On-Topic Mondays Final Debate

[chance1]

Yeah I gotta say as a foreigner I feel pretty insulted by these constant generalizations - even the few I see in people's quotes.

perhaps you channel that feeling of insult ............ and stop your incessant and nonsensical personal attacks on mitt romney

or is he not a person too ??

 

[FuryOfFirestorm]

The point is, foreign policy is not what the election is about. It is not an issue.

Seriously? [Text: Removed by Moderator]

It's a MAJOR issue. A president has to deal with foreign policy on almost a daily basis. I'd say that's pretty damn important. Anyone that can't be diplomatic with our allies or find Syria on a map has no place in the Oval Office.

 

[Benvolio]

Benvolio, you are generalizing and stereotyping in a way that very much resembles racism. You are welcome to discuss economic concept(s) relative to the movement of populations into or out of the US, but please dispense with the race baiting.

The Hispanic vote has become a very important factor in US elections, because of immigration, and they overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Why? How will that vote affect our institutions and economy? How can we discuss the election when this important factor is off limits.
Giancarlo frequently taunts us with his forcast that the Hispanic vote will destroy the Republicans party, but our response is verboten.
- - - Updated - - -[/

 

[FuryOfFirestorm]

I think he's held five different positions on the issue -- crazy.

Romney's done more waffling than a Belgian chef.

 

[JayHawk]

perhaps you channel that feeling of insult ............ and stop your incessant and nonsensical personal attacks on mitt romney

or is he not a person too ??

No you see in this forum we are allowed to say whatever we like about Romney as long as it does not cross specific bounds like the racism mentioned earlier. Why do you take everything about Romney personally as a democrat that is?

p.s. Bob Woodward has no cred with me that was a partisan hatchet job and nothing more. Do i think Obama had things he could have given up sure but we saw how that went during the first two years when he tried to work with the minority pugs. They would agree to something behind closed doors and then demand more when it went public. Their recalcitrance was the reason Obama stopped giving them freebies behind closed doors.

 

[FuryOfFirestorm]

Ann is a pretty sharp lady. A lot sharper than bedwetting liberals give her credit for.

The only thing sharp about Ann are her knees.

 

[opinterph]

The Hispanic vote has become a very important factor in US elections, because of immigration, and they overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Why? How will that vote affect our institutions and economy? How can we discuss the election when this important factor is off limits.
Giancarlo frequently taunts us with his forcast that the Hispanic vote will destroy the Republicans party, but our response is verboten.
- - - Updated - - -[/

Please refer to the PM I sent you on or about June 27.

 

[chance1]

No you see in this forum we are allowed to say whatever we like about Romney as long as it does not cross specific bounds like the racism mentioned earlier. Why do you take everything about Romney personally as a democrat that is?

p.s. Bob Woodward has no cred with me that was a partisan hatchet job and nothing more. Do i think Obama had things he could have given up sure but we saw how that went during the first two years when he tried to work with the minority pugs. They would agree to something behind closed doors and then demand more when it went public. Their recalcitrance was the reason Obama stopped giving them freebies behind closed doors.

what i take personally is a member or members of the forum who troll for their team - and post anything about anyone they please - most of it heinous

then whine about a single member and being insulted

it's just not right

u calling bob woodward a partisan hack suggests u don't know his long history or don't want to

this is not a neocon or even a republican

i've seen him enough times on various cable news programs outlining what he heard and saw - he says it with no malice

not sure why u insist on calling him unreliable or partisan

 

[JayHawk]

what i take personally is a member or members of the forum who troll for their team - and post anything about anyone they please - most of it heinous

then whine about a single member and being insulted

it's just not right

u calling bob woodward a partisan hack suggests u don't know his long history or don't want to

this is not a neocon or even a republican

i've seen him enough times on various cable news programs outlining what he heard and saw - he says it with no malice

not sure why u insist on calling him unreliable or partisan

About 90 percent of what you post is exactly that... whining about another persons behavior or how they have said what they said.... very very rarely do you actually bring in some alternative POV. So it is rather amusing to see you complain about what you do the most.

So you can see partisanship.... coool... do democrats look blue and stuff?

 

[chance1]

About 90 percent of what you post is exactly that... whining about another persons behavior or how they have said what they said.... very very rarely do you actually bring in some alternative POV. So it is rather amusing to see you complain about what you do the most.

So you can see partisanship.... coool... do democrats look blue and stuff?

no answer about woodward i see

convenient for u

but telling

 

[JayHawk]

no answer about woodward i see

convenient for u

but telling

Umm what do you think me calling your ability to "see partisanship" as bullshit was?

i will have to reference you back to your own statement where you stated obviously Woodward is non partisan because you can see partisan behavior. So obviously carrying that forward to insinuate that your ability to see partisan behavior is ridiculous would also infer that Woodward is not non-partisan simply because you claim it....

Does that help if I spell out the connections for you?

 

[chance1]

Umm what do you think me calling your ability to "see partisanship" as bullshit was?

i will have to reference you back to your own statement where you stated obviously Woodward is non partisan because you can see partisan behavior. So obviously carrying that forward to insinuate that your ability to see partisan behavior is ridiculous would also infer that Woodward is not non-partisan simply because you claim it....

Does that help if I spell out the connections for you?

no

Bob Woodward has a history - google it

what i find particularly amusing is that u run ur mouth or ur keypad about recalcitrant repubs but ur behavior towards ur peers here is far worse

ur not interested in a dialogue - that's clear to all

 

[JayHawk]

Chance a dialogue with you is impossible that is clear. Now that we know it is clear why pray tell do you keep engaging? Is it that you enjoy fighting? I clearly do not hold the same opinions as you and I clearly do not think I am the MOM who needs to let everyone know daily that they aren't being nice.

 

[chance1]

Chance a dialogue with you is impossible that is clear. Now that we know it is clear why pray tell do you keep engaging? Is it that you enjoy fighting? I clearly do not hold the same opinions as you and I clearly do not think I am the MOM who needs to let everyone know daily that they aren't being nice.

Jay, last i looked you initiated this excuse for a "dialogue"

scroll up and you'll see who started what

seems like you're Rolyo's "mom" here

 

[JayHawk]

No Sir you are the one claiming all is bad because people say bad things about Romney. I simply pointed out that nightly you complain about that very subject and it is well within the posting guidelines. it seems you prefer to talk about posters rather than topics.

P.S. seriously? You would think things would be better now that you may post freely.

 

[chance1]

No Sir you are the one claiming all is bad because people say bad things about Romney. I simply pointed out that nightly you complain about that very subject and it is well within the posting guidelines. it seems you prefer to talk about posters rather than topics.

P.S. seriously? You would think things would be better now that you may post freely.

still no response about woodward - he's partisan and anti obama and worthy of your scorn ..... why?

it's a wonder that we'll never know

and ur quite content to attack much like the snarky president

but not to defend your actions

so many similarities

 

[JayHawk]

Seriously? [Text: Removed by Moderator]

It's a MAJOR issue. A president has to deal with foreign policy on almost a daily basis. I'd say that's pretty damn important. Anyone that can't be diplomatic with our allies or find Syria on a map has no place in the Oval Office.

It is quite odd to see republicans try and explain that foreign policy really doesn't matter. A president has two very specific charges for his or her office. Defense of the Constitution and therefore the people it governs and effecting foreign policy.

- - - Updated - - -

still no response about woodward - he's partisan and anti obama and worthy of your scorn ..... why?

it's a wonder that we'll never know

and ur quite content to attack much like the snarky president

but not to defend your actions

so many similarities

Could you please return to the regularly scheduled program and that is not me?

 

[Benvolio]

It is important, but it Obama has chosen not to make it an issue. Obama's handling has been inept, but the Democrats lied and said Romney is a war monger. So he is concentrating on the economy. No doubt he knows that the people will realize how inept Obama has been without him saying so. Obama's stupidest blunder was announcing to taliban and alQuaeda that they will win in 2014. Don't get discourages, just hold on and you will win. You can promise your recruits that they will win.

 

[rareboy]

^ You just don't understand Afghanistan.

Even if the US decided on a permanent occupation, things would never change.

Afghanistan has been sucking trillions out of the west by keeping conflict alive for the last 3000 years. It is a morass.

Better this way to indicate to the governing Afghanis that they have to step up and create a self-sustaining state than to try to win an unwillable conflict.

Better this way than the ignominious conclusion to the war in Vietnam.

 

[JayHawk]

We went to Afghanistan to kill Taliban and capture or kill Osama bin Laden. We did so. Now it is time to stop dying for a centuries old conflict.

These neocons have short memories for who they send into harms way. Remember the quagmire called Iraq? What caused them to start assuming control of their government? That was when GWB was forced to tell them to take their shit because they were getting it all and he set a date. Guess what happened then? The Iraqis stood up. If the Afghani's fail to do so that is their fault and their fucking problem not our soldiers. Kinda funny that out of one side of their mouth these economic mental midgets talk about not spending and yet they have no problem spending a billion a day on Afghanistan all spurned on by weak fucks who can run their mouths but wouldn't think for one second about serving this country in that respect.