First Republican Debate Tonight

by **Buffett and Colbert** » Fri May 06, 2011 2:20 pm

Jedi8246 wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:I fail to see the specific statements and examples supporting that liberals "know things that are not true."

Oh, that wasn't intended to be an argument? Well, golly, what do you know?

It was only intended to be a joke. But I guess those without a sense of humor wouldn't understand.

And it looks like my post went right over your head. Not surprised.

by **Jedi8246** » Fri May 06, 2011 2:37 pm

Buffett and Colbert wrote:
Jedi8246 wrote:It was only intended to be a joke. But I guess those without a sense of humor wouldn't understand.

And it looks like my post went right over your head. Not surprised.

It didn't go ever my head. You just took what I said literally. Not realizing it was obvious sarcasm.

by **Buffett and Colbert** » Fri May 06, 2011 2:49 pm

Jedi8246 wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:And it looks like my post went right over your head. Not surprised.

It didn't go ever my head. You just took what I said literally. Not realizing it was obvious sarcasm.

By all means, continue to make it clear you don't understand what I said.

by **Jedi8246** » Fri May 06, 2011 2:55 pm

Buffett and Colbert wrote:
Jedi8246 wrote:It didn't go ever my head. You just took what I said literally. Not realizing it was obvious sarcasm.

By all means, continue to make it clear you don't understand what I said.

If I don't understand, then what exactly did you mean?

by **Wamitoria** » Fri May 06, 2011 3:56 pm

Extremely Irate People wrote:The best so far is Trump who is a proven leader and a great business man.

Trump who is a proven leader and a great business man.

Trump who is a proven leader

Trump... proven leader

You be tripping.

by **Buffett and Colbert** » Fri May 06, 2011 3:58 pm

Jedi8246 wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:By all means, continue to make it clear you don't understand what I said.

If I don't understand, then what exactly did you mean?

Irony.

You'd think someone who claims to know something about humour would be able to recognise it.

by **Tahar Joblis** » Fri May 06, 2011 6:03 pm

Wamitoria wrote:
Extremely Irate People wrote:The best so far is Trump who is a proven leader and a great business man.

Trump who is a proven leader and a great business man.

Trump who is a proven leader

Trump... proven leader

You be tripping.

No kidding. He's been a disastrously bad businessman. He has made a fortune losing investors' money.

Oh, right. And he's not exactly a proven leader, either.

by **Brandenburg-Altmark** » Fri May 06, 2011 6:28 pm

I watched the first few minutes and had to wash the bullshit out of my ears in the shower for about 3 hours.

by **Flying Nuclear Snakes** » Mon May 09, 2011 10:46 am

Terra Agora wrote:
Wamitoria wrote:And you are a lolburtarian.₁ That doesn't change the fact that Paul would make it easy for states to violate the constitution.₂

1 Doubt it
2 Examples?

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/20 ... reat-idea/

by **Distruzio** » Mon May 09, 2011 11:21 am

Flying Nuclear Snakes wrote:
Terra Agora wrote:1 Doubt it
2 Examples?

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/20 ... reat-idea/

Are you arguing that nullification is not a good idea?

by **Jedi8246** » Mon May 09, 2011 12:09 pm

Buffett and Colbert wrote:
Jedi8246 wrote:If I don't understand, then what exactly did you mean?

Irony.

You'd think someone who claims to know something about humour would be able to recognise it.

I know full well that you thought it was ironic. Which is why I explained I was only joking about the last part. It was sarcasm!!!! Which means it was not ironic at all.

In any case, this entire debate is rather silly. Here we are arguing over the semantics of English.

by **Flying Nuclear Snakes** » Mon May 09, 2011 2:53 pm

Distruzio wrote:
Flying Nuclear Snakes wrote:http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/20 ... reat-idea/

Are you arguing that nullification is not a good idea?

I'd argue anyone who thinks it is is unaware of basic history, but that's beside the point, as I was answering the earlier comments in the thread about whether Paul wants states to have "total independence from the federal government".

by **Terra Agora** » Mon May 09, 2011 2:56 pm

Flying Nuclear Snakes wrote:
Distruzio wrote:
Are you arguing that nullification is not a good idea?

I'd argue anyone who thinks it is is unaware of basic history, but that's beside the point, as I was answering the earlier comments in the thread about whether Paul wants states to have "total independence from the federal government".

Source?

by **Flying Nuclear Snakes** » Mon May 09, 2011 2:58 pm

Terra Agora wrote:
Flying Nuclear Snakes wrote:I'd argue anyone who thinks it is is unaware of basic history, but that's beside the point, as I was answering the earlier comments in the thread about whether Paul wants states to have "total independence from the federal government".

Source?

Something about "beside the point" confuse you? Start a nullification thread and I'll happily participate, but this isn't really the thread for it.

by **Ravineworld** » Mon May 09, 2011 3:01 pm

Serrland wrote:Well, it's only kind of an election season debate. It's early in the year, and many big names will not be taking place, but there will be five "contenders" participating in the debate in South Carolina tonight. Questions are expected to be on a broad range of matters, and this type of debate can be a useful tool for generating visibility for lesser-known candidates with loft aspirations. It is indeed hosted by FOX News, but the host isn't as relevant in a Republican debate - there's no need to feign impartiality.

The candidates who will be participating are: Tim Pawlenty (Former Gov. of Minnesota), Rick Santorum (Former Sen. from Pennsylvania), Herman Cain, Ron Paul (Rep. from Texas), and Gary Johnson (former Gov. of New Mexico). As I said before, some big names are missing, but Pawlenty is expected by some to at least be somewhat relevant in the Republican primaries, and Ron Paul is a favorite of many here at NSG.

Will any of you be watching tonight? If so, is there anything in particular you will be looking for?

when is it

by **Tmutarakhan** » Mon May 09, 2011 3:05 pm

From the 1930's to the 1960's, it was traditional for the candidates to make their first campaign appearances on Labor Day. For decades after this had stopped being the custom, news anchors would still make lip-service to it, saying "Labor Day is the traditional start of the Presidential campaign" although the candidates had been boring us for months already. Then, last time around, I heard in September 2007 a guy on CNN (I think it was Rick Sanchez) saying "Labor Day is the traditional start of the Presidential campaign", apparently under the impression that it was "traditional" to start campaigning over a year before the election.

by **North Suran** » Mon May 09, 2011 3:10 pm

Tmutarakhan wrote:apparently under the impression that it was "traditional" to start campaigning over a year before the election.

See, this is why I hate US presidential elections.

It takes longer for them to pick a candidate than it takes for an entire UK general election to occur.

by **Terra Agora** » Mon May 09, 2011 3:40 pm

Flying Nuclear Snakes wrote:
Terra Agora wrote:Source?

Something about "beside the point" confuse you? Start a nullification thread and I'll happily participate, but this isn't really the thread for it.

Source for this ""total independence from the federal government."

by **Flying Nuclear Snakes** » Mon May 09, 2011 7:55 pm

Terra Agora wrote:
Flying Nuclear Snakes wrote:Something about "beside the point" confuse you? Start a nullification thread and I'll happily participate, but this isn't really the thread for it.

Source for this ""total independence from the federal government."

There were comments early in the thread about whether or not Paul wanted states to have "independence from the federal government" when making their decisions, I linked to a video showing he supports nullification. What exactly is confusing here?

by **Distruzio** » Tue May 10, 2011 7:08 am

Flying Nuclear Snakes wrote:
Distruzio wrote:
Are you arguing that nullification is not a good idea?

I'd argue anyone who thinks it is is unaware of basic history, but that's beside the point, as I was answering the earlier comments in the thread about whether Paul wants states to have "total independence from the federal government".

Ah, I misunderstood the point of your post. Apologies!

by **SD_Film Artists** » Tue May 10, 2011 9:11 am

Drinking game- shot of whiskey for each strawman and other fallacies.

by **Wamitoria** » Tue May 10, 2011 9:46 am

SD_Film Artists wrote:Drinking game- shot of whiskey for each strawman and other fallacies.

Alcohol poisoning in 3...2...1...

by **Terra Agora** » Tue May 10, 2011 11:42 am

Flying Nuclear Snakes wrote:
Terra Agora wrote:Source for this ""total independence from the federal government."

There were comments early in the thread about whether or not Paul wanted states to have "independence from the federal government" when making their decisions, I linked to a video showing he supports nullification. What exactly is confusing here?

Nullification =/= total independence from the federal gov.

by **Fnordgasm 5** » Tue May 10, 2011 12:15 pm

Rick Santorum.. he's the anal sex juice guy right?

by **Terra Agora** » Tue May 10, 2011 4:45 pm

Extremely Irate People wrote:I wish that a real leader would come out of this debate but none of so called candidates are worthy of being called President. The best so far is Trump who is a proven leader and a great business man. I wish he was in this debate but I guess he will be in the next one. Also Fox is more fair and more balanced than the rest of LIBERAL media who only are concerned with spreading their left wing talking points

[img]conditions%20of%20individual%20sovereignty%20and%20property%20rights.[/img]

First Republican Debate Tonight

Who is online