Republicans Are People Too

[KC]

OK, this is a really weird social media campaign. Please tell me I'm not the only one who thinks so. I don't even see how it benefits Republicans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iff7mNsGK50

[iustitia]

I stopped at Ikea furniture. Pretty gay political campaign.

So what, GOP is going hipster?

[Green Arrow]

Uhhh...

[KC]

I stopped at Ikea furniture. Pretty gay political campaign.

So what, GOP is going hipster?

They're certainly trying. They're even using a vintage campaign slogan. "Republicans Are People Too" was first used to deal with the fallout from the Watergate scandal:


That slogan, however, might sound familiar to some of the party’s greybeards. In 1974, when the heavily damaged GOP brand was reeling from the Watergate scandal that brought down Richard Nixon, the Republican National Committee launched its own “Republicans Are People Too” initiative in an attempt to recast the party before a skeptical public.

http://news.yahoo.com/new--republicans-are-people-too--ad-campaign-repeats-slogan-gop-used-after-watergate-scandal-185625506.html

[nic34]

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

[nic34]

Whatsamatter GOP, the Chelsea Clinton name hate derangement not working out?

[texan]

I never saw this

[KC]

I never saw this

It's a social media campaign, (badly) targeting Facebook and Twitter users. This is not a TV spot.

[Dr. Who]

I only have one question - who is the target audience? Centrists?

[donttread]

OK, this is a really weird social media campaign. Please tell me I'm not the only one who thinks so. I don't even see how it benefits Republicans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iff7mNsGK50

Republicans are people however, neocons seem to lack human DNA, compassion or foresight

[midcan5]

'Republicans are people who care.' They lost me there unless this was done in the fifties. Paul Ryan? Ted Cruz? really? And please no tough love apologies.

"Mr. Ryan’s budget "will hurt hungry children, poor families, vulnerable seniors and workers who cannot find employment," the bishops wrote in an April letter to the House. "These cuts are unjustified and wrong."... Mr. Ryan responded that he was helping the poor by eliminating their dependence on the government. And yet he has failed to explain how he would make them self-sufficient — how, in fact, a radical transformation of government would magically turn around an economy that is starving for assistance. At a time when state and local government layoffs are the principal factor in unemployment, the Ryan budget would cut aid to desperate governments by at least 20 percent, far below historical levels, on top of other cuts to mass transit and highway spending." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/11/opinion/paul-ryans-cramped-vision.html

"Today, 46 million Americans live in poverty, or 15 percent of the population. Some 20 percent of all children live in poverty. Nearly 40 percent of black children do....Yet the Paul Ryan budget would take two-thirds of its non-military cuts from low-income programs like Medicaid, food stamps, job training and Pell grants for college, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. While the Ryan plan would cut the tax rate for the rich to 25 percent, the non-partisan Tax Policy Center reports taxes for those who make $30,000 or less would go up." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-madrick/republicans-poverty_b_1837962.html

"The GOP legislation awaiting Romney's signature isn't simply a return to the era of George W. Bush. From abortion rights and gun laws to tax giveaways and energy policy, it's far worse. Measures that have already sailed through the Republican House would roll back clean-air protections, gut both Medicare and Medicaid, lavish trillions in tax cuts on billionaires while raising taxes on the poor, and slash everything from college aid to veteran benefits. In fact, the tenets of Ryan Republicanism are so extreme that they even offend the pioneers of trickle-down economics. "Ryan takes out the ax and goes after programs for the poor – which is the last thing you ought to cut," says David Stockman, who served as Ronald Reagan's budget director. "It's ideology run amok.""
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/mitt-romneys-real-agenda-20120928

[Mac-7]

Republicans are people however, neocons seem to lack human DNA, compassion or foresight

According to the warped logic used on this board neocons are militarists.

i guess you're saying that when the pacifists/isolationists stick their heads in the sand and offer their ass as a target for our highly esteemed and respected Muslim friends that is being compassionate?

[Mac-7]

'Republicans are people who care.' They lost me there unless this was done in the fifties. Paul Ryan? Ted Cruz? really? And please no tough love apologies.

"Mr. Ryan’s budget "will hurt hungry children, poor families, vulnerable seniors and workers who cannot find employment," the bishops wrote in an April letter to the House. "These cuts are unjustified and wrong."... Mr. Ryan responded that he was helping the poor by eliminating their dependence on the government. And yet he has failed to explain how he would make them self-sufficient — how, in fact, a radical transformation of government would magically turn around an economy that is starving for assistance. At a time when state and local government layoffs are the principal factor in unemployment, the Ryan budget would cut aid to desperate governments by at least 20 percent, far below historical levels, on top of other cuts to mass transit and highway spending." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/11/opinion/paul-ryans-cramped-vision.html

"Today, 46 million Americans live in poverty, or 15 percent of the population. Some 20 percent of all children live in poverty. Nearly 40 percent of black children do....Yet the Paul Ryan budget would take two-thirds of its non-military cuts from low-income programs like Medicaid, food stamps, job training and Pell grants for college, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. While the Ryan plan would cut the tax rate for the rich to 25 percent, the non-partisan Tax Policy Center reports taxes for those who make $30,000 or less would go up." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-madrick/republicans-poverty_b_1837962.html

"The GOP legislation awaiting Romney's signature isn't simply a return to the era of George W. Bush. From abortion rights and gun laws to tax giveaways and energy policy, it's far worse. Measures that have already sailed through the Republican House would roll back clean-air protections, gut both Medicare and Medicaid, lavish trillions in tax cuts on billionaires while raising taxes on the poor, and slash everything from college aid to veteran benefits. In fact, the tenets of Ryan Republicanism are so extreme that they even offend the pioneers of trickle-down economics. "Ryan takes out the ax and goes after programs for the poor – which is the last thing you ought to cut," says David Stockman, who served as Ronald Reagan's budget director. "It's ideology run amok.""
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/mitt-romneys-real-agenda-20120928

on the other hand, 50 years of mindless government handouts to low income Americans has not lifted anyone out of poverty.

it only makes those people lazy and more dependent on others for their daily bread.

[Chris]

According to the warped logic used on this board neocons are militarists.

i guess you're saying that when the pacifists/isolationists stick their heads in the sand and offer their ass as a target for our highly esteemed and respected Muslim friends that is being compassionate?


Neocons are militarists.


And Republicans are not people.

[Captain Obvious]

I think this is a broad brush swipe attempt at damage control and brand restoration/expansion.

Kinda cheezy and rhetorical but some morons might buy into it. I'm guessing anyone with a half ounce of grey matter is going to just chuckle at it.

[Mac-7]

Neocons are militarists.

.

You mean they believe in national defense.

Something that the neolibs around here have not yet learned.

[Chris]

You mean they believe in national defense.

Something that the neolibs around here have not yet learned.


So you choose a euphemism for my dysphemism. The Department of Defense ought to be renamed the Department of Offense.

[Mac-7]

I think this is a broad brush swipe attempt at damage control and brand restoration/expansion.

Kinda cheezy and rhetorical but some morons might buy into it. I'm guessing anyone with a half ounce of grey matter is going to just chuckle at it.

Its kind of surrendering the field to libs who stick pins through their eyelids.

if you have to remind everyone that your not stiff and square then you probably are.

the video was created by a former Romney consultant.

[Mac-7]

So you choose a euphemism for my dysphemism. The Department of Defense ought to be renamed the Department of Offense.

Since you like one-size-fits-all labels that are basically meaningless I thought you might appreciate one for yourself also.

[Chris]

Since you like one-size-fits-all labels that are basically meaningless I thought you might appreciate one for yourself also.

I just spent half the day yesterday arguing against one-size-fits-all Common Core. I think you just like to make things up, mac.

[Mac-7]

I just spent half the day yesterday arguing against one-size-fits-all Common Core. I think you just like to make things up, mac.

Where national defense is concerned you are very predictable.

Neolibs are agin it if it involves using military force.

[PolWatch]

hmm...repubs are people? Guess after the gop had mitt leading the party and talk of running him again, they felt the need to prove he really is human. I wonder if this is an indication that they realize their candidates don't seem to connect well with over 47% of the population? How long would it take for the fella with the tats & beard to get into a gop rally? methinks they doth protest too much....

[Mac-7]

hmm...repubs are people? Guess after the gop had mitt leading the party and talk of running him again, they felt the need to prove he really is human. I wonder if this is an indication that they realize their candidates don't seem to connect well with over 47% of the population? How long would it take for the fella with the tats & beard to get into a gop rally? methinks they doth protest too much....

The GOP does not connect well with welfare bums, homosexuals, single moms with a different father for every child and minorities who think the law does not apply to them.

But now that you mention it that's getting close to 47% isn't it?

[PolWatch]

The GOP does not connect well with welfare bums, homosexuals, single moms with a different father for every child and minorities who think the law does not apply to them.

But now that you mention it that's getting close to 47% isn't it?

your response is a perfect example of WHY the gop felt the need to create something like this campaign. Thank you for clearing up any questions.

[Mac-7]

your response is a perfect example of WHY the gop felt the need to create something like this campaign. Thank you for clearing up any questions.

Sure.

what they should tell the 47% crowd is that the GOP will not cut their welfare checks.

[Chris]

Where national defense is concerned you are very predictable.

Neolibs are agin it if it involves using military force.


Yes, I'm libertarian and noninterventionist. Tell me something I don't know.

Seems to me neolibs have joined you neocons as neo-neocons, warmongers all. Politics makes for strange bedfellows.

[Mac-7]

Yes, I'm libertarian and noninterventionist. Tell me something I don't know.

Seems to me neolibs have joined you neocons as neo-neocons, warmongers all. Politics makes for strange bedfellows.

"Noninterventionists" are the ones who want to fight the next war on US soil.

Destroy American cities and make Americans the displaced refugees instead of our enemies.

[Chris]

"Noninterventionists" are the ones who want to fight the next war on US soil.

Destroy American cities and make Americans the displaced refugees instead of our enemies.

Now you're inventing new definitions for old words.

I think PolWatch is right, you're the reason the video was made.

[Mac-7]

Now you're inventing new definitions for old words.



So do you.

anyone who disagrees with the isolationists is a neocon, right?

[Chris]

So do you.

anyone who disagrees with the isolationists is a neocon, right?

No, wrong again, between interventionist neocons and isolationists are noninterventionists like myself.

Have you ever considered an appearance on the Gong Show?

[Mac-7]

No, wrong again, between interventionist neocons and isolationists are noninterventionists like myself.

Have you ever considered an appearance on the Gong Show?

And in your world dealing with Isis in Iraq is something only a neocon would consider, right?

[Chris]

And in your world dealing with Isis in Iraq is something only a neocon would consider, right?

Gong. No.

[Captain Obvious]

the video was created by a former Romney consultant.

The "zinger" dude?

:biglaugh:

[Cigar]

Progressive seem to be generally happier in their daily lives. They also appear to be open to new ideas, or at least open to reevaluating their own positions on a topic without seeing it as a weakness. Maybe it's because they are not driven by fear and hatred to always be on the attack.

I have absolutely nothing against Republicans, I just wish they were happier people who could appreciate that there views other that their own.

[Mac-7]

Gong. No.

You are only making fun of yourself now since you are admitting you can't answer a serious question.

[Captain Obvious]

The GOP does not connect well with welfare bums, homosexuals, single moms with a different father for every child and minorities who think the law does not apply to them.

But now that you mention it that's getting close to 47% isn't it?

Actually, the "we're all just a bunch of white, male, christian bigots" is the image they're trying to distance themselves from.

[Chris]

You are only masking fun of yourself now since you are admitting you can't answer a serious question.

Masking?

I answered. You don't seem to want to engage in discussion. You seem to prefer telling me what you think I think. I'll step aside and let you talk to yourself.

[Mac-7]

The "zinger" dude?

:biglaugh:

I don't know.

but someone who is taken seriously by some members of the republican establishment.

[Captain Obvious]

Progressive seem to be generally happier in their daily lives. They also appear to be open to new ideas, or at least open to reevaluating their own positions on a topic without seeing it as a weakness. Maybe it's because they are not driven by fear and hatred to always be on the attack.

I have absolutely nothing against Republicans, I just wish they were happier people who could appreciate that there views other that their own.

Happy, smart and productive Republicans are called Libertarians.

[PolWatch]

Chris: the masked poster

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608031648449167835&pid=15.1&P=0

[Captain Obvious]

I don't know.

but someone who is taken seriously by some members of the republican establishment.

That's like saying "someone who is taken seriously by North Korea".

:biglaugh:

[Mac-7]

I answered. You don't seem to want to engage in discussion. You seem to prefer telling me what you think I think. I'll step aside and let you talk to yourself.

Ill tell you what you think.

the isolationists like yourself prefer to fight our wars on American soil and destroy American cities rather than engage the enemy on his home turf.

[Cigar]

Why are Republican always afraid and scared of something or someone?

[Mac-7]

That's like saying "someone who is taken seriously by North Korea".

:biglaugh:

Believe me I'm no more impressed with the republican establishment than you are.

but as long as the democrats are worse - and they are - then I will stick with the lesser of two evils.

[PolWatch]

Why are Republican always afraid and scared of something or someone?

it seems to be a policy of divide & conquer...if they can convince the voters that the 'other guy' is the reason they are scared, they will all blindly vote repub so they can be 'safe'....doesn't seem to be working too well for 'em.

[PolWatch]

of course, the dems practice this also....

[Cigar]

it seems to be a policy of divide & conquer...if they can convince the voters that the 'other guy' is the reason they are scared, they will all blindly vote repub so they can be 'safe'....doesn't seem to be working too well for 'em.


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3X7hWKqVfi0/UGch_yDSQtI/AAAAAAAAFog/hk-occLutsQ/s640/Voting-Republican-485x418.jpg (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/28/1331734/-The-Civil-War-never-ended-The-neo-Confederate-tea-party-fights-on)

[Green Arrow]

Why are Republican always afraid and scared of something or someone?

Democrats seem to be scared of Republicans, which is kinda worse, 'cause Republicans are about as terrifying as a pack of red pandas.

[Chris]

Progressive seem to be generally happier in their daily lives. They also appear to be open to new ideas, or at least open to reevaluating their own positions on a topic without seeing it as a weakness. Maybe it's because they are not driven by fear and hatred to always be on the attack.

I have absolutely nothing against Republicans, I just wish they were happier people who could appreciate that there views other that their own.



The problem with progressives is once they've latched onto a seeming problem, usually some form of perceived oppression, they want something done, and anything will do, and any disagreement is cast as heartless--usually leading to unforeseen consequences and worse problems.

[Cigar]

Democrats seem to be scared of Republicans, which is kinda worse, 'cause Republicans are about as terrifying as a pack of red pandas.


That's why a guy like Eric Holder is one of the scariest Democrats on he planet ... he didn't take shit from Republicans ... he gave it back.

There's nothing more scary for Republicans than a Black Man who won't do what he's told.

:grin:

[Green Arrow]

That's why a guy like Eric Holder is one of the scariest Democrats on he planet ... he didn't take shit from Republicans ... he gave it back.

There's nothing more scary for Republicans than a Black Man who won't do what he's told.

:grin:

Again, Eric Holder is about as scary as a pack of red pandas, and nowhere near as cute.

[Captain Obvious]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3X7hWKqVfi0/UGch_yDSQtI/AAAAAAAAFog/hk-occLutsQ/s640/Voting-Republican-485x418.jpg (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/28/1331734/-The-Civil-War-never-ended-The-neo-Confederate-tea-party-fights-on)

That cartoon is equally accurate if you take the slobs caption and change it to "I vote democrat to support the working man" and the money guy's caption to "I vote democrat to keep idiots like this in poverty while the puppets in government that I control with my wealth and power keep them barely alive".

But you way too dumb to understand that part.

[Cigar]

The problem with progressives is once they've latched onto a seeming problem, usually some form of perceived oppression, they want something done, and anything will do, and any disagreement is cast as heartless--usually leading to unforeseen consequences and worse problems.


Like De-funding :laugh:

[Cigar]

Tick Tock

http://preparetodeclare.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/clock-spiral-300x300.jpg (http://preparetodeclare.com/wwn-the-human-extinction-clock-is-ticking/)

[Mac-7]

Like De-funding :laugh:

De-funding welfare is a good idea.

[Chris]

Tick Tock

http://preparetodeclare.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/clock-spiral-300x300.jpg (http://preparetodeclare.com/wwn-the-human-extinction-clock-is-ticking/)

http://i.snag.gy/oBrGs.jpg

[Cigar]

Again, Eric Holder is about as scary as a pack of red pandas, and nowhere near as cute.


That Red Panda sure got a lot of Pink Panties in a bunch :laugh:

[Cigar]

De-funding welfare is a good idea.


De-funding Corporate Welfare is a profetable idea that historically works.

[Mac-7]

http://i.snag.gy/oBrGs.jpg

Compare the debt clock or legalizing pot.

most libertarians will go for the pot all day long.

[Mac-7]

De-funding Corporate Welfare is a profetable idea that historically works.


Why not do both?

no government subsidies to any individual or private company?

[Captain Obvious]

Compare the debt clock or legalizing pot.

most libertarians will go for the pot all day long.

You are a never ending source of utter bullshit.

[Mac-7]

You are a never ending source of utter bullshit.

So you would give up legalizing pot to balance the budget?

[Cigar]

Why not do both?

no government subsidies to any individual or private company?


Because "Wealthy - People" and "Profitable - Corporations" don't require Welfare.

Poor People Do ...

What part don't you get about Welfare?

[Mac-7]

What part don't you get about Welfare?

Welfare creates the need for open borders and illegal aliens who are willing to do the work that lazy welfare bums refuse to do.

[Cigar]

Welfare creates the need for open borders and illegal aliens who are willing to do the work that lazy welfare bums refuse to do.


Corporate Welfare creates an Entitlement Mentality of a Few who are represented in Washington to the tune of Billions :laugh:

Start at the Top ... then work your way down

[Ransom]

of course, the dems practice this also....

But it works for them. Wonder why? Sheeple factor on its' Constituent pool my guess...yours?

[Captain Obvious]

So you would give up legalizing pot to balance the budget?

Completely pointless question on a number of different levels.

Nevermind, I'm sorry I engaged the discussion. Waste of time.

[Mac-7]

Corporate Welfare creates an Entitlement Mentality of a Few who are represented in Washington to the tune of Billions :laugh:

Start at the Top ... then work your way down

am I moving too fast for you to keep up?

we already agreed to end corporate welfare along with the individusl entitlements for the welfare bums.

remember?

[Mac-7]

Completely pointless question on a number of different levels.

Nevermind, I'm sorry I engaged the discussion. Waste of time.

I get your point so further discussion is not needed.

you just want every single item on your agenda and to hell with everyone else.

thats typical libertarian policy.

[Captain Obvious]

I get your point so further discussion is not needed.

you just want every single item on your agenda and to hell with everyone else.

thats typical libertarian policy.

No, I just think you debate/discuss like a jackass and have little to no desire to engage.

[Mac-7]

No, I just think you debate/discuss like a jackass and have little to no desire to engage.

I engaged by asking if you were willing to compromise on any part of your libertarian agenda and so far your answer seems to be no.

[Captain Obvious]

I engaged by asking if you were willing to compromise on any part of your libertarian agenda and so far your answer seems to be no.

No, you suggested that I'm more interested in smoking pot than economics.

That's not debate/discussion, that's trolling.

buh-bye

[Mac-7]

No, you suggested that I'm more interested in smoking pot than economics.

That's not debate/discussion, that's trolling.

buh-bye

I said most libertarians are and you said I was full of bullshit.

so then I asked you which you prefer and you have been tap dancing ever since while avoiding answering the question.

[Safety]

Why are Republican always afraid and scared of something or someone?

It seems to pay off really well....Haliburton, KBR, Blackwater......

[Mac-7]

It seems to pay off really well....Haliburton, KBR, Blackwater......

Bedwetting libs could bid for those jobs if they didn't mind a little personal risk.

[Cigar]

The GOP’s New #IAmARepublican Campaign is Completely Backfiring on Them in Hilarious WaysThe ad is accompanied by a hashtag, #IAmARepublican (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23IAmARepublican&src=tyah)— one that was quickly and hilariously hijacked.

http://aattp.org/the-gops-new-iamarepublican-campaign-is-completely-backfiring-on-them-in-hilarious-ways-screenshotsvideo/

Please feel free to add your own tweet.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/emoticons/rofl.gif

[Captain Obvious]

Crap source

[PolWatch]

Crap source

but some funny stuff....

[Peter1469]

Neocons stretch the term national defense to mean military force is the first or second option....

There is a lot between Neocon and isolationist. To include age old Realpolitik and newer geopolitical theories of defense.

[Mac-7]

Neocons stretch the term national defense to mean military force is the first or second option....

There is a lot between Neocon and isolationist. To include age old Realpolitik and newer geopolitical theories of defense.

We gave Obama a chance to try the isolationists approach following the Iraq War.

he pulled the troops out and largely ignored events there for two years.

while Obama went on vacation, played golf and attacked republicans at big donor fund raisers Iraq festered unnoticed without any US attention.

then suddenly Isis swept out of Syria and overran half of Iraq.

now obumer is paying a little attention and escalations US military presence but it is too little too late.

[iustitia]

LOL OBAMA IS ISOLATIONIST.

Libya
Egypt
Syria
Ukraine
Chad
West Africa
Yemen
Pakistan
Afghanistan
Iraq

Holy shit, if that's isolationism I'd hate to see non-interventionism.

[Mac-7]

LOL OBAMA IS ISOLATIONIST.

Libya
Egypt
Syria
Ukraine
Chad
West Africa
Yemen
Pakistan
Afghanistan
Iraq

Holy shit, if that's isolationism I'd hate to see non-interventionism.

In every example Obama is leading from behind.

hes letting events come to him and reacting.

in Iraq he applied isolationist principles that only true believers could love.

we left Iraq - period.

and the isolationists were so happy that a libertarian idea was being tried.

But we didn't leave for long, did we?

[iustitia]

wtf does leading from behind even mean in the context of imperialism?

In Iraq he didn't get a status of forces agreement meaning Iraq kicked us out.

But I suppose overthrowing Libya, destabilizing Syria, bombing the shit out of Yemen and Pakistan, staying in Afghanistan, and adventurism in Africa isn't 'MURICA enough for you.

[Mac-7]

In Iraq he didn't get a status of forces agreement meaning Iraq kicked us out.



yes that is Obama and Hillary's cover story for the true believers.

According to Obama apologists a distracted and lazy golfer in chief didn't walk away from Iraq.

the Iraqis walked away from us.


But I suppose overthrowing Libya, destabilizing Syria, bombing the shit out of Yemen and Pakistan, staying in Afghanistan, and adventurism in Africa isn't 'MURICA enough for you.

Obama has no rational foreign policy.

he leads from behind when he's not on the golf course.

libya and Egypt and later Syria came to him during the Arab Spring, which when he read about in the newspapers sounded so good that he wanted a piece of the action for his legacy.

but Iraq was not a sideshow.

it was the big story of the last decade and there obama applied the principles Libertarian isolationism and the result is not good.

[iustitia]

Obama's Libertarian isolationism.

I'm done. I fucking can't. It's too late for this stupid shit.

[Mac-7]

Obama's Libertarian isolationism.

I'm done. I fucking can't. It's too late for this stupid shit.

Ok.

just leave your white flag at the door for the next lib isolationist to use.

[silvereyes]

Welfare creates the need for open borders and illegal aliens who are willing to do the work that lazy welfare bums refuse to do.
Wtfs? My, my. You have a severely disdainful opinion of those in need of help.


I engaged by asking if you were willing to compromise on any part of your libertarian agenda and so far your answer seems to be no.
Bullshit. You implied pot is more important to him.

Bedwetting libs could bid for those jobs if they didn't mind a little personal risk.
"Bedwetting libs?" No wonder no one is interested in "engaging" you in your type of "debate." All you really want to do is insult and accuse.

[silvereyes]

Oh and guess what you can do with that white flag.

[Mac-7]

Wtfs? My, my. You have a severely disdainful opinion of those in need of help.


yes, so?


Bullshit. You implied pot is more important to him.

i asked him if it was and he never denied it.


"Bedwetting libs?" No wonder no one is interested in "engaging" you in your type of "debate." All you really want to do is insult and accuse.

those contracts did go unfilled by the isolationist/pacifists.

i merely suggested why.

[Mac-7]

Oh and guess what you can do with that white flag.

I wont do anything with it.

its your flag.

[silvereyes]

Well, it is quite obvious that you think highly of your opinion and that you enjoy playing wi....er...by yourself. All I can tell you is you can keep talking to yourself because until you can debate without acting like you are King of the Shithill no one will indulge you.

You are right about one thing though. Your flag wouldn't be white...it would be brown. (Kind of like what floats in a toilet.)

[Green Arrow]

"Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
- Hermann Goering (1893-1946), Nazi founder of the Gestapo and head of the Luftwaffe

Interesting philosophy you follow there, Mac-7.

[Captain Obvious]

"Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
- Hermann Goering (1893-1946), Nazi founder of the Gestapo and head of the Luftwaffe

Interesting philosophy you follow there, @Mac-7 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1014).

If it steps like a goose...

[Chris]

Obama's Libertarian isolationism.

I'm done. I fucking can't. It's too late for this stupid shit.


So now mac thinks Obama is libertarian. :dang:

[Mac-7]

So now mac thinks Obama is libertarian. :dang:

Obama is a wind vane.

libertarians are the isolationists and recently that has been a popular emotion in America.

[Captain Obvious]

Obama is a wind vane.

libertarians are the isolationists and recently that has been a popular emotion in America.

What kind of vein are you?

[Mac-7]

What kind of vein are you?

No rational argument here but the lib can't just accept the loss and move on quietly.

[Cigar]

No rational argument here but the lib can't just accept the loss and move on quietly.

Can't Accept Loss :rofl:

[Chris]

Obama is a wind vane.

libertarians are the isolationists and recently that has been a popular emotion in America.


Libertarians are noninterventionists. Words mean things. If you're going to distort the language no one will know what you're talking about.

[Mac-7]

Libertarians are noninterventionists. Words mean things. If you're going to distort the language no one will know what you're talking about.

yes, I know.

you'd rather fight Isis in Miami than Baghdad.

[Captain Obvious]

yes, I know.

you'd rather fight Isis in Miami than Baghdad.

Oh yeah, I remember that neocon bullshit line.

Wow, blast from the past.

[del]

Libertarians are noninterventionists. Words mean things. If you're going to distort the language no one will know what you're talking about.

why should we be any different than he is?

[Chris]

yes, I know.

you'd rather fight Isis in Miami than Baghdad.


yes, I know.

If you know libertarians are noninterventionists then why'd you make it up they're isolations? See what I mean about not being understood.


you'd rather fight Isis in Miami than Baghdad.

Oh, sorry, I thought you were talking to me, guess not. Please don't quote me as if you're responding to me when you're not. Work on those communication skills a bit, OK.

[Chris]

why should we be any different than he is?

So is there any way to get through to him? Or are the lights on and no one home.

[del]

So is there any way to get through to him? Or are the lights on and no one home.

we could try a chart...

[Captain Obvious]

we could try a chart...

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/the-creative-process-bar-graph.jpg

[Green Arrow]

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/the-creative-process-bar-graph.jpg

The sad part is, you posted that as a joke but that's pretty true :tongue:

[silvereyes]

Omfg. Thats fucking hilarious! And I don't think the lights are on either.