NationStates

Freiheit Reich wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:I'd say you just lost all credibility, but, well...

These 3 pictures can explain it all. Don't feel bad, over 50% of Americans reelected Bush.

The last is because Hillary fell for Bush's plan hook line and sinker and voted for the Iraq War, a voter for Hillary is a vote for immoral foreign invasions:

I find it highly ironic that you're posting anti-Bush shit, while everything you've ever said in any thread since you've ever been here has been shit Bush would've sided with you on.

Oh, and before you accuse me of being pro-Shrub, I'm rabidly anti-Shrub, and with far more legitimate reasons for being so than some bullshit conspiracy theories about him being behind 9/11.

Grenartia wrote:

Freiheit Reich wrote:
These 3 pictures can explain it all. Don't feel bad, over 50% of Americans reelected Bush.

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

The last is because Hillary fell for Bush's plan hook line and sinker and voted for the Iraq War, a voter for Hillary is a vote for immoral foreign invasions:

(Image)

I find it highly ironic that you're posting anti-Bush shit, while everything you've ever said in any thread since you've ever been here has been shit Bush would've sided with you on.

Oh, and before you accuse me of being pro-Shrub, I'm rabidly anti-Shrub, and with far more legitimate reasons for being so than some bullshit conspiracy theories about him being behind 9/11.

I just assumed most people that refuse to consider the fact 9/11 was an inside job are diehard Bush fans. I guess school must have taught to you always believe and trust the president. The Germans did this in the 1930's and look what happened.

Freiheit Reich wrote:

Grenartia wrote:
I find it highly ironic that you're posting anti-Bush shit, while everything you've ever said in any thread since you've ever been here has been shit Bush would've sided with you on.

Oh, and before you accuse me of being pro-Shrub, I'm rabidly anti-Shrub, and with far more legitimate reasons for being so than some bullshit conspiracy theories about him being behind 9/11.

I just assumed most people that refuse to consider the fact 9/11 was an inside job are diehard Bush fans. I guess school must have taught to you always believe and trust the president. The Germans did this in the 1930's and look what happened.

People don't believe and trust the president. That's precisely why he can't get anything done without the far right shouting "MUR FREEDERMS!!!" loud enough for countries in the middle east mistaking it for a warcry.

Freiheit Reich wrote:

Grenartia wrote:
I find it highly ironic that you're posting anti-Bush shit, while everything you've ever said in any thread since you've ever been here has been shit Bush would've sided with you on.

Oh, and before you accuse me of being pro-Shrub, I'm rabidly anti-Shrub, and with far more legitimate reasons for being so than some bullshit conspiracy theories about him being behind 9/11.

I just assumed most people that refuse to consider the fact 9/11 was an inside job are diehard Bush fans. I guess school must have taught to you always believe and trust the president. The Germans did this in the 1930's and look what happened.

Either they are diehard Bush fans or reasonable people who don't fall for nonsensical theories that are easily dismantled.

Grenartia wrote:
I find it highly ironic that you're posting anti-Bush shit, while everything you've ever said in any thread since you've ever been here has been shit Bush would've sided with you on.

Oh, and before you accuse me of being pro-Shrub, I'm rabidly anti-Shrub, and with far more legitimate reasons for being so than some bullshit conspiracy theories about him being behind 9/11.

me too. I think W is in the running for worst president ever. but no, W didn't spend the first 9 months in office planning a false flag operation so that he could end up in a war with Iraq. that is utterly unbelievable.

Freiheit Reich wrote:

Grenartia wrote:
I find it highly ironic that you're posting anti-Bush shit, while everything you've ever said in any thread since you've ever been here has been shit Bush would've sided with you on.

Oh, and before you accuse me of being pro-Shrub, I'm rabidly anti-Shrub, and with far more legitimate reasons for being so than some bullshit conspiracy theories about him being behind 9/11.

I just assumed most people that refuse to consider the fact 9/11 was an inside job are diehard Bush fans.]

No, they're just sane.

Dyakovo wrote:

Freiheit Reich wrote:
I just assumed most people that refuse to consider the fact 9/11 was an inside job are diehard Bush fans.]

No, they're blind to the oppression by our Reptilian Overlords.

Fixed

Freiheit Reich wrote:

Grenartia wrote:
I find it highly ironic that you're posting anti-Bush shit, while everything you've ever said in any thread since you've ever been here has been shit Bush would've sided with you on.

Oh, and before you accuse me of being pro-Shrub, I'm rabidly anti-Shrub, and with far more legitimate reasons for being so than some bullshit conspiracy theories about him being behind 9/11.

I just assumed most people that refuse to consider the fact 9/11 was an inside job are diehard Bush fans. I guess school must have taught to you always believe and trust the president. The Germans did this in the 1930's and look what happened.

Or maybe people just consider facts, and don't bother with B.S. conspiracy theories.

Freiheit Reich wrote:

Grenartia wrote:
I find it highly ironic that you're posting anti-Bush shit, while everything you've ever said in any thread since you've ever been here has been shit Bush would've sided with you on.

Oh, and before you accuse me of being pro-Shrub, I'm rabidly anti-Shrub, and with far more legitimate reasons for being so than some bullshit conspiracy theories about him being behind 9/11.

I just assumed most people that refuse to consider the fact 9/11 was an inside job are diehard Bush fans. I guess school must have taught to you always believe and trust the president. The Germans did this in the 1930's and look what happened.

Lel. Nope.

You honestly think I'd ever take anything you say seriously? The queerphobic troll who has unrepentantly advocated for forcibly branding/tattooing the "infamous T" on my forehead, and who is now spreading conspiracy theory bullshit?

You honestly think you have any credibility here? You are literally the laughingstock of the entire fucking forum. Go back to /pol/ or Stormfront or wherever the fuck it is you came from. We won't miss you.

Grenartia wrote:

Freiheit Reich wrote:
I just assumed most people that refuse to consider the fact 9/11 was an inside job are diehard Bush fans. I guess school must have taught to you always believe and trust the president. The Germans did this in the 1930's and look what happened.

Lel. Nope.

You honestly think I'd ever take anything you say seriously? The queerphobic troll who has unrepentantly advocated for forcibly branding/tattooing the "infamous T" on my forehead, and who is now spreading conspiracy theory bullshit?

You honestly think you have any credibility here? You are literally the laughingstock of the entire fucking forum. Go back to /pol/ or Stormfront or wherever the fuck it is you came from. We won't miss you.

Clearly you don't want to be branded because you were indoctrinated into loving Bush in high school.

Grenartia wrote:

Freiheit Reich wrote:
I just assumed most people that refuse to consider the fact 9/11 was an inside job are diehard Bush fans. I guess school must have taught to you always believe and trust the president. The Germans did this in the 1930's and look what happened.

Lel. Nope.

You honestly think I'd ever take anything you say seriously? The queerphobic troll who has unrepentantly advocated for forcibly branding/tattooing the "infamous T" on my forehead, and who is now spreading conspiracy theory bullshit?

You honestly think you have any credibility here? You are literally the laughingstock of the entire fucking forum. Go back to /pol/ or Stormfront or wherever the fuck it is you came from. We won't miss you.

You might want to read the forum rules, brother.

Jocabia wrote:

Grenartia wrote:
Lel. Nope.

You honestly think I'd ever take anything you say seriously? The queerphobic troll who has unrepentantly advocated for forcibly branding/tattooing the "infamous T" on my forehead, and who is now spreading conspiracy theory bullshit?

You honestly think you have any credibility here? You are literally the laughingstock of the entire fucking forum. Go back to /pol/ or Stormfront or wherever the fuck it is you came from. We won't miss you.

You might want to read the forum rules, brother.

You might want to read them yourself, Mr Lawyer.

Jinwoy wrote:

Jocabia wrote:You might want to read the forum rules, brother.

You might want to read them yourself, Mr Lawyer.

Done and done. What rule do you think I've violated?

Jocabia wrote:

Jinwoy wrote:You might want to read them yourself, Mr Lawyer.

Done and done. What rule do you think I've violated?

I'm pretty sure lawyering is against the rules.

Remember kids: The surest sign that someone is a mindless slave to herd mentality is if they unironically call other people "sheep" or "sheeple".

themoreyouknow.jpg

Ifreann wrote:

Grenartia wrote:
Lel. Nope.

You honestly think I'd ever take anything you say seriously? The queerphobic troll who has unrepentantly advocated for forcibly branding/tattooing the "infamous T" on my forehead, and who is now spreading conspiracy theory bullshit?

You honestly think you have any credibility here? You are literally the laughingstock of the entire fucking forum. Go back to /pol/ or Stormfront or wherever the fuck it is you came from. We won't miss you.

Clearly you don't want to be branded because you were indoctrinated into loving Bush in high school.

I'll bet money I don't have that's what's going through FR's head.

And he couldn't be any more wrong.

Jocabia wrote:

Grenartia wrote:
Lel. Nope.

You honestly think I'd ever take anything you say seriously? The queerphobic troll who has unrepentantly advocated for forcibly branding/tattooing the "infamous T" on my forehead, and who is now spreading conspiracy theory bullshit?

You honestly think you have any credibility here? You are literally the laughingstock of the entire fucking forum. Go back to /pol/ or Stormfront or wherever the fuck it is you came from. We won't miss you.

You might want to read the forum rules, brother.

I'm not "brother".

Also, please, tell me what rule you think I've broken.

Grenartia wrote:

Freiheit Reich wrote:
I just assumed most people that refuse to consider the fact 9/11 was an inside job are diehard Bush fans. I guess school must have taught to you always believe and trust the president. The Germans did this in the 1930's and look what happened.

(Image)

Lel. Nope.

You honestly think I'd ever take anything you say seriously? The queerphobic troll who has unrepentantly advocated for forcibly branding/tattooing the "infamous T" on my forehead, and who is now spreading conspiracy theory bullshit?

You honestly think you have any credibility here? You are literally the laughingstock of the entire fucking forum. Go back to /pol/ or Stormfront or wherever the fuck it is you came from. We won't miss you.

Considering your extensive history, *** one week ban for flaming ***

You are on thin ice.

Jinwoy wrote:

Jocabia wrote:Done and done. What rule do you think I've violated?

I'm pretty sure lawyering is against the rules.

Then you should probably look that up, since you don't appear to know what it is. Rules lawyering is a reference to trying to skirt the rules by using the letter but ignoring the spirit. Gently pointing out to someone that they should obey the forum rules isn't against the rules and is pretty common. And given the result, it would have been a good idea.

Regardless, if you're unsure if I've broken a forum rule and it really bothers you, feel free to ask the mods to clarify.

The Black Forrest wrote:

Coccygia wrote:Rand Paul is the one person who could definitely make me vote for that brain-damaged bitch Hillary.

I don't understand your new age edgy hipster talk.

What part of "brain-damaged bitch" did you not understand?

Freiheit Reich wrote:

Coccygia wrote:Rand Paul is the one person who could definitely make me vote for that brain-damaged bitch Hillary.

Watch the language. I dislike Hillary but we don't have to use foul language to talk about her.

I know I don't have to use foul language to talk about her. I assure you it was purely voluntary.*

Why can't you vote for another party if you dislike the 2 candidates?

Because it would be absolutely pointless. There is no chance of any Third Party candidate getting anywhere or being anything other than a spoiler. Might as well not bother to vote, frankly. My state is so solidly blue (of which I am nevertheless glad) there really is little point in voting in a Presidential election anyway.

*Thanks a tip of the old bowler to Sir Winston Churchill.

Coccygia wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:I don't understand your new age edgy hipster talk.

What part of "brain-damaged bitch" did you not understand?

Freiheit Reich wrote:Watch the language. I dislike Hillary but we don't have to use foul language to talk about her.

I know I don't have to use foul language to talk about her. I assure you it was purely voluntary.*

Why can't you vote for another party if you dislike the 2 candidates?

Because it would be absolutely pointless. There is no chance of any Third Party candidate getting anywhere or being anything other than a spoiler. Might as well not bother to vote, frankly. My state is so solidly blue (of which I am nevertheless glad) there really is little point in voting in a Presidential election anyway.

*Thanks a tip of the old bowler to Sir Winston Churchill.

Being in a predictable state is actually your safest opportunity to vote for a third party candidate. First and foremost, the only reason that third parties even bother with running a presidential candidate is not that they think they'll win, but because of a nuance in the rules that means that if they get a certain percentage of the vote for a presidential election they become eligible for funding and automatic ballot slots, so it makes all of the more winnable smaller local and state level seats easier for them to contest.

But even if you think that getting the 5% or whatever it is for the threshold for funding is realistic (and you may well think that as it's a hard nut to crack), in a solidly blue or red state a vote for a party slightly more to the right/left of the party that you would normally vote for would, if done with enough other voters of similar inclination, indicate that they cannot take your vote for granted and force them treat you like a constituent even though they are more than likely to win regardless.

Now, all of this probably would be dismissed as "Yeah, well, but you have to get others to do it too..." which is sort of like saying in order to breath you have to suck in air, as any voting action requires a number of people to vote the same way...that's pretty much how voting works.

Wouldn't a third party candidate winning the Presidency be literally impossible?

They'd have to win a majority of the electoral college votes, which means earning a majority of the vote in multiple states, due to the electoral college and FPTP.

Atlanticatia wrote:Wouldn't a third party candidate winning the Presidency be literally impossible?

They'd have to win a majority of the electoral college votes, which means earning a majority of the vote in multiple states, due to the electoral college and FPTP.

Teddy and Perot were the only ones that actually had a chance.

In fact, going by population by state, the most electoral votes Gary Johnson could have hoped to get was a measly 12. An to accomplishthat, they'd all have to be living in Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota and Alaska.

Coccygia wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:I don't understand your new age edgy hipster talk.

What part of "brain-damaged bitch" did you not understand?

The part where it applies to Hillary.

Coccygia wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:I don't understand your new age edgy hipster talk.

What part of "brain-damaged bitch" did you not understand?

Freiheit Reich wrote:Watch the language. I dislike Hillary but we don't have to use foul language to talk about her.

I know I don't have to use foul language to talk about her. I assure you it was purely voluntary.*

Why can't you vote for another party if you dislike the 2 candidates?

Because it would be absolutely pointless. There is no chance of any Third Party candidate getting anywhere or being anything other than a spoiler. Might as well not bother to vote, frankly. My state is so solidly blue (of which I am nevertheless glad) there really is little point in voting in a Presidential election anyway.

*Thanks a tip of the old bowler to Sir Winston Churchill.

It seems most of the USA is not satisfied with the 2 parties but they vote for them anyways. However, think about the fact that we used to have Whigs. They don't exist anymore because they didn't please the people. The republicans were not always around. They started in 1854 and have managed to become an important party and win a few elections. Perhaps libertarians will do the same thing in the future.

If millions of people are willing to 'waste' their vote on a libertarian candidate than perhaps the candidate will win the election. The problem is millions of people choose an inferior candidate which is really wasting their vote. You should show your support for the right candidate. If the candidate gets 10% in an election, he will be taken more seriously the next time.

http://www.ushistory.org/gop/origins.htm

Take heed to this below:

Ayn Rand has no chance of beating Hillary.