Topic: Rick Perry drops out.
Ks !KansasxqvM started this discussion 15 years ago #16,449
And endorses Newt Gingrich! OMG... Newt is such a slimeball, I can't even believe he has any support much less a 'top contender'. Honestly, any party that seriously considers a Newt Gingrich presidency is just fucking scary. Goddamn Republicans... how low can you go.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later[^] [v] #282,659
All I have to contribute to this thread is pointing out what a weird name Newt Gingrich is.
Carry on.
Carry on.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 26 minutes later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #282,661
his comments:
> I am suspending my campaign and endorsing Newt Gingrich. Newt is not perfect, but who amongst us is? Nobody is. But there is forgiveness for those who seek God, and I believe in redemption.
> I am suspending my campaign and endorsing Newt Gingrich. Newt is not perfect, but who amongst us is? Nobody is. But there is forgiveness for those who seek God, and I believe in redemption.
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #282,662
@282,659 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
There is also a type of lizard called 'Newt', I think it's quite fitting.
@previous (C)
The 'conservatives' (I lol at that description) are always going on about god. It's disgusting.
There is also a type of lizard called 'Newt', I think it's quite fitting.
@previous (C)
The 'conservatives' (I lol at that description) are always going on about god. It's disgusting.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 43 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #282,677
Team Republican is team retard this election cycle. I suspect the big money wants Obama reelected.
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 18 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #282,679
@previous (D)
There is a large chunk of the voting population who vehemently supports the Republican party right now. It's amazing to me.
There is a large chunk of the voting population who vehemently supports the Republican party right now. It's amazing to me.
squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #282,692
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
A large portion of the population of the US believe that the earth is 6k years old and that cavemen rode dinosaurs. Nothing about stupid americans surprises me.
A large portion of the population of the US believe that the earth is 6k years old and that cavemen rode dinosaurs. Nothing about stupid americans surprises me.
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 23 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #282,697
@previous (squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc)
I am genuinely ashamed of my country about a lot of things. Feelsbadman.
I am genuinely ashamed of my country about a lot of things. Feelsbadman.
HaikerensGuide !10147STMWU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #282,784
Democratic candidates:
Barack Obama
Republican candidates:
Noose Gangrene
Shitt Mormon
Rick Sanatorium
Ron Paul
Barack Obama
Republican candidates:
Noose Gangrene
Shitt Mormon
Rick Sanatorium
Ron Paul
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 58 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #282,804
He is not a top contender. Mitt Romney will definitely win, while Ron Paul will have enough delegates to have influence on the platform.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 23 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #282,818
Apparently, Gingrich's ex isn't done dropping bombs on his conservative image yet. Romney looks set to get the nod. I think Paul should go and try to run anyway as an Independent Party candidate just for full clusterfuck mode.
HaikerensGuide !10147STMWU replied with this 15 years ago, 16 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #282,829
@282,804 (G)
OH BOY! I CAN'T WAIT TO HAVE A MORMON FOR A PRESIDENT! WON'T THAT JUST BE GREAT FOR AMERICA?
OH BOY! I CAN'T WAIT TO HAVE A MORMON FOR A PRESIDENT! WON'T THAT JUST BE GREAT FOR AMERICA?
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #282,834
@previous (HaikerensGuide !10147STMWU)
It won't be any worse than Bush or Barrack, but it won't be any better.
It won't be any worse than Bush or Barrack, but it won't be any better.
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 26 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #282,843
@282,804 (G)
> He is not a top contender.
2nd place is pretty top contender. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/01/19/Mitt-Romney-leads-national-polls/UPI-16091327022156/?spt=hs&or=tn
> Mitt Romney will definitely win, while Ron Paul will have enough delegates to have influence on the platform.
Yeah, Romney will likely get the nomination. I'm very curious about who will be the VP selection, it was interesting last time around.
> He is not a top contender.
2nd place is pretty top contender. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/01/19/Mitt-Romney-leads-national-polls/UPI-16091327022156/?spt=hs&or=tn
> Mitt Romney will definitely win, while Ron Paul will have enough delegates to have influence on the platform.
Yeah, Romney will likely get the nomination. I'm very curious about who will be the VP selection, it was interesting last time around.
HaikerensGuide !10147STMWU replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #282,846
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #282,852
@previous (HaikerensGuide !10147STMWU)
Republican thinking.
Does he love Jebus?
Yes = vote for him
No = get out of my country you godless heathen
Republican thinking.
Does he love Jebus?
Yes = vote for him
No = get out of my country you godless heathen
dw !AIy/L67q.s joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #282,853
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #282,855
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #282,902
@282,843 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
This is the important statistic
> If Paul chose to run for president as a third-party candidate, 18 percent of those polled said they would vote for him, while 44 percent said they would vote for Obama and 32 percent said they would back Romney.
This is the important statistic
> If Paul chose to run for president as a third-party candidate, 18 percent of those polled said they would vote for him, while 44 percent said they would vote for Obama and 32 percent said they would back Romney.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #282,908
@282,818 (H)
It's funny because so many Republicunts bitch that he's "stealing" vote from "legitimate" candidates, but if he ran 3rd party, his supporters are still going to support him regardless of what ticket he runs on, so no matter what he's "stealing" vote. They just don't get it. Votes are earned, not stolen.
And who are they to say what candidates are legitimate. Paul is basically in a strong second place right now, and they're calling on him to drop out to endorse either Santorum or Gingrich to beat Romney. "You're not a serious candidate-drop out of second place to give the guys in 3rd and 4th a chance." Riiiiight. They can fuck off.
It's funny because so many Republicunts bitch that he's "stealing" vote from "legitimate" candidates, but if he ran 3rd party, his supporters are still going to support him regardless of what ticket he runs on, so no matter what he's "stealing" vote. They just don't get it. Votes are earned, not stolen.
And who are they to say what candidates are legitimate. Paul is basically in a strong second place right now, and they're calling on him to drop out to endorse either Santorum or Gingrich to beat Romney. "You're not a serious candidate-drop out of second place to give the guys in 3rd and 4th a chance." Riiiiight. They can fuck off.
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 25 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #282,934
@282,902 (G)
I just hate that Newt is even running. I listen to talk radio and they actually support the fucker. >;/
I just hate that Newt is even running. I listen to talk radio and they actually support the fucker. >;/
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #282,941
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
SC debate:
Paul: Maybe we should follow the Golden Rule in foreign affairs. If other countries treated us like we treat them, we wouldn't like it.
Crowd: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Paul: That's why we need to end the wars, and bring the troops home!
Crowd: WOOOOO! YEAHHHHHHH! WOOOO! YEEAAAAHH!
Most people in the world are retarded.
SC debate:
Paul: Maybe we should follow the Golden Rule in foreign affairs. If other countries treated us like we treat them, we wouldn't like it.
Crowd: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Paul: That's why we need to end the wars, and bring the troops home!
Crowd: WOOOOO! YEAHHHHHHH! WOOOO! YEEAAAAHH!
Most people in the world are retarded.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 25 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #282,966
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #282,972
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> I like Ron Paul, except on foreign affairs.
Only combo I don't understand. I understand liking everything, or liking the foreign affairs and civil liberty stuff, but not the economics.
> I like Ron Paul, except on foreign affairs.
Only combo I don't understand. I understand liking everything, or liking the foreign affairs and civil liberty stuff, but not the economics.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #282,976
@previous (G)
What? I was commenting on the ignorance of the the average Republican in the audience. Even Jesus endorsed some version of the golden rule, yet somehow the Republicans it's not a good moral precept? I disagree with Ron Paul on most stuff, and I think his foreign policy is just as bad as his economic policy.
What? I was commenting on the ignorance of the the average Republican in the audience. Even Jesus endorsed some version of the golden rule, yet somehow the Republicans it's not a good moral precept? I disagree with Ron Paul on most stuff, and I think his foreign policy is just as bad as his economic policy.
q joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #282,978
newt: "obama is the most dangerous president we've had"
what a fucking wacko.
what a fucking wacko.
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #282,981
@282,976 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> his foreign policy is just as bad as his economic policy.
Do you think we should stick our nose in every countries' business?
> his foreign policy is just as bad as his economic policy.
Do you think we should stick our nose in every countries' business?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #282,983
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
No but I think if our economy can support a war effort, and there are people being victims of genocide, etc. in foreign lands, we should use our military power to help bring them out of suffering.
No but I think if our economy can support a war effort, and there are people being victims of genocide, etc. in foreign lands, we should use our military power to help bring them out of suffering.
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #282,987
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I completely agree about extreme cases (genocide is a good example), but that's not what we do. We fuck with all kinds of countries in all kinds of ways. Are you saying there should be standards for us to go by before we can stick our nose in? If so, what would those standards be? Personally I'd say pretty much just genocide and/or mass starvation. We can't continue to create a hundred problems while trying to solve one and costing the American people trillions.
I completely agree about extreme cases (genocide is a good example), but that's not what we do. We fuck with all kinds of countries in all kinds of ways. Are you saying there should be standards for us to go by before we can stick our nose in? If so, what would those standards be? Personally I'd say pretty much just genocide and/or mass starvation. We can't continue to create a hundred problems while trying to solve one and costing the American people trillions.
(Edited 27 seconds later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #282,991
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Well I think we should limit ourselves to 1 war at a time, and I guess we could restrict ourselves to only going into a country whose citizens overwhelmingly as for U.S. intervention (which happened in the Balkans), or a nation that is declared a failed state like Somalia. I'm sure there are some other kinds of scenarios that would warrant justified limited military interaction, but that's the gist of it. It wouldn't be the U.S. entering another country for shits and giggles, natural resources etc.
Well I think we should limit ourselves to 1 war at a time, and I guess we could restrict ourselves to only going into a country whose citizens overwhelmingly as for U.S. intervention (which happened in the Balkans), or a nation that is declared a failed state like Somalia. I'm sure there are some other kinds of scenarios that would warrant justified limited military interaction, but that's the gist of it. It wouldn't be the U.S. entering another country for shits and giggles, natural resources etc.
(Edited 41 seconds later.)
HaikerensGuide !10147STMWU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #282,992
@282,983 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> No but I think if our economy could support a war effort, and there are people being victims of genocide, etc. in foreign lands, we should use our military power to help bring them out of suffering.
Fixed. The economy is too fucked right now.
> No but I think if our economy could support a war effort, and there are people being victims of genocide, etc. in foreign lands, we should use our military power to help bring them out of suffering.
Fixed. The economy is too fucked right now.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #282,994
@previous (HaikerensGuide !10147STMWU)
I wasn't implying that we can afford to go to war today (because we can't really), just that it's conceivable (maybe) that the U.S. will stop being trillions of dollars in debt, and in that scenario, war should be considered a possibility.
I wasn't implying that we can afford to go to war today (because we can't really), just that it's conceivable (maybe) that the U.S. will stop being trillions of dollars in debt, and in that scenario, war should be considered a possibility.
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #282,996
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #282,999
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
We should have removed Saddam from power in '91 when we had NATO on our side to a great extent. I think that the justification Bush used was flimsy, but that good justification existed (the George H.W. Bush assassination attempt, Hussein's genocide attempts against the Kurds, etc.) I also think we picked really shitty timing to go to war. We should have wrapped up Afghanistan, and then if Saddam was still alive, gone in and forced a regime change. Iraq is pretty low on my list of countries that I'd invade to fix, though. Liberia, Somalia, Uganda, Sudan, and so on are significantly worse off, and could benefit by stability and economic assistance offered by the U.S. military much more than Iraq could have.
We should have removed Saddam from power in '91 when we had NATO on our side to a great extent. I think that the justification Bush used was flimsy, but that good justification existed (the George H.W. Bush assassination attempt, Hussein's genocide attempts against the Kurds, etc.) I also think we picked really shitty timing to go to war. We should have wrapped up Afghanistan, and then if Saddam was still alive, gone in and forced a regime change. Iraq is pretty low on my list of countries that I'd invade to fix, though. Liberia, Somalia, Uganda, Sudan, and so on are significantly worse off, and could benefit by stability and economic assistance offered by the U.S. military much more than Iraq could have.
(Edited 35 seconds later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 26 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #283,003
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #283,004
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #283,005
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #283,007
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #283,016
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #283,054
@282,941 (G)
> Paul: Maybe we should follow the Golden Rule in foreign affairs. If other countries treated us like we treat them, we wouldn't like it.
> Crowd: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
What
> Paul: Maybe we should follow the Golden Rule in foreign affairs. If other countries treated us like we treat them, we wouldn't like it.
> Crowd: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
What
Anonymous H replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #283,055
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc replied with this 14 years ago, 17 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #283,061
@previous (H)
Fucking hell. That's shocking. I guess he could have phrased it better though.
Fucking hell. That's shocking. I guess he could have phrased it better though.
(Edited 24 seconds later.)
Anonymous H replied with this 14 years ago, 52 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #283,071
@previous (Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc)
Meh. It was a GOP debate in South Carolina and he was not supporting the war. It's no real surprise he was booed. His mention of bringing the troops home did get a positive reaction though.
Paul's foreign policy is pretty attractive when he's not talking about cutting off humanitarian aid or withdrawing from NATO and the UN.
Meh. It was a GOP debate in South Carolina and he was not supporting the war. It's no real surprise he was booed. His mention of bringing the troops home did get a positive reaction though.
Paul's foreign policy is pretty attractive when he's not talking about cutting off humanitarian aid or withdrawing from NATO and the UN.