Joe Hates Fags - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-07-2009, 12:20 AM   #91
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 10:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitize View Post
I'm not sure why you enjoy stalking me, but yes, that is all correct.

And like Diemen alluded to, I think that something like Jindal/Palin would be an absolutely hilarious disaster of epic proportions... Jindal is a much, much better direction for the GOP at the moment. He's a smart, young, pragmatic conservative who doesn't focus his energy on hating gayz, although he is religiously conservative enough. And the fact that he's a minority doesn't hurt things, for better or for worse.
I'm not at all stalking you Don't pull that card, I asked you about that once before, months ago and you never answered me.

Well Jindal I think is a huge mistake as well, but to be honest I'm not sure what your party wants...
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 12:42 AM   #92
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,666
Local Time: 12:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
I'm not at all stalking you Don't pull that card, I asked you about that once before, months ago and you never answered me.
Don't mean to interject here, but when I read his post it struck me as being playful and/or sarcastic.

But, then again, sarcasm is not easily discernible on the Internet. Right?
__________________

__________________

BoMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 12:51 AM   #93
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 10:14 AM
Yes...

Once again, I'm misunderstood...
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 01:12 AM   #94
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,254
Local Time: 11:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zooropop40 View Post
It doesnt matter how "down" it has been before- there has never been a worse president, probably in the history of this country, than George W. Bush...
I must disagree. I've said it before- if you honestly think President Bush is the worst president in history, you either 1) don't know jack about history or 2) think it is bad that Bush has given God knows how much money in aid to Africa, liberated tens of millions of people from oppression, saw the capture of Saddam Hussein, kept this country safe, cut taxes, put more minorities in his cabinet than any president in history (which is something I believe Obama is lacking in...), and I could go on...

Quote:
Originally Posted by zooropop40 View Post

those tea parties were filled with such blatant stupidity by people who have zero perspective of the world or anything about this country!
How so? Give me examples. What is wrong with protesting out of control spending and bigger government and the fact that people who are not born yet owe hundreds of thousands of dollars thanks to Obama and Congress? Why are these people "stupid?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post

I'm a little surprised to see you making this 'not conservative enough' argument, though. You supported Rudy initially, then seemed pleased when McCain became the nominee instead. I don't recall you ever expressing a wish that someone like Huckabee or Romney should be the nominee. Are you now saying you believe they would have been better choices?
In my gut, I don't think the GOP ever stood a shot at winning last year regardless of the nominee. I voted for McCain, because by the time I voted on Super Tuesday, it was basically a lock for him. Though he wasn't my favorite, I did feel back then that there was a shot to bring in some independents and others. Looking back, I think we would have had an equal if not better shot at pulling it off it we had picked a nominee with stark differences to Obama, not blurry lines the way it was with McCain. Maybe that's just Monday-morning quarterbacking though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by digitize View Post
OMG TEH GAYZ ARE TEH ANTICHRIST bigotry.
Umm... who is saying this?


Quote:
Originally Posted by digitize View Post
letting people like Joe the Plumber be their public voice is downright embarrassing...
So him speaking anywhere in public means that the GOP is designating him their official spokesman? Can I then say that someone like Janeane Garofalo is the Democratic Party spokesperson? I disagree with his comments on the first page of this thread, too, for what's it worth. Bet you didn't see that one coming.

Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
For people to take 2861U2 as a representative of conservative opinion is really quite hilarious, as this dude, in his entire posting history on FYM has never given voice to a single genuine conservative opinion or thought process.
My opinion and beliefs are not less valid because I spend less time on this forum then, say, you. For the sake of the Democratic Party, I sure hope some people in this forum aren't supposed to be taken as serious "representatives" of liberalism...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
wasn't part of Obama's landslide victory due to McCain's picking a know-nothing like Palin?
Absolutely not. If Palin wasn't on the ticket, McCain would have lost much worse.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
but the debt was created by Bush. people in their 20s know this. the debt is Bush's fault -- cutting taxes, creating wars of choice over falsehoods, and increasing entitlement spending. and you're doomed, absolutely doomed, when it comes to social issues.
Bush's debt is NOTHING compared to Obama's, and even you must admit that. As for the social issues, I'm not so sure. The numbers of pro-life vs. pro-choice are pretty split, and as for gay marriage, most polls I see are opposed to it.
__________________
2861U2 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 04:53 AM   #95
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:14 AM
Big Grin

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
he also believes in exorcism, and castration.

and his response to the SOTU was historic, in a bad way.

Jindal seems a reasonable executive and manager, and i have no doubt that beneath all that manufactured down-homeness he's a smart guy. but he's not yet ready for prime time. 2016?
He is also a creationist, hates volcanic monitoring, and is generally anti-science.

I'd rather vote Democratic.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 06:49 AM   #96
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 10:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
Absolutely not. If Palin wasn't on the ticket, McCain would have lost much worse.
Maybe if the election were held right after her convention speech, but otherwise I completely disagree with you. I can't tell you how many conservatives I know who would've voted for McCain but simply couldn't because of what an immensely poor choice they thought Palin was for veep.
__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 07:25 AM   #97
Refugee
 
zooropop40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Interference is called Interference because it interferes on my ability to live a normal life...
Posts: 1,583
Local Time: 11:14 AM
I really dislike Jindal.... and really, really, really dislike Palin...

I dont think Jindal would have that good of a chance running for president.

and Palin was the reason McCain lost... well a major reason. If it was Mccain/ Romney it might have been a different story.
__________________
zooropop40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 07:45 AM   #98
Refugee
 
zooropop40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Interference is called Interference because it interferes on my ability to live a normal life...
Posts: 1,583
Local Time: 11:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
I must disagree. I've said it before- if you honestly think President Bush is the worst president in history, you either 1) don't know jack about history or 2) think it is bad that Bush has given God knows how much money in aid to Africa, liberated tens of millions of people from oppression, saw the capture of Saddam Hussein, kept this country safe, cut taxes, put more minorities in his cabinet than any president in history (which is something I believe Obama is lacking in...), and I could go on...



How so? Give me examples. What is wrong with protesting out of control spending and bigger government and the fact that people who are not born yet owe hundreds of thousands of dollars thanks to Obama and Congress? Why are these people "stupid?"
ok...here goes...

No other president has had a blatant disregard for the rest of the world and the constitution than W. The war in Iraq was a mistake, and the amount of lies that came out of that administration was appaling. Other than that, we tortured people, got rid of Habeus Corpus, lost the respect of almost every other country in the world, let down our education system, health care, there was hardly any regard towards environmental issues, Katrina was a disaster, Abu Gharib was a disaster, the tax cuts did not help the economy, we wiretapped citizens... etc... I could go on. George W. was embarrassing.

The people in the tax parties argued for "NO MORE TAXES" which is a moronic thing to say. Not only that, but Obama's taxes have not even gone into effect yet, so they are arguing against Bush's taxes.
Obama is not a socialist, and the people at that rally have no idea that most of them will get tax cuts under Obama as well. And to say that the democrats want "larger government" is a republican talking point that is totally false. Republicans want government as big- but just in different places. Republicans want bigger government in military, intruding to support "family values" and more. Telling people what they can and cannot do with their bodies, who they can and cannot marry, what scientists can and cannot research based on religious beliefs, etc... is more of an intrusion of government than anything the democrats want if you ask me. so yes, the people at the tax parties are just pawns of republican talking points and fox news. What other option do we have other than spending for our economy? what is the GOP solution? for me, and this is my opinion, the GOP mostly represents a General Opposition to Progress. this is all just my opinion, so dont get offended or take it personally.
__________________
zooropop40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 08:05 AM   #99
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,609
Local Time: 10:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zooropop40 View Post
ok...here goes...
__________________
KhanadaRhodes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 08:33 AM   #100
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Tiger Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Everglades
Posts: 4,740
Local Time: 12:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
I must disagree. I've said it before- if you honestly think President Bush is the worst president in history, you either 1) don't know jack about history or 2) think it is bad that Bush has given God knows how much money in aid to Africa, liberated tens of millions of people from oppression, saw the capture of Saddam Hussein, kept this country safe, cut taxes, put more minorities in his cabinet than any president in history (which is something I believe Obama is lacking in...), and I could go on...
So who do you think is the worst president in history? Of the 20th century?

2. One by one!
a) Probably his only redeeming quality of his eight years. He has still, however, turned a blind eye to the conflict in Darfur. Actually, he's mere presence in office has made Darfur into the biggest debacle of the 21st century. I seem to remember reading that the reason Darfur refused help from the United States was because W was in office and they were morally opposed to him. Let's repeat that, the Sudanese government would rather have anarchy in Darfur than allow W to send in troops and fuck it all up.

b) He didn't liberate people from oppression. He introduced a whole new generation to new oppression. Our office has dealt with an Iraqi woman who says that she is more afraid of Iraq now than she was while Saddam was in office. From what I understand, this is a general feeling among most Iraqis. They've replaced one dictator with thousands of thugs and suicide bombers. At least the ones that killed you 10 years ago wore a uniform. Now it's a 12-year-old boy who blows himself up in the marketplace.

c) Here's what I don't get about Saddam. He was a horrible dictator. What is the difference between Saddam, or the leader of North Korea, or Iran, or Cuba, or any of the other impoverished countries in Africa? Our main reason for storming into Iraq was to prevent him from getting WMDs... which he never had. So now the new reason was to "give freedom to the Iraqi people." Why only for Iraqis? They aren't the only ones suffering from oppression. They weren't even the worse. See a)!
So when is the W administration going to fess up and say the sole reason for toppling Saddam Hussein was to get back at him for what he did to W's daddy? Or seizing his oil? Honestly, I will accept either (or both) apologies.

d) No he didn't. You can't claim he has kept this country safe when 9/11 happened nearly a year into his presidency. Imagine if you were a foreman of a factory re-interviewing for a job. "I've kept all the employees safe under my watch... except for that time that Jones got his arm cut off and the binding machine exploded into a million pieces, where Dolores lost her right eye. BUT STILL, NOTHING ELSE HAS HAPPENED AFTER THAT, AM I RITE?"

e) I'm still no economist, but aren't the tax cuts partially to blame for our extreme debt? It obviously didn't prevent a market meltdown, it actually encouraged it. Remember after 9/11? Spend! Everyone needs to spend to show the terrorists we ain't afraid! And spend we did. And when the government let us become welfare queens with the first stimulus package, we spent that too. So all the squirrels who didn't pack away nuts last winter panicked, and the shit hit the fan.

f) This is starting to bother me. Are presidents supposed to one-up each other in the promotion of minorities now? Well I've got a little Guatemalan serving as secretary of the interior. It's a much smaller country than Mexico. I win. We get it. Bush wasn't afraid of minorities. It's the equivalent of saying, "I've had a black man over to my house for dinner." You honestly think Obama is opposed to promoting minorities because he's somehow racist? How would they have treated him if he had filled the Cabinet with a majority of black people? "Of course he fills it with black people, he's not willing to listen to the white majority of the country!"
__________________
Tiger Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 08:37 AM   #101
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 11:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
put more minorities in his cabinet than any president in history (which is something I believe Obama is lacking in...), and I could go on...
Great! Now we know that we can count on you when Obama puts in a Latina lesbian on the Supreme Court.
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 09:04 AM   #102
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,337
Local Time: 08:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
put more minorities in his cabinet than any president in history (which is something I believe Obama is lacking in...), and I could go on...
Eight years. vs. 100+ days.




Have fun with the next few years. It's only going to get worse for you.
__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 09:21 AM   #103
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 10:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
How so? Give me examples. What is wrong with protesting out of control spending and bigger government and the fact that people who are not born yet owe hundreds of thousands of dollars thanks to Obama and Congress? Why are these people "stupid?"
The problem was is that it wasn't about this, some may have said it was about this, but it wasn't. Look at the tea party thread in here. Several came in the thread, including you supporting the tea parties, but not one could explain what it truly was about... not one. Instead we got signs and speaches about immigration, racial slurs against the president, homophobia, etc... None of which had to do with what you said it was about, it was just an extreme right bitch fest, and a very poor one at that. Even if it was about spending, not one person on your side has an alternative... The rest of the world saw a bunch of uninformed idiots with signs.



Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
So him speaking anywhere in public means that the GOP is designating him their official spokesman? Can I then say that someone like Janeane Garofalo is the Democratic Party spokesperson? I disagree with his comments on the first page of this thread, too, for what's it worth. Bet you didn't see that one coming.
Janeane Garofalo was never invited to campaign stops, turned into a commercial, or asked to be a spokesperson at a left wing convention...


Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
My opinion and beliefs are not less valid because I spend less time on this forum then, say, you. For the sake of the Democratic Party, I sure hope some people in this forum aren't supposed to be taken as serious "representatives" of liberalism...
I think you missed his point, he said nothing of how much time you spent here.



Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
Bush's debt is NOTHING compared to Obama's, and even you must admit that. As for the social issues, I'm not so sure. The numbers of pro-life vs. pro-choice are pretty split, and as for gay marriage, most polls I see are opposed to it.
Bush's debt can never and will never pay itself back.

Now as far as "Obama's debt" only history will tell if it's productive debt, but at least in theory it will produce jobs, infastructure, and stabilization.
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 09:25 AM   #104
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,337
Local Time: 08:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post

Bush's debt can never and will never pay itself back.

Now as far as "Obama's debt" only history will tell if it's productive debt, but at least in theory it will produce jobs, infastructure, and stabilization.



Liberals!!

Bush's debt was for freedom. Obama's debt is socialist.

Get a student loan and go back to school.
__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 09:34 AM   #105
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 11:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiger Edge View Post
So who do you think is the worst president in history? Of the 20th century?

2. One by one!
a) Probably his only redeeming quality of his eight years. He has still, however, turned a blind eye to the conflict in Darfur. Actually, he's mere presence in office has made Darfur into the biggest debacle of the 21st century. I seem to remember reading that the reason Darfur refused help from the United States was because W was in office and they were morally opposed to him. Let's repeat that, the Sudanese government would rather have anarchy in Darfur than allow W to send in troops and fuck it all up.

b) He didn't liberate people from oppression. He introduced a whole new generation to new oppression. Our office has dealt with an Iraqi woman who says that she is more afraid of Iraq now than she was while Saddam was in office. From what I understand, this is a general feeling among most Iraqis. They've replaced one dictator with thousands of thugs and suicide bombers. At least the ones that killed you 10 years ago wore a uniform. Now it's a 12-year-old boy who blows himself up in the marketplace.

c) Here's what I don't get about Saddam. He was a horrible dictator. What is the difference between Saddam, or the leader of North Korea, or Iran, or Cuba, or any of the other impoverished countries in Africa? Our main reason for storming into Iraq was to prevent him from getting WMDs... which he never had. So now the new reason was to "give freedom to the Iraqi people." Why only for Iraqis? They aren't the only ones suffering from oppression. They weren't even the worse. See a)!
So when is the W administration going to fess up and say the sole reason for toppling Saddam Hussein was to get back at him for what he did to W's daddy? Or seizing his oil? Honestly, I will accept either (or both) apologies.

d) No he didn't. You can't claim he has kept this country safe when 9/11 happened nearly a year into his presidency. Imagine if you were a foreman of a factory re-interviewing for a job. "I've kept all the employees safe under my watch... except for that time that Jones got his arm cut off and the binding machine exploded into a million pieces, where Dolores lost her right eye. BUT STILL, NOTHING ELSE HAS HAPPENED AFTER THAT, AM I RITE?"

e) I'm still no economist, but aren't the tax cuts partially to blame for our extreme debt? It obviously didn't prevent a market meltdown, it actually encouraged it. Remember after 9/11? Spend! Everyone needs to spend to show the terrorists we ain't afraid! And spend we did. And when the government let us become welfare queens with the first stimulus package, we spent that too. So all the squirrels who didn't pack away nuts last winter panicked, and the shit hit the fan.

f) This is starting to bother me. Are presidents supposed to one-up each other in the promotion of minorities now? Well I've got a little Guatemalan serving as secretary of the interior. It's a much smaller country than Mexico. I win. We get it. Bush wasn't afraid of minorities. It's the equivalent of saying, "I've had a black man over to my house for dinner." You honestly think Obama is opposed to promoting minorities because he's somehow racist? How would they have treated him if he had filled the Cabinet with a majority of black people? "Of course he fills it with black people, he's not willing to listen to the white majority of the country!"
Dag.
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com