Soapweed
Well-known member
Whitewing said:
You called that shot right, Whitewing.
Herman Cain's newest accuser......
- Thread starter hypocritexposer
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
You called that shot right, Whitewing.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Soapweed said:
This isn't about Obama- its about who the R cult will nominate as their "Chosen Champion"....
Its really sad to see so many folks that live and die as cultist followers- to have to lower/throw out their principles, morals, and ideals- just to put a fellow cult member in office-even tho he is a hypocrite to what he profess's ...
Oldtimer said:
What a sorry bag of wind you are old man.
I could list about a dozen issues that you've whined about over the years, issues that Obama today is doing THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what you claimed bothered you at the time and yet you sit silent today on him and cast stones at some yet-to-be-named pub candidate.
You're already made up your mind that regardless of who the pubs nominate, you'll not be happy with the choice. Somehow you'll manage to not find any fault with Obama allthewhile calling everyone else cultists.
Who the heck do you think the average pub is going to vote for? A candidate who meets MOST of their criteria to be a good president or a candidate who has met virtually none of those same criteria, ie Barack Obama?
Soapweed
Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Whoever is perfect can throw the first stone. In any election, there is no "completely perfect candidate." Jesus would be, but He is not seeking office. The solution is to vote for the "lesser of the evils."
It's rather like buying a saddle horse. There is no perfect horse, but some are darn sure more "perfect" than others. Let's pretend Obama is a horse. If he were in the corral with any of the Republican candidates (none of whom are completely perfect, by the way), any of the Republican candidates would still be "more perfect" than Obama. This is not necessarily because they are "Republican," either. It is because their principles, as imperfect as they might be, are still more perfect than any principles Obama might have.
Dang, but you are thick, Oldtimer. You just can't seem to get any logic soaked into your noggin.
hypocritexposer
Well-known member
Soapweed said:
obama would be the 3 legged horse..... :wink: :lol: and 1 of those 3 is a "bum leg"
At least the Repub. candidates can all walk on 4 legs.....
Did I tell you that Palin was stupid.....?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Soapweed said:
Soap- who is going to vette the (R) candidates if all the posters just put up the good things about them- and the evils of Obama and (D's)... Hypocritexposer is far from living up to his name.. :roll: :wink: :lol:
But most posters don't even want to look at the article- and still would just choose to call the message carrier names- and make attacks against them...(This board is making me believe this is the new R cult/conservative way of operating
)And if a few here still didn't have the balls to question things you'd have to argue amongst yourself and call yourselves names to meet the criteria of the board... :lol:
The Hoppy's, Larry's, Hypocrits, Whitewing ankle biter name callers (several of who are multi ID posters) to me should be a disgrace to (R's) and conservativism altogether...
So Soap--- do you think Cain or Newt are good moral (R) principled candidates :???: or is that the best the Repubs can put up :???: ....
Personally I think folks should be looking at the true conservative- that as Governor of one of the most conservative states- had a 80+% approval rating when he left office because of term limits..
But again- he doesn't fit into the right religious following of much of the radical right- doesn't stand on the soapbox and wave a 6 pack in one hand and a rifle in the other- and condemn every politician in office- so will not fit into the radical right wish to promote anarchy and rewrite the Constitution...
Will the overly small tent of the R's vote for a Morman - or instead throw out their religious/moral ideals principles to follow a Newt/Cain :???:
hypocritexposer
Well-known member
Oldtimer said:Soapweed said:
Soap- who is going to vette the (R) candidates if all the posters just put up the good things about them- and the evils of Obama and (D's)... Hypocritexposer is far from living up to his name.. :roll: :wink: :lol:
But most posters don't even want to look at the article- and still would just choose to call the message carrier names- and make attacks against them...(This board is making me believe this is the new R cult/conservative way of operating
And if a few here still didn't have the balls to question things you'd have to argue amongst yourself and call yourselves names to meet the criteria of the board... :lol:
The Hoppy's, Larry's, Hypocrits, Whitewing ankle biter name callers (several of who are multi ID posters) to me should be a disgrace to (R's) and conservativism altogether...
So Soap--- do you think Cain or Newt are good moral (R) principled candidates :???: or is that the best the Repubs can put up :???: ....
Personally I think folks should be looking at the true conservative- that as Governor of one of the most conservative states- had a 80+% approval rating when he left office because of term limits..
But again- he doesn't fit into the right religious following of much of the radical right- doesn't stand on the soapbox and wave a 6 pack in one hand and a rifle in the other- and condemn every politician in office- so will not fit into the radical right wish to promote anarchy and rewrite the Constitution...
Will the overly small tent of the R's vote for a Morman - or instead throw out their religious/moral ideals principles to follow a Newt/Cain :???:
:lol: :lol:
But again- he doesn't fit into the right religious following of much of the radical right- doesn't stand on the soapbox and wave a 6 pack in one hand and a rifle in the other- and condemn every politician in office- so will not fit into the radical right wish to promote anarchy and rewrite the Constitution...
Where do you come up with this dribble OT?
Just because you say such silly crap over and over doesn't make it the truth.
The vetting process for the pub candidates is moving along quite nicely, thank you. I'm sure whoever survives the process will be a much better president than he who currently holds the office...and speaking of vetting, boy was that a colossal failure.
Call me an ankle biter, a stalker, a sexual harrasser, and Hypo's alt all you want, it still won't change the fact that you were 100% miserably wrong about me when I joined and have never admitted it or apologized for being such a pompous ass jerk simply because I don't see things the way you do.
Must really suck being you.
Where do you come up with this dribble OT?
Just because you say such silly crap over and over doesn't make it the truth.
The vetting process for the pub candidates is moving along quite nicely, thank you. I'm sure whoever survives the process will be a much better president than he who currently holds the office...and speaking of vetting, boy was that a colossal failure.
Call me an ankle biter, a stalker, a sexual harrasser, and Hypo's alt all you want, it still won't change the fact that you were 100% miserably wrong about me when I joined and have never admitted it or apologized for being such a pompous ass jerk simply because I don't see things the way you do.
Must really suck being you.
Soapweed
Well-known member
Oldtimer said:Soap- who is going to vette the (R) candidates if all the posters just put up the good things about them- and the evils of Obama and (D's)... Hypocritexposer is far from living up to his name.. :roll: :wink: :lol:
But most posters don't even want to look at the article- and still would just choose to call the message carrier names- and make attacks against them...(This board is making me believe this is the new R cult/conservative way of operating
And if a few here still didn't have the balls to question things you'd have to argue amongst yourself and call yourselves names to meet the criteria of the board... :lol:
The Hoppy's, Larry's, Hypocrits, Whitewing ankle biter name callers (several of who are multi ID posters) to me should be a disgrace to (R's) and conservativism altogether...
So Soap--- do you think Cain or Newt are good moral (R) principled candidates :???: or is that the best the Repubs can put up :???: ....
Personally I think folks should be looking at the true conservative- that as Governor of one of the most conservative states- had a 80+% approval rating when he left office because of term limits..
But again- he doesn't fit into the right religious following of much of the radical right- doesn't stand on the soapbox and wave a 6 pack in one hand and a rifle in the other- and condemn every politician in office- so will not fit into the radical right wish to promote anarchy and rewrite the Constitution...
Will the overly small tent of the R's vote for a Morman - or instead throw out their religious/moral ideals principles to follow a Newt/Cain :???:
Cain or Newt, on their very worst days, are still head and shoulders above Obama on his best days. At least they are both patriotic Americans with the best interests of our fine country on their minds. Just look at Obama's "accomplishments," to use the word loosely. He is selling us down the river, and there is not a patriotic bone in his body.
Oldtimer, none of the Repulican presidential candidates come up to your so-called "high standards," and yet you support Obama who doesn't have any standards. You completely defy logic. :roll: :?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Soapweed said:Oldtimer said:Soap- who is going to vette the (R) candidates if all the posters just put up the good things about them- and the evils of Obama and (D's)... Hypocritexposer is far from living up to his name.. :roll: :wink: :lol:
But most posters don't even want to look at the article- and still would just choose to call the message carrier names- and make attacks against them...(This board is making me believe this is the new R cult/conservative way of operating
And if a few here still didn't have the balls to question things you'd have to argue amongst yourself and call yourselves names to meet the criteria of the board... :lol:
The Hoppy's, Larry's, Hypocrits, Whitewing ankle biter name callers (several of who are multi ID posters) to me should be a disgrace to (R's) and conservativism altogether...
So Soap--- do you think Cain or Newt are good moral (R) principled candidates :???: or is that the best the Repubs can put up :???: ....
Personally I think folks should be looking at the true conservative- that as Governor of one of the most conservative states- had a 80+% approval rating when he left office because of term limits..
But again- he doesn't fit into the right religious following of much of the radical right- doesn't stand on the soapbox and wave a 6 pack in one hand and a rifle in the other- and condemn every politician in office- so will not fit into the radical right wish to promote anarchy and rewrite the Constitution...
Will the overly small tent of the R's vote for a Morman - or instead throw out their religious/moral ideals principles to follow a Newt/Cain :???:
Cain or Newt, on their very worst days, are still head and shoulders above Obama on his best days. At least they are both patriotic Americans with the best interests of our fine country on their minds. Just look at Obama's "accomplishments," to use the word loosely. He is selling us down the river, and there is not a patriotic bone in his body.
Oldtimer, none of the Repulican presidential candidates come up to your so-called "high standards," and yet you support Obama who doesn't have any standards. You completely defy logic. :roll: :?
But philanderers, sexual harassers, and womanizers- that preach "family values", "high moral standards" , and think their old grey haired peers in Congress should legislate their morals for everyone else meet your standards and interests :???: :roll: :lol:
Soapweed
Well-known member
Oldtimer said:Soapweed said:Oldtimer said:Soap- who is going to vette the (R) candidates if all the posters just put up the good things about them- and the evils of Obama and (D's)... Hypocritexposer is far from living up to his name.. :roll: :wink: :lol:
But most posters don't even want to look at the article- and still would just choose to call the message carrier names- and make attacks against them...(This board is making me believe this is the new R cult/conservative way of operating
And if a few here still didn't have the balls to question things you'd have to argue amongst yourself and call yourselves names to meet the criteria of the board... :lol:
The Hoppy's, Larry's, Hypocrits, Whitewing ankle biter name callers (several of who are multi ID posters) to me should be a disgrace to (R's) and conservativism altogether...
So Soap--- do you think Cain or Newt are good moral (R) principled candidates :???: or is that the best the Repubs can put up :???: ....
Personally I think folks should be looking at the true conservative- that as Governor of one of the most conservative states- had a 80+% approval rating when he left office because of term limits..
But again- he doesn't fit into the right religious following of much of the radical right- doesn't stand on the soapbox and wave a 6 pack in one hand and a rifle in the other- and condemn every politician in office- so will not fit into the radical right wish to promote anarchy and rewrite the Constitution...
Will the overly small tent of the R's vote for a Morman - or instead throw out their religious/moral ideals principles to follow a Newt/Cain :???:
Cain or Newt, on their very worst days, are still head and shoulders above Obama on his best days. At least they are both patriotic Americans with the best interests of our fine country on their minds. Just look at Obama's "accomplishments," to use the word loosely. He is selling us down the river, and there is not a patriotic bone in his body.
Oldtimer, none of the Repulican presidential candidates come up to your so-called "high standards," and yet you support Obama who doesn't have any standards. You completely defy logic. :roll: :?
But philanderers, sexual harassers, and womanizers- that preach "family values", "high moral standards" , and think their old grey haired peers in Congress should legislate their morals for everyone else meet your standards and interests :???: :roll: :lol:
It is better to at least have standards, and fall short of those standards, than to go the Liberal way and not have any standards at all. As the song goes, "You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything."
A
Anonymous
Guest
Soapweed said:
Yep-- but I would rather let the individuals choose those personal standards for themselves rather than have a bunch of old hypocrits who preach one thing- and do the opposite legislating it- and have government telling them what their standard/values should be...
Larrry
Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Are you talking about obamas terrorist connections, hate America history, campaign lies spread around like a manure spreader, gay connections, drug abuser etc. It would have to be obama as this guy is the most corrupt individual to inhabit the white hose. I might reference you to him ranking lower than the failure Carter. This is a fact, so don't try to deny it.
OldHypocrit said:
Then why don't YOU let people here chose who the hell they wish to vote for instead of preaching to them daily about what fools they are because they support X, Y, or Z candidate.?
And preaching one thing and doing the opposite? What a crock load of crap coming from someone like you who whined constantly about the horrible things Bush was doing and then sit silently while Obama does the same in spades. You of all people are in no position to try to impose your "standards" on others.
You're either the most bereft of principles of anyone I've ever encountered in a political forum or you're the biggest liar and fraud on the internet.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Larrry said:
That is a fact about Carter being better than Obama. Also a fact Obama could beat any Republican that has his hat in the ring according to recent polls. Dug any government financed water wells lately.
hurley, do you have a link where we can see the FACT that obabbie can defeat everyone else??
Last i knew that was strictly conjecture offered up by the liberal party :wink: :wink:
Then of course you have to take into consideration that you assumption is based on ALL of the candidates, that would change a great deal when it comes down to just one candidate :wink:
Last i knew that was strictly conjecture offered up by the liberal party :wink: :wink:
Then of course you have to take into consideration that you assumption is based on ALL of the candidates, that would change a great deal when it comes down to just one candidate :wink:
Soapweed
Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
This is where you seem to be quite mixed up. It isn't the Conservatives who try to tell people how to run their lives; in fact, it is the Liberals who do this very thing. Look at smoking bans, seat belt laws, the ban on horse slaughter, telling us what we can eat and what we cannot eat, legislating who is fat and who is not fat, ......the list goes on and on. It is the Liberals who try to micro-manage everyone else's life but don't want to live that way themselves. Look at ultra-Liberal Al Gore. That sorry example of humanity has made billions of dollars from his perpeptuated Global Warming scam. He wants the multitudes to live in huts and only ride bicycles, while he lives in a luxurious energy guzzling mansion and flies the sky in a personal jet.
The "personal standards" to which you refer are undoubtedly on the issues of abortion and gay marriage. God made the World, and He made all of us. He also provided the Holy Bible, which is His Holy Word, and the "Owner's Manual," so to speak, on how all of us should conduct our lives. This should be the rule book for all of humanity. It sets standards that, even though no one is perfect, we should all at least try to live by.
Liberals try so hard to be so tolerant of everyone that they have thrown all standards aside. By trying to please everyone, they succeed in pleasing no one. The Liberal teachers don't even grade papers anymore, because they think it is unfair that some kids get A's while others get F's. Real life just isn't this way. Competitiveness can be overdone, but there is nothing wrong with a will to win.
hurleyjd said:
I also recall the national polls from July of 1988 showing Micheal Dukakis with a 17 point lead over George H.W. Bush. Remember that one?
July 1988: Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas is selected by Dukakis as his running mate. Jackson arrives at the Democratic convention in Atlanta furious and unyielding. But the three men yoke together a fragile peace as the party attempts to hide its divisions with a vague platform and much talk of unity and 'poor George'. It seems to work: Dukakis moves to a 17-point lead over Bush in the polls.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1988/nov/08/usa.alexbrummer
We all know how that tuned out.
Personally, I believe Obama is much weaker than anyone on the left wants to admit. I think he's toast.
loomixguy
Well-known member
TWAP should do a photo op while standing in the hatch of a tank, ala Dukakis!
