T1B

:? so one is in line with fiscal sanity and favours interventionism, one is line with fiscal sanity and favours isolationism? So foreign policy is irrelevant to fiscal sanity?

I'd say there are some issues here. Attacking a demographic on the lines of 'Mr. Smith is tall and intelligent with a long coat, therefore tall people with long coats are intelligent' seems the least of your worries.

I agree with the Paul wing that you can't truly get a handle on our fiscal situation unless you change the dynamics of our foreign policy.

It's got to be scaled back considerably, imo.

Dr_Phibes wrote:So foreign policy is irrelevant to fiscal sanity?

Maybe not completely irrelevant, but certainly a tertiary consideration.

mvscal wrote:

Mr T wrote:If they were overwhelmingly not getting behind McCain, why did they vote for him?

They didn't, you stupid fuck. They stayed home hence McLoon's defeat.

You are dumb as fuck.

Bush 04....62 million votes
McCain 08....59.9 million votes

Yeah they really stayed home....

Dr_Phibes wrote:

poptart wrote: Yes, and do you have some point?

It's Mr T's point I think, at least with Ron Paul people are attempting to engage their brains, with Palin and disenchanted republicans it seems empty phrases and rhetoric and no real commitment or understanding of libertarianism and that seems to be the people who make up the bulk of the movement =/= no real change.

Someone gets it.

Dr_Phibes wrote:

Mr T wrote: Jesus how hard is it to be a white person.

You've obviously never been on a beach. We don't look very good in trunks, we tend to glow a little bit.

Have you seen Louis CK? He does a bit on being white
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY

poptart wrote:

Mr T wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

The tea party began with Ron Paul supporters in 2007.

http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-04-15/natio ... -its-2007/

It's a matter of FACT.

Wikipedia is full of shit.

Ron Paul was a Libertarian. He will always get support from Libertarians wanting their voice heard. Republicans hate his views on Foreign Policy, War on Drugs, ect.

McCain didn't get much support, 'tard.
And certainly not from fiscal conservatives - and DEFINITELY not from Ron Paul supporters.

He got just 45% of the popular vote in '08.
By comparison, Bush got 51% of the popular vote in '04 and 48% of the vote in '00.

62 million votes compared to 59.9 million votes....Big drop off. Those fiscal conservatives really didnt vote for McCain? I guess fiscal conservatives only make up 3.4 % of the Republican Party

If you were for Ron Paul, you wouldve voted Libertarian on election day. Not continued on with the same red/blue bullshit.

Mr T wrote:Racism against whites? Jesus how hard is it to be a white person.

You must be an idiot on the same level as Dean.

Put people into racial categories and pit them against each other

Continue the struggle Poptart. Being a white christian in America is tough and will always be tough....

Mr T, you said that tea partiers began in 2009, only after a BLACK DEMOCRAT was voted in to office.

I simply pointed out that you've got your facts wrong about that.

It began with Paul supporters in '07 and didn't have jack shit to do with a BLACK DEMOCRAT being elected.


130,000,000 people voted in '08.
121,000,000 people voted in '04.

Trotting out vote totals (rather than percentages) to compare Bush's support in '04 to McCain's in '08 means that you don't grasp the fundamental truth that 9 million more people voted in '08 -- and McCain getting just 45% of the vote compared to Bush's 51% four years earlier means... people stayed the fuck home.

Shit, even in an extreme landslide case like 1980, where Reagan rolled Carter, Carter got 41% of the vote.

Yes, McCain didn't get support.
Pull your head out of your ass, dude.


Link me up to where I said being a white Christian is tough.

Point here is that Dean is making accusations of intolerance and hate - while at the same time categorizing people (and seemingly wishing for their demise) based on race and religion himself.

He's a weapon's grade fucktard.

And from your act, I'm not sure you're not right there with him.

poptart wrote:
130,000,000 people voted in '08.
121,000,000 people voted in '04.

Trotting out vote totals (rather than percentages) to compare Bush's support in '04 to McCain's in '08 means that you don't grasp the fundamental truth that 9 million more people voted in '08 -- and McCain getting just 45% of the vote compared to Bush's 51% four years earlier means... people stayed the fuck home.

How does 9 million more people voting mean people stayed home?

John Kerry got 59,000,000 votes in '04.
Al Gore got 51,000,000 votes in '00.

But Kerry, with 8,000,000 more votes, got LESS support than Gore did.

48.3% of the vote went for Kerry in '04.
48.4 % of the vote went for for Gore in '00.

People stayed home for Kerry, despite him having 8 million more votes than Gore did in the previous election.

Yes, because population is increasing.
More people vote each year.

poptart wrote:Yes, because population is increasing.
More people vote each year.

It had more to do with voter registration and turnout than population increasing, poptuse.

Roach wrote:Which 'Bible' do you so absolutly believe?

There are about 30 on that page alone. Not to mention the versions of the 'bible' that have been modified, created, adapted, and revised in the last 1800 years or so? The St. James version popular now is full of wisdom no doubt, but it hardly seems to be THEONE 'bible.'

Each one of us can find our own truth within. Some call that Jesus and some call it the Holy Ghost and some call it the Universal. Then with a solid belief or knowledge we can go try to convince others that things like abortion are wrong. But please don't use the 'I'm right and you are wrong' approach, and still quote Jesus, or another avatar of the Truth. Yes there have been others. Mormons think Joseph Smith is the only true prophet and if we don't believe it we're fucked. Most of the western world thinks the same thing about Jesus. A very much larger portion of humanity hold others in the same reverence. Take off the blinders and remember tolerance and no judgement.

Roach, this is way off topic, but since you've posted something similar a couple of times now, I will give a very brief reply.

You make the point that there are many Bible versions and then follow with these remarks:

- Each one of us can find our own truth within.
- Some call that Jesus. Some call it the Universal.


I think there is some faulty logic at play there.

All of the Bible translations (KJ, NIV, NASB, or whatever...) give the same fundamental account.
Jesus is the promised Christ.
He is THE way of salvation that God has provided for mankind.

There is no Bible translation I am aware of (yet, although I am sure it will come) that tells us that there is some truth apart from Christ, or that we can call that truth 'Universal'.

62 million votes compared to 59.9 million votes....Big drop off

That's more than two million votes in an election with record turnout so, yes, it is a big drop off and you remain a clueless, spoonfed dumbfuck.

And lets not forget the fact that, if the Tea Party were truly racist, they would have come out in droves to vote against a half-breed ni..igger but they didn't. That also means that both you and your premise are full of shit.

If I recall, you didn't come out to vote AGAINST the 'half-breed' either, did you?

Thank goodness you're not a racist. :D

poptart wrote:'half-breed'

ironic-tart is ironic.

poptart wrote: All of the Bible translations (KJ, NIV, NASB, or whatever...) give the same fundamental account

but what are the differences?

that is really the question

poptart wrote:If I recall, you didn't come out to vote AGAINST the 'half-breed' either, did you?

Thank goodness you're not a racist. :D

No, I did not. I didn't vote for Chimpy either, though. I don't believe in the idea of voting against somebody. The last time I voted against somebody was Dukakis. Then Poppy Bush's lips began to move and he left behind a flaming bag of dogshit in Iraq which was not a very sterling endorsement for the Chimpster to me.

Jerry Springer wrote:

poptart wrote: All of the Bible translations (KJ, NIV, NASB, or whatever...) give the same fundamental account

but what are the differences?

King James:

Acts 4:12
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.



NIV:

Acts 4:12
Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved




It's basically differences like this.

mvscal wrote:

poptart wrote:If I recall, you didn't come out to vote AGAINST the 'half-breed' either, did you?

Thank goodness you're not a racist. :D

No, I did not. I didn't vote for Chimpy either, though. I don't believe in the idea of voting against somebody. The last time I voted against somebody was Dukakis. Then Poppy Bush's lips began to move and he left behind a flaming bag of dogshit in Iraq which was not a very sterling endorsement for the Chimpster to me.

The ONLY flaming bag of dogshit left behind in Iraq is the fact that the locals failed to successfully place an IED in the stewpot you were about to serve to our fighting troops and obliterate a future Internet sociopath.

‘sayin.

I see your ass is still well kicked and bitter. Melt on, lil guy.

mvscal wrote: I didn't vote for Chimpy either

You voted for him before you voted against him?

Take your prevaricating, assgrabbing horseshit down the road.

mvscal wrote:I see your ass is still well kicked and bitter. Melt on, lil guy.

Poseur, fraud, and Internet bully sez what?!

Heh. Try again, freak.

The thread has yet to be written that won’t leave me running you screaming into the night. Go flip me an omelet while the real men talk, Loser….

War Wagon wrote:

mvscal wrote: I didn't vote for Chimpy either

You voted for him before you voted against him?

Huh? What the fuck is wrong with you people? Can't you even try to make sense?

Look mv, your game is tired.

You stand for nothing, take responsibility for nothing. You're a weathervane and a weasel.

I voted for Bush, twice, and would do so again because I believe he's a straight shooter and a decent man.

You? You're a coward. You use terms like Chimpy trying to score points.

Fuck. You.

War Wagon wrote:I voted for Bush, twice, and would do so again because I believe he's a straight shooter and a decent man.

You?

Me? I didn't vote for him because his old man was full of shit and Chimpy's "compassionate conservatism" sounded a whole lot like more big government bullshit to me and he didn't disappoint which was why I didn't vote for him in 2004.

I will only vote for a genuine fiscal conservative. Period. EOS. Big government moderates and Ivy League halfwits can go fuck themselves.

Wagon, the "I would vote for Bush again because he is a straight shooter and a decent man" take honestly sounds like it came out of the 'mind' of a female.

Or at least a neutered male.


What Bush accomplishments are so significant in your mind ---> that you would want to see him in office for 4 more years?

Is there something?


Me, I might like to go to a ballgame with him, and shoot the shit.

But his failings as president were SO overwhelming that I could never imagine voting for him again.

poptart wrote: But his failings as president were SO overwhelming that I could never imagine voting for him again.

Really? As opposed to Barry?!



Dude....

Bush failed overwhelmingly, but Barry is MUCH worse.

On top of driving the country off a cliff, he's a complete fraud.


I'd obviously never vote for either of them.

Kinda my point, Homer.

Thanks for playing....

Martyred wrote:

poptart wrote:'half-breed'

ironic-tart is ironic.

iconic-tart is iconic.