why is there in america the republican presidential debate?

[nemesiss]

watching TYT and also reading newspapers, for quite some while there has been the republican presidential debate.
hearing and watching clips from it, me and my girlfriend started to wonder whats really wrong with the republican party.
you can call them bought, liars, insane, etc.. but thats not what im talking about....

we've seen some really "colorfull" characters on that "debate" such as rick perry, michelle backmann and ...
and together they have a very wide variaty in ideas and opinion in which direction the us will/need to go.

to me, they all look like a bunch of cheerleaders then a bunch of worldleaders.
when watching them, it's like im watching some daytime drama show, instead of people making life-decisive decissions. i wouldn't be surprised if one their wives is pregnant and one of the other republican candidates might be the father...


your thoughts....

 

[Prolescum]

Re: why is there in america the republican presidential deba

My thoughts are that the thread title suggests a question that is barely related to the opinion in your OP.

That aside, I agree that they are a pretty barmy lot. John Huntsman looked like a decent contender, but he didn't have a very loud voice. Romney has coasted on name recognition, slick hair and avoiding much of the irrelevant "NO U" stuff. It's a bit of an indictment of the GOP that these are winning characteristics. Newt Gingrich is a horrible little man, but it's impossible to deny that he's a pretty good tactician politically. Not just in this race, either; his history speaks for itself.
Rick Santorum... What is there to say about this unfortunate use of sperm? He doesn't like the gays or the blaahs. Unelectable. Ron Paul, well... He's all about freedom. Liberty and freedom. Free markets, liberty and freedom. Unless you're poor, black or female. A doctor who rejects evolution.

The ones who never had a chance (Perry, Bachmann, Cain) were/are in it for the wrong reasons; Cain has a book, Bachmann thinks her god told her to do it (fucking muppet), and Perry has an ego the size of Dr Manhattan's wang. They were never serious contenders, as Cain is black (I'm not pulling the race card without cause - denying that much of America is still fundamentally racist is just daft. Remember, Obama's a secret Muslim and we must forget his bestest friend, Pastor Emeritus of Trinity United Church of Christ , Jeremia Wright), Bachmann's a fucking fruitcake, and Perry is an idiot.

I think because I'm used to parliamentary democracy, I really don't understand how America works. I understand the concepts, but I've watched their elections since Bill Clinton, and it seems so alien that sometimes I fear there are loads of things I'm missing. I've witnessed things going on there that would lead to political suicide here, for example, remember when John Kerry, distinguished Vietnam veteran, standing against well known draft-dodger George Bush 2, had a dirty tricks campaign by a group (I forget their name, but I think they were a "superPAC". Lifeboats something something, bah Saturday memory I'm afraid) suggesting that the honours he'd achieved during his time there were somehow illegitimate? Recall how a photoshopped image of him with everyone's favourite Vietnam protestor Jane Fonda circulated?
When we refer to a "dirty tricks campaign" here, it usually (in my general experience) means careful wording of an issue to infer some kind of hypocrisy or ulterior motive. Probably involving convenient statistics.
I'm sure that's not always the case, but in the US, it seems that if you lie loud enough - even if it is refuted entirely and shown to be false, even knowingly false - you win. By casting doubt on one thing, it brings the entirety of someone's character into disrepute. What ever happened to policy driving a campaign? You know, people agree with your vision of whatever?

I dunno...

 

[SirYeen]

Re: why is there in america the republican presidential deba

As a euro it is hard not to doubt the quality of american education to be honest. Don't get me wrong, I don't think americans are all retarded. That's the f** point. They aren't retarded and the majority of their politicians say really really stupid stuff and they get REWARDED for it. Am I really that ignorant and rude if I say things like this ? I mean I kinda feel bad for thinking it but I can't help it. Whenever I see American politicians on facebook or TV or whatever they said something stupid. And I know that media is selective but is it really THAT selective ?

 

[Prolescum]

Re: why is there in america the republican presidential deba

Well the good news is that the founding fathers didn't, to my knowledge, express any particular form of government for the republic, so on can still hope America'll see sense

 

[televator]

Re: why is there in america the republican presidential deba

It's all about who can sooner stop those pesky commies and/or colored people and/or Mozlumz from unleashing their impending invasion/ongoing infiltration...and help Israel get a move on and drag the rest of us along for Armageddon.

 

[Prolescum]

Re: why is there in america the republican presidential deba

It's all about who can sooner stop those pesky commies and/or colored people and/or Mozlumz from unleashing their impending invasion/ongoing infiltration...and help Israel get a move on and drag the rest of us along for Armageddon.

Ah yes, good point. The Republican Party now officially supports a one state solution. Self-determination is only for Americans, Europeans and Israelis!

[...]the members of this body [the RNC] support Israel in their natural and God-given right of self-governance and self-defense upon their own lands, recognizing that Israel is neither an attacking force nor an occupier of the lands of others; and that peace can be afforded the region only through a united Israel governed under one law for all people."

I think it was Newt Gingrich who said that Palestine was an invented country (in North London, three irony detectors pass away due to work-related stress), now we know why; they were just about to publish that...

 

[SirYeen]

Re: why is there in america the republican presidential deba

Well the good news is that the founding fathers didn't, to my knowledge, express any particular form of government for the republic, so on can still hope America'll see sense

First time I hear about demarchy but doesn't this have requirements similar to democracy to work ? I mean aren't you required to have a really educated population. On top of that would people allow this type of government or is it doomed to fail due to human nature ? I don't know, perhaps this should be a different topic all together. Might be selfish but I am really intrigued by the idea

 

[tuxbox]

Re: why is there in america the republican presidential deba

I think it was Newt Gingrich who said that Palestine was an invented country (in North London, three irony detectors pass away due to work-related stress), now we know why; they were just about to publish that...

Newt is somewhat correct. Palestine is not a country (at least not yet) nor has it ever been a country. It is a region of land.

 

[Prolescum]

Re: why is there in america the republican presidential deba

Sorry, my mistake; Gingrich actually said that the Palestinian people were an invention.

 

[g0dh4x]

Re: why is there in america the republican presidential deba

None of the republican candidates are worthy of being president of the US.

 

[TheOnlyThing2Fear]

Re: why is there in america the republican presidential deba

Why is there, in America, a Democrat or Republican presidential debate? So the press can feed us the candidates we are supposed to be interested in supporting and ultimately cram down our throats the one they determine to be who we will vote for.

When you examine who looks and sounds presidential, or of the stature of world leader, have you ever listened to the bumbler currently occupying the White House when he's off teleprompter? I can only imagine what the press will do when Romney or Gingrich says there's 57 states. Oops, Obama already owns that one! Plenty of YouTube clips to enjoy what happens when the teleprompter fails the president. Or is it that the president failing the teleprompter?

 

[Prolescum]

Re: why is there in america the republican presidential deba

Why is there, in America, a Democrat or Republican presidential debate? So the press can feed us the candidates we are supposed to be interested in supporting and ultimately cram down our throats the one they determine to be who we will vote for.

When you examine who looks and sounds presidential, or of the stature of world leader, have you ever listened to the bumbler currently occupying the White House when he's off teleprompter?

Yes. Here you go, and it's fine. First result in YouTube:

[centre][/centre]

Although I suspect you'll attempt some bollocks about Obama having "learned his talking points" (as all politicians do, incidentally), your dislike of Obama is redundant in this thread. It is about the current Republican debates.

I can only imagine what the press will do when Romney or Gingrich says there's 57 states. Oops, Obama already owns that one!

Between Rick Perry's "Oops!", Herman Cain and his inability to recall his own position on Libya and, well, everything Michelle Bachmann has ever said, the Republicans are more than a match for Obama in the cock-up scale. I'm not even going to mention the previous Republican president, despite his primary role in the invention of the term "bushism".

Plenty of YouTube clips to enjoy what happens when the teleprompter fails the president. Or is it that the president failing the teleprompter?

What I find interesting is that you think this vector of attack has any validity whatsoever; ever heard of a malapropism? A spoonerism? A Freudian slip? A bushism?

 

[TheOnlyThing2Fear]

Re: why is there in america the republican presidential deba

Why is there, in America, a Democrat or Republican presidential debate? So the press can feed us the candidates we are supposed to be interested in supporting and ultimately cram down our throats the one they determine to be who we will vote for.

When you examine who looks and sounds presidential, or of the stature of world leader, have you ever listened to the bumbler currently occupying the White House when he's off teleprompter?

Yes. Here you go, and it's fine. First result in YouTube:

[centre][/centre]

Although I suspect you'll attempt some bollocks about Obama having "learned his talking points" (as all politicians do, incidentally), your dislike of Obama is redundant in this thread. It is about the current Republican debates.

I can only imagine what the press will do when Romney or Gingrich says there's 57 states. Oops, Obama already owns that one!

Between Rick Perry's "Oops!", Herman Cain and his inability to recall his own position on Libya and, well, everything Michelle Bachmann has ever said, the Republicans are more than a match for Obama in the cock-up scale. I'm not even going to mention the previous Republican president, despite his primary role in the invention of the term "bushism".

It took only the first reply to bring up Bush!

No. it's not just about the current Republican debates, the thread begged the question "why" the debates. I gave a reasoned response. I attempted no bullocks (your term) about BO learning talking points, or learning anything for that matter. Facts in media, especially spoken facts, are difficult things to the one who refuses to see and hear them for what they are. The fact is, he was invented and is no more presidential than Mickey Mouse. They both take off their costumes at the end of the day. Any leader that campaigns on hope and change but adds trillions more to the national debt in less than one 4 year term and still claims he "deserves a second term" is a dictator.

The US National Debt, for the first time will eclipse the Gross Domestic Product in 2012. As of 12/31/2011 the Debt stood at $15,125,898,976,397.00 dollars and the GDP stood at $15,176,100,000,000.00 dollars. That is 97% debt to what the country produces. In the 8 years under Bill Clinton the Debt to GDP averaged 65.25% per year. In the 8 years under G.W. Bush the Debt to GDP averaged 64.24%. In BO's first 3 years in office it has escalated to 93.7%.

I've never borrowed my way out of debt, have you? This president and his cabinet seem to think that is a rational policy.

Thanks for the YouTube clip. The videos of speeches when BO is off teleprompter are what I actually cited. A clip of O'Really-O'Reilly is nothing more than propaganda...Ever heard of nice try? How you arrived at my citing a fact of what comes from the man's own mouth when he's not reading a script as a vector of attack is beyond reason. It's valid on the premise that it is undeniably provable.

Plenty of YouTube clips to enjoy what happens when the teleprompter fails the president. Or is it that the president failing the teleprompter?

What I find interesting is that you think this vector of attack has any validity whatsoever; ever heard of a malapropism? A spoonerism? A Freudian slip? A bushism?

 

[Prolescum]

Re: why is there in america the republican presidential deba

It took only the first reply to bring up Bush!

Yes, and it seems you failed to glean the lesson intended. I'll be honest, I expected as little.

No. it's not just about the current Republican debates, the thread begged the question "why" the debates.

The title is unfortunately worded (English isn't nemesiss' first language) given his actual post, but the intent in the OP is transparent... Reading a thread before responding is usually considered courteous, and is good practice all round.

I gave a reasoned response.

Yes, because When you examine who looks and sounds presidential, or of the stature of world leader, have you ever listened to the bumbler currently occupying the White House when he's off teleprompter? is a reasoned response :lol:

Your thoughts on the question Why is there, in America, a Democrat or Republican presidential debate?

So the press can feed us the candidates we are supposed to be interested in supporting and ultimately cram down our throats the one they determine to be who we will vote for.

is stepping on Alex Jones' toes. I can agree that your media is complicit in keeping the two party system propped up, but as you may not be aware, you can vote for whomever you like, assuming they're on the ballot. Ultimately, it's your fault if the system fails; the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Why does a fucking American need this spelled out?

I attempted no bullocks (your term)

No it isn't my term, I said bollocks. Judging by your understanding of evolution, I'm not surprised you can't tell the difference.

about BO learning talking points, or learning anything for that matter.

That was a prediction, not a response.

Facts in media, especially spoken facts, are difficult things to the one who refuses to see and hear them for what they are.

I suspect you don't know what a fact is...

The fact is, he was invented and is no more presidential than Mickey Mouse.

My suspicions were not unfounded.

I love conspiracies, especially when fact and opinion combine to form FACT-ION: THE MIGHTIEST WARRIOR IN NEVADA!



Do go on.

They both take off their costumes at the end of the day.

:lol:

Any leader that campaigns on hope and change but adds trillions more to the national debt in less than one 4 year term and still claims he "deserves a second term" is a dictator.

So you have no understanding of the term dictator either. Noted.

The US National Debt, for the first time will eclipse the Gross Domestic Product in 2012. As of 12/31/2011 the Debt stood at $15,125,898,976,397.00 dollars and the GDP stood at $15,176,100,000,000.00 dollars. That is 97% debt to what the country produces. In the 8 years under Bill Clinton the Debt to GDP averaged 65.25% per year. In the 8 years under G.W. Bush the Debt to GDP averaged 64.24%. In BO's first 3 years in office it has escalated to 93.7%.

Even if those figures are correct, (which, given your grasp of what I assume is your native tongue in this thread, I'm concerned that your mathematical abilities are somewhat inadequate), how exactly does increasing the national debt translate to dictator?

I've never borrowed my way out of debt, have you?

No, but then I've never even owned a credit card. Regardless, a single person's spending is not comparable, in any sensible way, to the spending of a government. This line of argument is as spurious as your gibber about teleprompters.

This president and his cabinet seem to think that is a rational policy.

You may well think it's irrational, but as I've already experienced, picking up subtlety or nuance is probably not one of your strong points. It is trivial to locate the economic arguments using appropriate terms in a search engine of your choice. Again, for this discussion, it is irrelevant, even if it was about the title.

Thanks for the YouTube clip. The videos of speeches when BO is off teleprompter are what I actually cited.

Yes, and he's fine in them, as illustrated. You didn't "cite" them, you mentioned them in a general way in a question to which I responded yes.

A clip of O'Really-O'Reilly is nothing more than propaganda...

No, he spouts propaganda. But so what? That says nothing about the "point" you were making.

Ever heard of nice try?

Yes, of course. I live in a western country where English is the predominant language. This should be apparent by now.

How you arrived at my citing a fact of what comes from the man's own mouth when he's not reading a script as a vector of attack is beyond reason. It's valid on the premise that it is undeniably provable.

What "fact"? That people giving speeches need notes? Please.

That he doesn't "look and sound presidential"? If you want to live in Middle Earth, you'll have to take medication.

That people make mistakes during public speaking? I've already pointed out how often it happens, who gives a toss that Obama slipped up some terminology? This, as noted previously, isn't a valid criticism of him as a president, his policies nor does it have any relevance to the discussion at hand. It's a puerile (and disputed) point scored on an insignificant issue.

It is a "vector of attack" because you clearly joined the thread to make a snide remark about Obama (or do you usually call him B. Hussein Obama?); denying it is, well, hilarious.

 

[The Felonius Pope]

Re: why is there in america the republican presidential deba

The problem with garbage politicians, I've realized, is actually a problem with a garbage society. Put garbage in, get

garbage out. The point of debates like the recent GOP debate is merely to elect the lesser of the evils.

 

[TheOnlyThing2Fear]

Re: why is there in america the republican presidential deba

It took only the first reply to bring up Bush!

Yes, and it seems you failed to glean the lesson intended. I'll be honest, I expected as little.

No. it's not just about the current Republican debates, the thread begged the question "why" the debates.

The title is unfortunately worded (English isn't nemesiss' first language) given his actual post, but the intent in the OP is transparent... Reading a thread before responding is usually considered courteous, and is good practice all round.

I gave a reasoned response.

Yes, because When you examine who looks and sounds presidential, or of the stature of world leader, have you ever listened to the bumbler currently occupying the White House when he's off teleprompter? is a reasoned response :lol:

Your thoughts on the question Why is there, in America, a Democrat or Republican presidential debate?

So the press can feed us the candidates we are supposed to be interested in supporting and ultimately cram down our throats the one they determine to be who we will vote for.

is stepping on Alex Jones' toes. I can agree that your media is complicit in keeping the two party system propped up, but as you may not be aware, you can vote for whomever you like, assuming they're on the ballot. Ultimately, it's your fault if the system fails; the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Why does a fucking American need this spelled out?

I attempted no bullocks (your term)

No it isn't my term, I said bollocks. Judging by your understanding of evolution, I'm not surprised you can't tell the difference.

about BO learning talking points, or learning anything for that matter.

That was a prediction, not a response.

Facts in media, especially spoken facts, are difficult things to the one who refuses to see and hear them for what they are.

I suspect you don't know what a fact is...

The fact is, he was invented and is no more presidential than Mickey Mouse.

My suspicions were not unfounded.

I love conspiracies, especially when fact and opinion combine to form FACT-ION: THE MIGHTIEST WARRIOR IN NEVADA!



Do go on.

They both take off their costumes at the end of the day.

:lol:

Any leader that campaigns on hope and change but adds trillions more to the national debt in less than one 4 year term and still claims he "deserves a second term" is a dictator.

So you have no understanding of the term dictator either. Noted.

The US National Debt, for the first time will eclipse the Gross Domestic Product in 2012. As of 12/31/2011 the Debt stood at $15,125,898,976,397.00 dollars and the GDP stood at $15,176,100,000,000.00 dollars. That is 97% debt to what the country produces. In the 8 years under Bill Clinton the Debt to GDP averaged 65.25% per year. In the 8 years under G.W. Bush the Debt to GDP averaged 64.24%. In BO's first 3 years in office it has escalated to 93.7%.

Even if those figures are correct, (which, given your grasp of what I assume is your native tongue in this thread, I'm concerned that your mathematical abilities are somewhat inadequate), how exactly does increasing the national debt translate to dictator?

I've never borrowed my way out of debt, have you?

No, but then I've never even owned a credit card. Regardless, a single person's spending is not comparable, in any sensible way, to the spending of a government. This line of argument is as spurious as your gibber about teleprompters.

This president and his cabinet seem to think that is a rational policy.

You may well think it's irrational, but as I've already experienced, picking up subtlety or nuance is probably not one of your strong points. It is trivial to locate the economic arguments using appropriate terms in a search engine of your choice. Again, for this discussion, it is irrelevant, even if it was about the title.

Thanks for the YouTube clip. The videos of speeches when BO is off teleprompter are what I actually cited.

Yes, and he's fine in them, as illustrated. You didn't "cite" them, you mentioned them in a general way in a question to which I responded yes.

A clip of O'Really-O'Reilly is nothing more than propaganda...

No, he spouts propaganda. But so what? That says nothing about the "point" you were making.

Ever heard of nice try?

Yes, of course. I live in a western country where English is the predominant language. This should be apparent by now.

How you arrived at my citing a fact of what comes from the man's own mouth when he's not reading a script as a vector of attack is beyond reason. It's valid on the premise that it is undeniably provable.

What "fact"? That people giving speeches need notes? Please.

That he doesn't "look and sound presidential"? If you want to live in Middle Earth, you'll have to take medication.

That people make mistakes during public speaking? I've already pointed out how often it happens, who gives a toss that Obama slipped up some terminology? This, as noted previously, isn't a valid criticism of him as a president, his policies nor does it have any relevance to the discussion at hand. It's a puerile (and disputed) point scored on an insignificant issue.

It is a "vector of attack" because you clearly joined the thread to make a snide remark about Obama (or do you usually call him B. Hussein Obama?); denying it is, well, hilarious.

This is painful. Your responses almost included an anal exam of my punctuation! Your incessant need to extract an argument out of every little thing I posted demonstrates to me that your guitar isn't getting enough love.

You post a video clip of BO with O'Really-O'Reilly and what I cited was BO off teleprompter. Everyone is asking the same question I am. Why obfuscate by posting a video of a rehearsed interview? You've made a capitol case out of a fact. A fact you chose to ignore. That is in fact, a fact. You have refuted nothing I presented here.

I don't need your subtle arrogance to decide for myself that the man was invented by the media and the gullible voters bought the childish catch phrase "hope and change". Seriously, hope and change? Just ask yourself, what does this really mean? It's as open ended as a shotgun barrel. What the people bought was Hope and got an admitted dope smoking, cocaine sniffing, operative spying behind the enemy lines of the very corporation that hired him (and apparently to fulfill a quota and that's as liberal as it gets in the USA). The Change the people got was his apparent chameleon evolutionary ancestry. Never again question my knowledge of evolution.

Your closing point missed my post entirely. BO is the acronym for body odor, it is also this President's initials. You just can't make this stuff up! I can't figure out your need to state the man's middle and last name. Perhaps you are proud of his muslim roots. Or would that just be bullocks? Sorry to have to tell you, but it is not becoming of you to be an apologist for a man that won't escape history as being the most uneducated, unprepared, and unqualified person to ever be propped up by an American political party as their presidential candidate. His nickname during the 2008 campaign was rightfully "man-child".

BTW, is that a hollow body, or electric guitar in your photo?

 

[australopithecus]

Re: why is there in america the republican presidential deba

Sorry to have to tell you, but it is not becoming of you to be an apologist for a man that won't escape history as being the most uneducated, unprepared, and unqualified person to ever be propped up by an American political party as their presidential candidate.

When did we start discussing G W Bush?

 

[Prolescum]

Re: why is there in america the republican presidential deba

This is painful. Your responses almost included an anal exam of my punctuation!

Oh noes! I responded to everything you said! I'm a filthy rotten cheat!

Your incessant need to extract an argument out of every little thing I posted demonstrates to me that your guitar isn't getting enough love.

Your inability to fault my response with anything valid tells me there's more than one thing you fear. That list is nearing double figures already, by my count.

You post a video clip of BO with O'Really-O'Reilly and what I cited was BO off teleprompter.

Paper.

In the previous sentence, I cited an article about how Facebook can give you cancer that was in The Daily Mail.

Everyone is asking the same question I am.

Really? I just texted a friend who asked a completely different question (her question was: why are you wasting time responding to a man who thinks merely mentioning an event is a citation? He's clearly on a mental precipice).

Remember my prediction from earlier? No? Here's a reminder:

Although I suspect you'll attempt some bollocks about Obama having "learned his talking points"

As if by magic...

Why obfuscate by posting a video of a rehearsed interview?

You just can't help yourself, can you?

It was not obfuscation, it was illustration. He has no teleprompter. His performance was fine.

You've made a capitol case out of a fact.

What?

A fact you chose to ignore. That is in fact, a fact. You have refuted nothing I presented here.

You can say fact as many times as you like, but without knowing what one is, you come across as a typical maladroit.

Look here, sweetcheeks:

1) The background colour is blue
2) The background colour is awful

Which of one of those is a fact?

a) The fact is, he is male and is the current president of the USA.
b) The fact is, he was invented and is no more presidential than Mickey Mouse.

Which of these are facts?

I don't need your subtle arrogance

Lol. My puns are subtle, my arrogance is anything but.

to decide for myself that the man was invented by the media

What does this even mean? How exactly is one "invented by the media"? Are you saying that he didn't exist prior to his nomination? Well, I guess you can "decide for yourself" what a fact is, so I shouldn't really be surprised.

and the gullible voters bought the childish catch phrase "hope and change".

All political catchphrases are childish; compassionate conservatism; the moral majority; back to basics; family values; yes, we can; it's the economy, stupid; education, education, and education; tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime... The list goes on.

Seriously, hope and change? Just ask yourself, what does this really mean?

It meant different things to different people. For non-Americans, it usually meant something along the lines of: no more legally shaky wars and the most powerful position in the world will no longer be held by a man who struggles to tie his own shoes. I cannot speak for Americans, so I won't.

It's as open ended as a shotgun barrel.

As above, I don't disagree that political slogans, catchphrases or soundbites are dumb. If your populace makes its decisions based on headlines instead of policy, it deserves the leaders it gets.

What the people bought was Hope and got an admitted dope smoking, cocaine sniffing, operative spying behind the enemy lines of the very corporation that hired him (and apparently to fulfill a quota and that's as liberal as it gets in the USA).

I suppose you have evidence for all this, yes? I mean, you seem to think everything you say is a fact, right? Put your money where your mouth is and verify for us simpletons that Barack Obama is, indeed, an operative for a corporation who smokes dope and sniffs cocaine. Also please provide evidence that he was hired to fulfill a quota.
Be careful, I'm evidently a slippy liberal/commie/socialist/Marxist/Nazi/fascist/sandal-wearing Grauniad reader, so I might be laying a trap.

The Change the people got was his apparent chameleon evolutionary ancestry.

If it's so apparent, please enlighten us, your audience. With citations (actual citations, not gibberish please).

Never again question my knowledge of evolution.

I don't take orders.

Your closing point missed my post entirely.

No, it really didn't.

BO is the acronym for body odor, it is also this President's initials.

I know it's an abbreviation (not an acronym) for body odour, and I know why you think it's so very amusing. For those to whom it is not yet apparent, I think it will become clear momentarily.

You just can't make this stuff up!

And lo, he unintentionally reveals his inner racist. I've heard the claim that black people "stink" so many times, it's ridiculous. Oh, and I mean IRL, not just on the internet.

I can't figure out your need to state the man's middle and last name.

I don't think you're being honest here (to be expected, given the drivel on this thread so far), but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. There is a select group of fuckwits who refer to him as B. Hussein Obama, and make snide commentary about his supposed Muslim-ness, the basis of which stems from his middle name, and his father's faith (see Anne Coulter/Pamela Geller for prominent examples). These are the same people who criticised him for his affiliation to the Christian church of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and claim his birth certificate is a forgery. They realised that these criticisms were only a bit racist individually, not quite enough to rile their casual audience into a froth. It was a difficult time for them; he's black, his dad was a Muslim, and he has an Arabian middle name - do they tell people he's a black extremist or a member of a Muslim fifth column? In the end it was decided that any of the above can be used, but all agreed that the streams should never be crossed, lest the dissonance resonate and break the bonds of their usually pliant readers.
As it stands, you are in the same category of fantasists.

Perhaps you are proud of his muslim roots.

Ouch!

I take pride in my own achievements. As for his "Muslim roots", I have "Celtic roots"; am I a secret pagan? Hidden beneath my quiet, atheist exterior, I'm really asking Pan to take me dancing?

Your collection of spurious arguments are hilariously flaccid.

Or would that just be bullocks?

The word is "bollocks". B-o-l-l-o-c-k-s.

Sorry to have to tell you, but it is not becoming of you to be an apologist

Yes, dismissing your garbled, fictional waffle is akin to being an apologist. I love the two-tone mentality of the American right.

for a man that won't escape history as being the most uneducated, unprepared, and unqualified person to ever be propped up by an American political party as their presidential candidate.

Bahahahaha! Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

His nickname during the 2008 campaign was rightfully "man-child".

Was it? Perhaps it was on Rush Limbaugh's show... Which would explain a lot about your risible views.

BTW, is that a hollow body, or electric guitar in your photo?

It is a green 2001 Tanglewood Indiana.

 

[televator]

Re: why is there in america the republican presidential deba

I've just had a grand realization... My misanthropy dial goes up to eleven sometimes...that's fascinating.

Coincidentally, I was watching this video when I realized that:

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

 

[nemesiss]

Re: why is there in america the republican presidential deba

No. it's not just about the current Republican debates, the thread begged the question "why" the debates.

The title is unfortunately worded (English isn't nemesiss' first language) given his actual post, but the intent in the OP is transparent... Reading a thread before responding is usually considered courteous, and is good practice all round.

actually, it has more to do to with character limitation on topic-titles.
and till this day, im when looking at american politics.. im still stuck with my original question: WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THESE HUMANS?!

you get situations where you see a gigantic hypocrit and see him lie out right into peoples faces and think, no one will vote for someone like that, yet people do...
you get situations where you see someone say something incredible stupid and think, no will take him serious anymore, yet people do...
you get situations where you see them preach about love, but see the hatred in their eyes and actions to people who are different, and people just adore it...
these same kind of people call themselves "the leaders of the free world", yet they want to take all kinds of freedoms from everyone else (except themselves and rich people)...


if such a force gets into power, only a few inches away from a button that could send nuclear war heads accross the sky and start WW3... wouldn't you be worried?
if it were up to me, i would only allow people into congress if they can pass an IQ test and score atleast 10 points above the average and hook them all up with lie detectors with gives shocks of electricity when they start lying.


and as example with the video posted by televator, isn't it strange that they accuse they other side, of actions you see them do they most?