrelevance soon enough.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Also, I love how all these ass-clowns come out of the woodwork to gloat AFTER the election is over. As beans has already pointed out, we’ve been here every day talking about this for five months now. Where the hell were all of you?
[/quote]
It’s the OBAMA VICTORY thread…not the “continued stale discussions” thread. LOL seriously dude, did the fact that it is a brand new thread escape you? Go post in the other threads you have been active in if this one hurts your feelings.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I guess Obama gets a free pass on Libya. [/quote]
Not for too much longer, I suspect.[/quote]
Yeah, look at the bright side, maybe now Obama will be impeached and forced to resign. Then he won’t be the President anymore, and…Biden will…
Oh, wait…[/quote]
LOL
HO HO HO HO HO HO
What exactly is the impeachable offense? Varying intelligence reports don’t count. Invading a country due to the actions of some of its citizens is also not a good option.
Is this really the phd level discussion I’ve been missing out on for the past few months (since June)? Man…
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
I missed the part where I said radicalism, but regardless, if the GOP doesn’t expand their base they will be nothing more than a footnote in political history.[/quote]
Have you read the thread? Have you read where I have been stating what the GOP needs to do to retain viability as a national party?
[quote]"When asked if the repeal of Roe v. Wade would be a good day for America, former Gov. Romney responded, “Absolutely.” (Sounds like he responded to the word repeal doesn’t it?) he supports overturning the law, in fact his website states :
Mitt believes that life begins at conception and wishes that the laws of our nation reflected that view. But while the nation remains so divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.[/quote]
I didn’t say Romney said he wasn’t overturning Roe v. Wade - I said he couldn’t repeal it. No one can, it’s a Supreme Court decision. I noted how you couldn’t even get the facts right of what you were complaining about.
Uh, no - my entire point was the fact that you were uncivil. Go read again, genius. We’re all having quite a good civil discussion about the election, and you come in and act like an ass (“looks like America is smarter than the people at PWI…”, etc.).
Par for the course, as your track record makes clear. Have a good one.