You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on Politics within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. Originally Posted by OrangePuck
Alan Keyes vs Bill Clinton. Please allow me to say this yet another time. Alan Keyes was too conservative for the conservatives. He is not a
Alan Keyes vs Bill Clinton. Please allow me to say this yet another time. Alan Keyes was too conservative for the conservatives. He is not a good example. Unfortunately, the only proper candidate (in terms of popularity and timing) would have been Colin Powell. It's a shame we did have a chance to run him out there against Clinton to see what could have happened.
Based ON MY PERSONAL BELIEF I think that if the Republicans ran a moderate black Republican out there, a man of popularity and respect who pulled ideas from both sides of the political spectrum, black people would vote for him. To use Alan Keyes as proof that it could not work is just asinine.
Save your personal beliefs genius. I've got evidence (perhaps you've heard of it?) on my side. Where are all those moderate black Republicans in Washington that would have such an easy time winning elections?
Quote:
A country at war and in the middle of a recession does not need, nor could it afford, a President with a focus on social programs. As for what Socialism is, it has many definitions because it can exist in so many different forms so please knock yourself out and pick the one you like.
Let me introduce you to a decade called the 1930s and a president named Roosevelt genius.
Quote:
You were saying?
Right back at you.
Al Qaeda killed Benazir Bhutto. Last time I checked, Al Qaeda tries to kill pretty much everyone. But by all means, continue to believe that the Pakistani people assassinated the wildly popular ex-head of state. Genius.
__________________ I'd rather some one was holding the constitution and burning the flag than vice-versa.
So Alan Keyes is the definitive comeback eventhough he was too conservative for white conservatives? Wow, thanks for the revelation.
"Too conservative" for white conservatives? So they picked GWB instead? Please try again.
It's funny how little you know about your own party. "Republicans vote with their wallets"? In Orange County, sure. In the South, the base is voting for Jesus values (see: Huckabee's dominance in the Southern primaries) and gun rights (hence Obama's early commentary) because their wallets are sure getting smaller recently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangePuck
Based ON MY PERSONAL BELIEF I think that if the Republicans ran a moderate black Republican out there, a man of popularity and respect who pulled ideas from both sides of the political spectrum, black people would vote for him. To use Alan Keyes as proof that it could not work is just asinine.
A few posts back you were talking about a strong conservative black Republican (even though they, for the most part, don't exist--as OMR has mentioned). Now you're talking about a moderate black Republican. Which is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangePuck
Back pedaling for the entire board are we? Just because you refuse to admit it doesn't mean I'm going to scour this forum for several posts that defended the decision of the Democratic party to go with Hillary and Obama. They are the candidates chosen by your fricken party for Christs sake! Now we have backpedaling and "they weren't my choice" claims. What total BS.
Further proof reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. Why do you keep putting words in people's mouths?
There is a difference between candidates whose platforms we embrace versus candidates who are more general election-friendly. Please don't confuse the two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OddManRush
Al Qaeda killed Benazir Bhutto. Last time I checked, Al Qaeda tries to kill pretty much everyone. But by all means, continue to believe that the Pakistani people assassinated the wildly popular ex-head of state. Genius.
Not to mention, she was killed 11 years after her run as head-of-state, so I have no idea what point was being made there.
But by all means, if we're gonna have an intelligence score/academic performance dick-measuring contest, let's do it.
Last edited by Joe Hoya; May 17th, 2008 at 09:22 PM.
A country at war and in the middle of a recession does not need, nor could it afford, a President with a focus on social programs.
Tell that to my avatar. Oh, and mention it to Woodrow Wilson and Abraham Lincoln too. I"ll say this as nicely as possble, for someone who claims to have a genius-level IQ, you're really f***ing stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangePuck
As for what Socialism is, it has many definitions because it can exist in so many different forms so please knock yourself out and pick the one you like.
What kind of nancy-boy **** is this? If you don't know what it is, admit it, genius. It's a relatively simple political concept to understand. Anyone remotely educated in politics could tell you, and could also tell you that calling Barack Obama a socialist is akin to calling Dwight Eisenhower a fascist. It's pretty dumb, very un-becoming for someone with a genius-level IQ.
Also, Joy Hoya already called your bluff, but let me reiterate: I can't think of a single person on this board who's claimed that Obama's or Hillary's election was inevitable. I didn't even vote for Obama in the primary, but I'll be with him in the general because the US can't afford to have the Republicans in the White House for four more years. There won't be much of a country left. But obviously Barack's up against historical challenges--that's obvious, and been obvious. Your bloviations on the subject are just straw men. McCain's got his issues too. It's going to be a very close election.
Oh, yeah:
Great Britain
Ireland
India
Chile
New Zealand
Germany
These are just off the top of my head countries that have elected female leaders, countries where halfwit, bigoted retarts like yourself exert only a minimal infuence on elections, I suppose.
Do us all a favor, OP: talk less, listen more. Maybe even read a book. You'll learn a few things and you will hopefully grow more confident in your intellect, so much so that you won't have to go around and absurdly claim that you possess a genius-level IQ in order to justify your pathetic faculties. It'll feel good.
Save your personal beliefs genius. I've got evidence (perhaps you've heard of it?) on my side. Where are all those moderate black Republicans in Washington that would have such an easy time winning elections?
That's funny I thought we were talking about the probability of a black man being elected US President but if you want to change the subject to members of congress so that you can "win" an argument go right ahead. Last time I checked having black members in the House and Senate is not a requirement to being able to elect one as President.
Quote:
Let me introduce you to a decade called the 1930s and a president named Roosevelt genius.
Read again....a country AT was AND in the midst of a depression. Roosevelt didn't have to deal with both at the same time. By the time he took office in the early 30's the country was already about 5 years into the depression and the only way that it managed to pull itself out of the depression was by turning WWII into a viable business starting around 1940.
I'll concede this portion of the argument to you if you can tell me exactly how Obama plans to pull this one off. We aren't exactly profiting form this war and if we actually could you puss bags would never allow it because it goes against your core values. You see, people were behind WWII unlike this one so I'd really love to hear an answer on this one. And please, let that answer be anything other than "Change."
Quote:
Al Qaeda killed Benazir Bhutto. Last time I checked, Al Qaeda tries to kill pretty much everyone. But by all means, continue to believe that the Pakistani people assassinated the wildly popular ex-head of state. Genius.
I never said that the Pakistani people assassinated her but you seem adept at putting words in my mouth so please continue to do so. It does wonders for your credibility. If you think a female president will get a fair shake when dealing with certain mid East countries then we'll have to agree to disagree because quite frankly neither of us know exactly how a female US President will be received there.
If you think a female president will get a fair shake when dealing with certain mid East countries then we'll have to agree to disagree because quite frankly neither of us know exactly how a female US President will be received there.
Can our credibility there be any worse than it is now with W?
Can our credibility there be any worse than it is now with W?
Wow... more logical responses... STOP CONFUSING OP WITH REASON!!
And as for OP being a genius... dude, you had kids. That disqualifies you.
Plus if I'm not mistaken you named one of your children Kaiden. Which qualifies you for trailer trash.
