We need to nominate, then elect Herman Cain!

poet said:
Uh, your credibility, for speaking for "an actual mother", is shot all to hell. S'matter? No one wanting to play with or entertain you over at P & C?
Click to expand...

well, as an actual father, I have some experience with two actual mothers........have you never heard it said that you shouldn't pick up a child every time he cries.......and I find P&CA entertaining......I find liberals entertaining where ever they post......
 
poet said:
Refute it, if you can.....otherwise it stands as fact. How can you summarily dismiss it, if you've failed to read it, and further, dispute it, point for point. The fact that you're lazy, is not my problem. The fact that you cannot dispute it, renders your argument "a moot point".
Click to expand...

I already refuted it by pointing out your logical fallacy: the words of the opposition do not define his enemy. :)
 
Dixie said:
I wouldn't appoint a Muslim to my cabinet either. Not while Muslims are at WAR with America, it would be like appointing a Nazi during WWII, wouldn't it?

Oh, that's right... you live in the little moronic brainwashed world that doesn't believe the Muslims are at war with us, and do believe Islam is a religion of peace! Until the Mullahs, Clerics, Ayatollahs, and whatever... start preaching TOLERANCE and respecting FREEDOM, the religion remains an intolerant hate group disguised as a religion. If you want to think in some other rational terms, we're not on the same page and never will be.

Don't call me un-American... Anti-Sharia? you bet!

Every president that has ever been elected or will ever be elected, will have their own "litmus test" for every position they appoint, moron! I don't know where we ever got to this whole "litmus test" buzzword phraseology and understanding of how things work... but for all intents and purposes, the choice is the president's choice to make, and he can base that decision on any damn thing he pleases, and it doesn't matter what you think of that or call it. Now that is about as much of a true 'litmus' as you could ever have for someone, and to suggest that it doesn't exist, that a president never even thinks of how a potential appointee views a given issue, is the epitome of dumbness. IF you want a president who has no 'litmus test' what do you want them to go by in making appointments? Whether the left or right think they are the best choice? If they go by the constitution or if they challenge it... and if they challenge it, are they good or bad? I mean, I really don't know how a president could make any appointment to any position, without SOME kind of consideration on how the person views the world, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that, it's the choice the president has to make, and that's why he is elected.
Click to expand...

No, the Natzi's were a political party not a religen.

I belive some Muslims are at war with us, I do not belive that all of Islam is at war with us. I personally know several Muslims who are peace loving people who would make great judges and are patirotic Americans. The entire religen is not at war with us, and to say so is moronic. We have muslim Congressmen, Bush II appointed Muslims to judgeships, plenty of Muslims share a world view that is consistant with Loving America and being patirotic.

Discarding someone because they belong to one of the three largest religens in the world is silly, disregard them because of a specific position on an issue but not because they are a member of a religen.
 
poet said:
That's what you've done by summarily dismissing the article I submitted as a description of conservatism. Dick Cheney's tome is a "personal essay". Are you all-too-willing to dismiss that as well, despite it being his testimony? Well, now. Your hypocrisy looms large. Again.
Click to expand...
I've read pages upon pages of liberal's descriptions of conservatism. There is nothing in the man's personal essay that I have not refuted in the past. There's no reason to constantly refute the same bullshit over and over again.

My position is simple: The political group defines itself in it's stated platform, not it's opposition's in rambling messages and essays. When I argue against liberalism I argue against it's stated platforms. Your arguments fail when you try that against conservatives so you resort to bullshit tactics like making up your own definitions of words. Jarod does the same thing and has been doing so for years. :)
 
apple0154 said:
Apple: The government is not a business so what does business experience have to do with anything?

Dixie: Everything. The president doesn't run the government, so why would it matter the government is not a business?

Huh? You say it has "everything" and then say the President doesn't run the government. What's your point?
Click to expand...


A haha, dixie's point is the top of his head!
 
Dixie said:
The level of business experience is crucial in the knowledge and understanding of problem solving and executive decision making. You made the statement that government is not a business, but the president is also not "the government."
Click to expand...


Well, let's see, what I learned when they still had civic classes, three branches of GOVERNMENT

THE LEGISLATURE

THE COURT

THE PRESIDENCY

Hmmmmmmmm, but he is not the government according to Dixie.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
well, as an actual father, I have some experience with two actual mothers........have you never heard it said that you shouldn't pick up a child every time he cries.......and I find P&CA entertaining......I find liberals entertaining where ever they post......
Click to expand...

Poor children.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top