TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Gaffe-a-day Vice President
Pages (4): [1] 2 3 4 »


Posted by Q5echo on Sep-24-2008 01:34:

Gaffe-a-day Vice President

yesterday Sloppy Joe Biden told Katie Couric, "When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed, He said, 'Look, here's what happened.". he's the best, isn't he? it's almost like he's trying to torpedo Obama's campaign.

what's even funnier, since Biden is almost like clockwork on pure doofusness, is this exchange completely escapes Katie. she didn't catch it. i guess she either assumed whatever was spewing from Biden's pie-hole was the unquestionable truth or she was off in la-la land mentaly while he spewed.

if this had been the other VP candidate shitting out of her mouth like this with Katie, she'd be socially crucified by the Obama enabling media. there would be no end. of course this only makes rounds among right-wing blogs.


Posted by Capitalizt on Sep-24-2008 01:50:

Q5 you are such a partisan hack that you are making something out of nothing here. Honestly WTF are you talking about? Biden was making a simple point...That the President should be more open and communicative with the American people while the markets are melting down.. I despise most of what FDR did but he certainly did a good job reassuring the public and preventing the panic from getting worse. When the markets fall 900 points in 2 days and rumors are circulating of several major bankruptcies, any decent president would have addressed the nation about it. Bush didn't even make a statement. He let some 3rd rate bureaucrat leak the bailout plan to the press the following morning.

I see nothing at all wrong with what Biden said. How exactly does it "torpedo" the Obama campaign?


Posted by The17sss on Sep-24-2008 03:02:

I can't stop laughing at Biden. It was hilarious last week when he asked the guy in the wheelchair to stand up and let everyone see him, then when he realized the guy couldn't get up he was like, "What am I talking about... God love ya, Chuck... everyone, come on and stand up for Chuck!"

Then he says Obama's e-mail ad making fun of McCain was terrible...

Then Greasy Joe says in Ohio "no new coal plants in America" while Obama says he is for them.....

Then he says this yesterday in Virginia: "I guarantee you Barack Obama ain�t taking my shotguns, so don�t buy that malarkey,� Biden said Saturday at the United Mine Workers of America�s annual fish fry in Castlewood, Virginia. �Don�t buy that malarkey. They�re going to start peddling that to you.� Biden told the crowd that he himself is a gun owner. �I got two,� Biden said, �if he tries to fool with my Beretta, he�s got a problem."

LOLOL!! I like his choice of words, using "ain't" while talking to mine workers... trying to dumb down the verbage to their level in his mind. Like when Kerry went into the gun shop and said, talking like a redneck, "I'd like tuh git me uh huntin' license."


This may sound a little conspiratory, but is he trying to undermine Obama on everything on purpose to get dropped from the ticket so Obama can add Hillary as a strategy? Either way, keep 'em coming Greasy Joe!


Posted by Groundhog Boy on Sep-24-2008 03:10:

I suppose it'd just be better if he locked himself away in a room for most of the time and only did scripted appearances.


Posted by Q5echo on Sep-24-2008 04:14:

quote:
Originally posted by Capitalizt
Q5 you are such a partisan hack that you are making something out of nothing here. Honestly WTF are you talking about? I see nothing at all wrong with what Biden said. How exactly does it "torpedo" the Obama campaign?


i see you're as ignorant about American history as he is. here's a history lesson for you and Slo-Joe Biden...1) the stock market crash he's refering to was in 1929. FDR wasn't in office until 1933. 2) FDR never appeared on television.
....stay tuned for another installment of Gaffe-a-Day Vice President


Posted by jerZ07002 on Sep-24-2008 04:21:

quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
i see you're as ignorant about American history as he is. here's a history lesson for you and Slo-Joe Biden...1) the stock market crash he's refering to was in 1929. FDR wasn't in office until 1933. 2) FDR never appeared on television.
....stay tuned for another installment of Gaffe-a-Day Vice President


yeah - that was clearly herbert hoover, probably the second worst president of all time, right after dubyah (and at one point i said it was too early to rank bush that low - how i've had a change of heart over the past few months).


do you have a cite for that quote? I didn't like the biden pick myself, but it beats the alternative, a creationist redneck who wants to duke it out with russia.


Posted by The17sss on Sep-24-2008 04:29:

quote:
Originally posted by jerZ07002
probably the second worst president of all time, right after dubyah

do you have a cite for that quote? I didn't like the biden pick myself, but it beats the alternative, a creationist redneck who wants to duke it out with russia.


That's a gross oversimplification of Palin. She "wants to duke it out with Russia"? Note: she pushed for evolution and creationism to BOTH be taught in schools together.

And you're leaving out Jimmy Carter on the "worst of" list. He's numero uno.

Biden's cite:


Posted by jerZ07002 on Sep-24-2008 04:40:

quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
That's a gross oversimplification of Palin. She "wants to duke it out with Russia"? Note: she pushed for evolution and creationism to BOTH be taught in schools together.


that's like pushing for schools to teach that the earth is flat or round. the children should just decide that issue, right?


quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
And you're leaving out Jimmy Carter on the "worst of" list. He's numero uno.

carter didn't destroy 60 years of goodwill and 50 years of constitutional law jurisprudence, and eviscerate an enormous budget surplus.


quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
Biden's cite:



thanks - what a dumbass. the irony being that he just finished saying 'follow someone who knows what he is talking about.'


Posted by Q5echo on Sep-24-2008 04:49:

quote:
Originally posted by jerZ07002
a creationist redneck who wants to duke it out with russia.



wow man, i pegged you smarter than that. by that standard Powell, Albright, and Sarkozy all want to duke it out with Russia.

what you just said IMO defines exactly what is wrong in modern politics.


Posted by jerZ07002 on Sep-24-2008 04:55:

quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
wow man, i pegged you smarter than that. by that standard Powell, Albright, and Sarkozy all want to duke it out with Russia.

what you just said IMO defines exactly what is wrong in modern politics.


she called herself a redneck. i was only paraphrasing. (EDIT - or maybe not, i thought i read that, but apparently her daughter's baby's daddy called himself a redneck - my bad) To be entirely honest, the woman's views scare the hell out of me.

in any case, during that interview with the 5 secretaries of state, powell said that the russian conflict was a direct result of georgian aggression. I doubt he thinks we should get too firm with russia. I don't know albright's views, and i'm no fan of sarkozy. I'm a huge fan of powell, so anything he says i will listen to intently.


Posted by The17sss on Sep-24-2008 05:02:

quote:
Originally posted by jerZ07002
that's like pushing for schools to teach that the earth is flat or round. the children should just decide that issue, right?


carter didn't destroy 60 years of goodwill and 50 years of constitutional law jurisprudence, and eviscerate an enormous budget surplus.



haha no man I'm just saying it's not one sided, like how a lot of people say she wants just creationism taught in school. I went to catholic school for 10 years and they "taught" both even there... just giving us all sides to let us make the decisions for ourselves.


About Carter... No he just did the following (to name a few):

-Gas lines, 13.5% inflation, 21.5% prime interest rate, 7% unemployment, had to order government controlls of thermostats in commercial buildings to "conserve energy"

-Signed American ownership (and a massive strategic point) of the Panama Canal back to Panama and into the hands of an unelected general.

-invited Rob Mugabe to the white house in 1980 and fully supported his rise to power in Rhodesia, even though a different guy was elected prime minister. Carter got the world press to declare that election null and void, and look what's happened under Mugabe since.

-allowed american hostanges to stay in tehran for 444 days... thinking dialogue would set them free. no surprise they were released the day Regan was sworn in.

-Hugo Chavez was saved from recall by the voters in Venezuela in 2004 with Carter "monitoring" the election. The election was suspicious on many fronts. The exit polls conducted by an independent New York poling firm declared one half hour before the polls closed that Chavez had been defeated. When the official results were announced, Chavez was declared the winner by nearly the exact opposite percentages as the independent poll had determined. Jimmy Carter certified the Chavez victory anyway.

-In 1994, without governmental authority, Jimmy Carter went to North Korea and brokered a deal with Kim Jung Il that was supposed to keep that rogue state from attaining nuclear weapons. Jimmy's "negotiation" called for the United States to provide the North Koreans with $4 billion worth of light water reactors and $100 million in oil in exchange for a promise not to develop weapons plus assurances that inspectors would be allowed in. On Aug. 28, 2003 North Korea announced that it possessed nuclear weapons.

-Perhaps the most egregious and far reaching of the Jimmy Carter failures was his bringing down of the Shah of Iran in 1979, to be replaced by radical Muslim cleric Ayatollah Khomeini. The history of Iran is such that a secular government friendly to both the West and their trading partners along the ancient trade routes, such as India and China, had been an important stabilizing element in Mid-east politics for centuries. Jimmy Carter pressured the Shah, a longtime friend of the United States, to leave Iran. Then he denied him asylum and medical treatment. At the same time he supported the fundamentalist Mullahs who opposed the Shah. A religious revolution followed and the rise of Muslim fundamentalism had begun in the Middle East. The terrorism and overall unrest that plagues the world today can be properly traced to this specific failure of the Jimmy Carter presidency.

-


Posted by jerZ07002 on Sep-24-2008 05:05:

quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
haha no man I'm just saying it's not one sided, like how a lot of people say she wants just creationism taught in school. I went to catholic school for 10 years and they "taught" both even there... just giving us all sides to let us make the decisions for ourselves.


About Carter... No he just did the following (to name a few):

-Gas lines, 13.5% inflation, 21.5% prime interest rate, 7% unemployment, had to order government controlls of thermostats in commercial buildings to "conserve energy"

-Signed American ownership (and a massive strategic point) of the Panama Canal back to Panama and into the hands of an unelected general.

-invited Rob Mugabe to the white house in 1980 and fully supported his rise to power in Rhodesia, even though a different guy was elected prime minister. Carter got the world press to declare that election null and void, and look what's happened under Mugabe since.

-allowed american hostanges to stay in tehran for 444 days... thinking dialogue would set them free. no surprise they were released the day Regan was sworn in.

-Hugo Chavez was saved from recall by the voters in Venezuela in 2004 with Carter "monitoring" the election. The election was suspicious on many fronts. The exit polls conducted by an independent New York poling firm declared one half hour before the polls closed that Chavez had been defeated. When the official results were announced, Chavez was declared the winner by nearly the exact opposite percentages as the independent poll had determined. Jimmy Carter certified the Chavez victory anyway.

-In 1994, without governmental authority, Jimmy Carter went to North Korea and brokered a deal with Kim Jung Il that was supposed to keep that rogue state from attaining nuclear weapons. Jimmy's "negotiation" called for the United States to provide the North Koreans with $4 billion worth of light water reactors and $100 million in oil in exchange for a promise not to develop weapons plus assurances that inspectors would be allowed in. On Aug. 28, 2003 North Korea announced that it possessed nuclear weapons.

-Perhaps the most egregious and far reaching of the Jimmy Carter failures was his bringing down of the Shah of Iran in 1979, to be replaced by radical Muslim cleric Ayatollah Khomeini. The history of Iran is such that a secular government friendly to both the West and their trading partners along the ancient trade routes, such as India and China, had been an important stabilizing element in Mid-east politics for centuries. Jimmy Carter pressured the Shah, a longtime friend of the United States, to leave Iran. Then he denied him asylum and medical treatment. At the same time he supported the fundamentalist Mullahs who opposed the Shah. A religious revolution followed and the rise of Muslim fundamentalism had begun in the Middle East. The terrorism and overall unrest that plagues the world today can be properly traced to this specific failure of the Jimmy Carter presidency.

-


i'm no presidential historian so we'll just call it a tie between bush and carter. the list of bush gaffes is surely to be as long, if not longer, when the consequences of his administration have time to fully play out. remember, this financial crisis is already being called the worst since the depression. think about that? if we are going to blame the president for all economic conditions occurring during his term, we need to remember that bush had 8 years to correct the path of easy money and predatory lending. Everyone thinking home ownership is their god given right (which bush championed) is the root of the current economic problem.

as for carter's foreign policy mis-steps, i'm not going to attempt to defend anything as i'm not fully informed on those situations. However, think about the anti-americanism that has spread throughout the world in the past 8 years. That doesn't come easily.

I'm not even going to start listing bush's negatives because we all know about them.


Posted by Krypton on Sep-24-2008 05:16:

quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
haha no man I'm just saying it's not one sided, like how a lot of people say she wants just creationism taught in school. I went to catholic school for 10 years and they "taught" both even there... just giving us all sides to let us make the decisions for ourselves.


About Carter... No he just did the following (to name a few):

-Gas lines, 13.5% inflation, 21.5% prime interest rate, 7% unemployment, had to order government controlls of thermostats in commercial buildings to "conserve energy"

-Signed American ownership (and a massive strategic point) of the Panama Canal back to Panama and into the hands of an unelected general.

-invited Rob Mugabe to the white house in 1980 and fully supported his rise to power in Rhodesia, even though a different guy was elected prime minister. Carter got the world press to declare that election null and void, and look what's happened under Mugabe since.

-allowed american hostanges to stay in tehran for 444 days... thinking dialogue would set them free. no surprise they were released the day Regan was sworn in.

-Hugo Chavez was saved from recall by the voters in Venezuela in 2004 with Carter "monitoring" the election. The election was suspicious on many fronts. The exit polls conducted by an independent New York poling firm declared one half hour before the polls closed that Chavez had been defeated. When the official results were announced, Chavez was declared the winner by nearly the exact opposite percentages as the independent poll had determined. Jimmy Carter certified the Chavez victory anyway.

-In 1994, without governmental authority, Jimmy Carter went to North Korea and brokered a deal with Kim Jung Il that was supposed to keep that rogue state from attaining nuclear weapons. Jimmy's "negotiation" called for the United States to provide the North Koreans with $4 billion worth of light water reactors and $100 million in oil in exchange for a promise not to develop weapons plus assurances that inspectors would be allowed in. On Aug. 28, 2003 North Korea announced that it possessed nuclear weapons.

-Perhaps the most egregious and far reaching of the Jimmy Carter failures was his bringing down of the Shah of Iran in 1979, to be replaced by radical Muslim cleric Ayatollah Khomeini. The history of Iran is such that a secular government friendly to both the West and their trading partners along the ancient trade routes, such as India and China, had been an important stabilizing element in Mid-east politics for centuries. Jimmy Carter pressured the Shah, a longtime friend of the United States, to leave Iran. Then he denied him asylum and medical treatment. At the same time he supported the fundamentalist Mullahs who opposed the Shah. A religious revolution followed and the rise of Muslim fundamentalism had begun in the Middle East. The terrorism and overall unrest that plagues the world today can be properly traced to this specific failure of the Jimmy Carter presidency.

-


What's so different between Carter and your man in the white house?


Posted by The17sss on Sep-24-2008 05:24:

quote:
Originally posted by jerZ07002
i'm no presidential historian so we'll just call it a tie between bush and carter. the list of bush gaffes is surely to be as long, if not longer, when the consequences of his administration have time to fully play out. remember, this financial crisis is already being called the worst since the depression. think about that? if we are going to blame the president for all economic conditions occurring during his term, we need to remember that bush had 8 years to correct the path of easy money and predatory lending. Everyone thinking home ownership is their god given right (which bush championed) is the root of the current economic problem.


lol... yeah it may be a tie. Imagine if Carter had 8 years instead of 4... who knows what would have happened. I have to say though, there is plenty of blame to go around on the democratic side. I mean, shit man... do you realize the Bush administration tried 12 different times to put oversight into Freddie and Fannie and was shot down by Chris Dodd and his cronies? Clinton signed into law in 1995 a bill that forced lenders to give loans to people who weren't qualified, or didn't have to prove they were or even that they had a job! I call that buying votes. But still.. read this man, it's quite telling:

How The Democrats Caused the Financial Crisis:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?...id=aSKSoiNbnQY0

And in the NY Times back in 1997, you see this--->

"The chairman of the House Banking Committee called today for an investigation into the investment practices of Freddie Mac, the Congressional-chartered, shareholder-owned mortgage finance company, saying it had abused the preferential borrowing terms it enjoys through its ties to the Government. Representative Jim Leach, Republican of Iowa, said Freddie Mac -- short for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation -- had borrowed $125 million in the bond markets on Monday at 6.99 percent, an interest rate reflecting the market's belief that the Treasury had effectively guaranteed repayment. Freddie Mac, whose charter calls for it to invest primarily in mortgages and mortgage securities, then used the $125 million to buy corporate bonds issued by the Philip Morris Companies with identical 10-year maturities yielding 7.68 percent. Mr. Leach said that such an investment strategy might be legal, but that it was not appropriate. 'Freddie Mac was established by an act of Congress for a specific purpose: to advance home ownership, not to facilitate tobacco sales,' he said. 'What Freddie Mac's action amounts to is taxpayer subsidization of corporate arbitrage and, implicitly, the tobacco industry.'''

So all these people that hated tobacco, running down Big Tobacco, and here they are investing in it with your mortgage money! In 1997, run by Democrats at the same time. So it kept getting worse and worse, and finally in 2003 Bush proposed the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis, which was a new agency to oversee Fannie and Freddie, which is an admission that it was a bunch of thieves running the place. Why do you need a commission to oversee them? Why can't you just apply the law to them? If there are people in there violating the charter with Congress, then get rid of them. Have investigations. Well, here's what happened. Even though Bush proposed a new oversight committee, the Democrats said no way. They cried foul. Barney Frank said these two entities, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, they're not facing any kind of financial crisis. He accused Bush of wanting this oversight committee so he could weaken the bargaining power of poorer families. Weaken the bargaining power? You as a family member never interact with Fannie or Freddie unless you're not putting enough down, in which case Fannie or Freddie might not buy your mortgage, the bank might tell you, "You gotta throw a little more in here, or Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae won't buy it, and we don't want it if they won't buy it cause all we want is to give you this mortgage and get rid of it. We're gonna dump it somewhere else, we're gonna package it with other mortgages, what your good old S&L would do or your bank."


Posted by The17sss on Sep-24-2008 05:25:

quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
What's so different between Carter and your man in the white house?


everything. are you serious? besides... the discussion is about who the worst president ever is, and my man Jerz left out Carter. I just wanted to refresh his memory


Posted by jerZ07002 on Sep-24-2008 05:35:

quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
lol... yeah it may be a tie. Imagine if Carter had 8 years instead of 4... who knows what would have happened. I have to say though, there is plenty of blame to go around on the democratic side. I mean, shit man... do you realize the Bush administration tried 12 different times to put oversight into Freddie and Fannie and was shot down by Chris Dodd and his cronies? Clinton signed into law in 1995 a bill that forced lenders to give loans to people who weren't qualified, or didn't have to prove they were or even that they had a job! I call that buying votes. But still.. read this man, it's quite telling:

How The Democrats Caused the Financial Crisis:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?...id=aSKSoiNbnQY0

And in the NY Times back in 1997, you see this--->

"The chairman of the House Banking Committee called today for an investigation into the investment practices of Freddie Mac, the Congressional-chartered, shareholder-owned mortgage finance company, saying it had abused the preferential borrowing terms it enjoys through its ties to the Government. Representative Jim Leach, Republican of Iowa, said Freddie Mac -- short for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation -- had borrowed $125 million in the bond markets on Monday at 6.99 percent, an interest rate reflecting the market's belief that the Treasury had effectively guaranteed repayment. Freddie Mac, whose charter calls for it to invest primarily in mortgages and mortgage securities, then used the $125 million to buy corporate bonds issued by the Philip Morris Companies with identical 10-year maturities yielding 7.68 percent. Mr. Leach said that such an investment strategy might be legal, but that it was not appropriate. 'Freddie Mac was established by an act of Congress for a specific purpose: to advance home ownership, not to facilitate tobacco sales,' he said. 'What Freddie Mac's action amounts to is taxpayer subsidization of corporate arbitrage and, implicitly, the tobacco industry.'''

So all these people that hated tobacco, running down Big Tobacco, and here they are investing in it with your mortgage money! In 1997, run by Democrats at the same time. So it kept getting worse and worse, and finally in 2003 Bush proposed the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis, which was a new agency to oversee Fannie and Freddie, which is an admission that it was a bunch of thieves running the place. Why do you need a commission to oversee them? Why can't you just apply the law to them? If there are people in there violating the charter with Congress, then get rid of them. Have investigations. Well, here's what happened. Even though Bush proposed a new oversight committee, the Democrats said no way. They cried foul. Barney Frank said these two entities, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, they're not facing any kind of financial crisis. He accused Bush of wanting this oversight committee so he could weaken the bargaining power of poorer families. Weaken the bargaining power? You as a family member never interact with Fannie or Freddie unless you're not putting enough down, in which case Fannie or Freddie might not buy your mortgage, the bank might tell you, "You gotta throw a little more in here, or Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae won't buy it, and we don't want it if they won't buy it cause all we want is to give you this mortgage and get rid of it. We're gonna dump it somewhere else, we're gonna package it with other mortgages, what your good old S&L would do or your bank."


i'm no champion for democrats. i agree that blame should be spread all around. at the end of the day the blame lies with predatory lenders (mostly mortgage brokers and bankers who were divorced from any risk in signing the loan packages and profited entirely from the upfront fees), (mostly with) overextended consumers, and the credit rating agencies. Perhaps investment banks played a role as well by pushing rating agencies to give better scores or by hiding information about the true risk of the packaged loans, but i don't know that so i will give them the benefit of the doubt (and i'm too lazy to look for articles about the issue).

Ironically, i don't think an oversight board would have helped much. Congress, whether democratic or republican, has proven its ineptitude at dealing with marginally difficult issues (and this is surely not marginally difficult - it's patently difficult). If the credit agencies were doing their job investors could properly gauge the risk associated with the CDOs.


Posted by The17sss on Sep-24-2008 05:58:

yeah... I'm looking to buy a new house soon and all I can say is, thank the lord i'm not a seller right now


Posted by Q5echo on Sep-24-2008 08:45:

quote:
Originally posted by jerZ07002
in any case, during that interview with the 5 secretaries of state, powell said that the russian conflict was a direct result of georgian aggression. I'm a huge fan of powell, so anything he says i will listen to intently. I doubt he thinks we should get too firm with russia.


Powell said Russia acted "predictably" as in "brutal and foolish" with "a lot of reasons to have provocations in the area".

quote:
Amanpour "if Russia is (the aggressor) and you have to, you know, keep your NATO allies' security, aren't you then committed?"

Powell "Under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which is the NATO Treaty, when one member of the alliance is attacked from abroad -- meaning outside the NATO geographic limits -- then all members of NATO treat that as an attack..."But it wasn't. It's over. The Russians are the offenders right now. And we have to see that. We cannot say to the Russians, We are not going to allow the Georgians or Ukrainians or anyone else to start down the path toward NATO membership. It's not for the Russians to decide that."

>LINK<


isn't that pretty much what Palin said in the un-edited version of the Gibson interview? yes it was, but Gibson didn't want you to see that. he wanted you to think she's a cold blooded loose cannon. i think he succeeded.


here is what Albright thinks:

quote:
AMANPOUR: Now you've got Russia invading Georgia. Is the advice to the next president of the United States therefore, you have to go to war against Russia in order to protect your NATO allies?

ALBRIGHT: ...I also think that countries have the right to choose whatever alliance they want to be in. And the main thing, while I fully agree that we can't go back to the Cold War and have a really very bad adversarial relationship with Russia, Russia cannot think that independent countries on its border are a threat to them.

So I think -- I personally believe that we need to go forward with the Membership Action Plan for Georgia and for Ukraine, and keep explaining that it is not a threat.


exactly the same thing Palin said.


Posted by Lebezniatnikov on Sep-25-2008 04:16:

quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
Powell said Russia acted "predictably" as in "brutal and foolish" with "a lot of reasons to have provocations in the area".



isn't that pretty much what Palin said in the un-edited version of the Gibson interview? yes it was, but Gibson didn't want you to see that. he wanted you to think she's a cold blooded loose cannon. i think he succeeded.


here is what Albright thinks:



exactly the same thing Palin said.


You truly believe that Sarah Palin knew what the Membership Action Plan was? You're far more delusional than I thought.


Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Sep-25-2008 04:28:

i dont care if biden is a child rapist and worships the devil. he's still more qualified to be VP than that other slut.


Posted by The17sss on Sep-25-2008 06:54:

quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i dont care if biden is a child rapist and worships the devil. he's still more qualified to be VP than that other slut.


at devil worship comment


Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Sep-25-2008 07:38:

quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i dont care if biden is a child rapist and worships the devil. he's still more qualified to be VP than that other slut.


seriously Q5...how can you be playing partisan paul of 33 partisan lane, partisanville, when your VP is such a useless stupid bitch?


Posted by Lebezniatnikov on Sep-25-2008 11:30:

quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
seriously Q5...how can you be playing partisan paul of 33 partisan lane, partisanville, when your VP is such a useless stupid bitch?


More to the point, ask him to provide one reason to vote for her. He'll start talking about Obama instead.


Posted by MisterOpus1 on Sep-25-2008 13:32:

quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
haha no man I'm just saying it's not one sided, like how a lot of people say she wants just creationism taught in school. I went to catholic school for 10 years and they "taught" both even there... just giving us all sides to let us make the decisions for ourselves.
-


Then you received a rather bad version of biology altogether then.

Teaching "both" sides creates the illusion that there are two sides when in fact there is and always has been one, at least that's what the evidence has presented us for over the past 130 years or so.

But if you're privy on believing that there is two sides to the factual evidence presented, I'm game to hear and debate that "other" side known as creationism whenever you are.


Posted by Capitalizt on Sep-25-2008 13:39:

Have a look at Palin's demon-hunting pastor in Alaska:




Pages (4): [1] 2 3 4 »

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.