goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 14, 2015, 08:15:38 PM
-
Tonight's dem debate -- The Bern claims ISIS is a product of climate change - BOOM, he's now my guy.
-
Nobody called him out on his claim. Amazing.
-
You may be the only watching this debate. Apparently the DNC selected nights with the lowest possible viewership.
-
jd may be a little obsessed
-
You may be the only watching this debate. Apparently the DNC selected nights with the lowest possible viewership.
It is very strange
-
jd may be a little obsessed
I am obsessed with The Bern. He's remarkable in his libtardiness.
-
FYI, I quit watching after 20 min.
-
jd may be a little obsessed
I am obsessed with The Bern. He's remarkable in his libtardiness.
he sure is :D
-
They dumped jim Webb, that's a shame. Bernie looks really flushed tonight.
-
http://www.politico.com/blogs/live-from-des-moines/2015/11/cbs-democratic-debate-length-215892 (http://www.politico.com/blogs/live-from-des-moines/2015/11/cbs-democratic-debate-length-215892)
:lol: Debate ended early last night. Welp, I guess that's enough questions! :lol:
What a joke. The strategy is obviously just to get Hillary the nomination, limit her exposure as much as possible, and bank/bus their voters to the polls. A party terrified of debate and answering questions is a party bankrupt of ideas.
-
Wow, I mean outside of an incumbent has a party ever coddled and protected a candidate like this?
-
Words, and Orwellian twisting of them, are really, really important to the Democrat Party.
Take, for example, the refusal of any Dem candidate to acknowledge "radical Islam" last night. One of these (well, Hillary at least) could be president of the GOP fucks up their nomination. And she can't even acknowledge the obvious. Who's going to be the first libtard here to defend this?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/15/cbss_john_dickerson_asks_democratic_candidates_if_they_use_the_phrase_radical_islam_none_will.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/15/cbss_john_dickerson_asks_democratic_candidates_if_they_use_the_phrase_radical_islam_none_will.html)
-
Oh man.... :lol: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/15/hillary_clinton_on_her_wall_street_campaign_donations_i_represented_new_york_on_911.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/15/hillary_clinton_on_her_wall_street_campaign_donations_i_represented_new_york_on_911.html)
-
Tonight's dem debate -- The Bern claims ISIS is a product of climate change - BOOM, he's now my guy.
He pretty clearly was addressing our reliance on middle eastern oil and the things we do to protect those interests, but yeah he was inarticulate when addressing that, his fault.
-
You may be the only watching this debate. Apparently the DNC selected nights with the lowest possible viewership.
Wow, I mean outside of an incumbent has a party ever coddled and protected a candidate like this?
Debbie Wasserman Schultz has made a lot of mistakes in how far she's protecting her gal Hilz, she has even lied on record once about four different people and three of them said she lied and I'm pissed that she hasn't been fired yet. I'm okay with the number of debates, I'm not okay with when they are scheduled, it's a joke and the democrats should be ashamed that they put a structure in place where one person has so much authority as to how these primaries will go.
-
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/none-of-the-democrats-has-a-strategy-for-isis (http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/none-of-the-democrats-has-a-strategy-for-isis)
-
having a debate on a Saturday night just seemed really odd.
-
^hot take
-
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/none-of-the-democrats-has-a-strategy-for-isis (http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/none-of-the-democrats-has-a-strategy-for-isis)
Well, yeah. None of them, democrat or republican have a viable strategy for ISIS. I mean anyone could say what they WOULD do and good on a few republican candidates for doing so, I guess. However, none of them, the former Secretary of State included have had a single intelligence briefing on the current iteration of ISIS so I really don't know just how informed any of the strategies could be.
-
Oh man.... :lol: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/15/hillary_clinton_on_her_wall_street_campaign_donations_i_represented_new_york_on_911.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/15/hillary_clinton_on_her_wall_street_campaign_donations_i_represented_new_york_on_911.html)
She Rudy'd the crap out of that, it was embarrassing and I am happy to see that she has taken hits from liberal blogs for it.
-
If it's Trump, Carson or Cruz I'll be looking at the Dem, but can't vote for Hillary. So I'll either no vote, or just see what other alternatives there are, don't think I can vote for Bernie either, he's just a little too far off in "EVERYTHING WILL BE FREE" Land for me.
-
Words, and Orwellian twisting of them, are really, really important to the Democrat Party.
Take, for example, the refusal of any Dem candidate to acknowledge "radical Islam" last night. One of these (well, Hillary at least) could be president of the GOP fucks up their nomination. And she can't even acknowledge the obvious. Who's going to be the first libtard here to defend this?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/15/cbss_john_dickerson_asks_democratic_candidates_if_they_use_the_phrase_radical_islam_none_will.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/15/cbss_john_dickerson_asks_democratic_candidates_if_they_use_the_phrase_radical_islam_none_will.html)
If you don't understand how fantastic those answers were you probably shouldn't be voting.
-
Words, and Orwellian twisting of them, are really, really important to the Democrat Party.
Take, for example, the refusal of any Dem candidate to acknowledge "radical Islam" last night. One of these (well, Hillary at least) could be president of the GOP fucks up their nomination. And she can't even acknowledge the obvious. Who's going to be the first libtard here to defend this?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/15/cbss_john_dickerson_asks_democratic_candidates_if_they_use_the_phrase_radical_islam_none_will.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/15/cbss_john_dickerson_asks_democratic_candidates_if_they_use_the_phrase_radical_islam_none_will.html)
I'm sure this is addressed in another thread that I won't read but why when discussing atrocities committed "in the name of christianity" why aren't people as forceful in describing it as radical christianity?
-
Words, and Orwellian twisting of them, are really, really important to the Democrat Party.
Take, for example, the refusal of any Dem candidate to acknowledge "radical Islam" last night. One of these (well, Hillary at least) could be president of the GOP fucks up their nomination. And she can't even acknowledge the obvious. Who's going to be the first libtard here to defend this?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/15/cbss_john_dickerson_asks_democratic_candidates_if_they_use_the_phrase_radical_islam_none_will.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/15/cbss_john_dickerson_asks_democratic_candidates_if_they_use_the_phrase_radical_islam_none_will.html)
I'm sure this is addressed in another thread that I won't read but why when discussing atrocities committed "in the name of christianity" why aren't people as forceful in describing it as radical christianity?
Because Islam has a unique violence problem and if you can't admit that then I can't help you. Yes, this has been discussed in the "sensible Muslims" thread, the libtards offered about a dozen excuses - I think lack of trade was my favorite - but I think those excuses have all been put to rest.
The notion that atrocities in the name of Christianity are even remotely on par to what's occurring in the name of Islam is laughably absurd.
-
Words, and Orwellian twisting of them, are really, really important to the Democrat Party.
Take, for example, the refusal of any Dem candidate to acknowledge "radical Islam" last night. One of these (well, Hillary at least) could be president of the GOP fucks up their nomination. And she can't even acknowledge the obvious. Who's going to be the first libtard here to defend this?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/15/cbss_john_dickerson_asks_democratic_candidates_if_they_use_the_phrase_radical_islam_none_will.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/15/cbss_john_dickerson_asks_democratic_candidates_if_they_use_the_phrase_radical_islam_none_will.html)
I'm sure this is addressed in another thread that I won't read but why when discussing atrocities committed "in the name of christianity" why aren't people as forceful in describing it as radical christianity?
Because Islam has a unique violence problem and if you can't admit that then I can't help you. Yes, this has been discussed in the "sensible Muslims" thread, the libtards offered about a dozen excuses - I think lack of trade was my favorite - but I think those excuses have all been put to rest.
The notion that atrocities in the name of Christianity are even remotely on par to what's occurring in the name of Islam is laughably absurd.
The atrocities committed in the name of Christianity are much more historic and have claimed a lot more bodies. Things that you won't claim like the crusades, slavery, the holocaust, native american ethnic cleansing, klan murders; are much worse than things that muslims won't claim. A religion or group of people practicing that religion shouldn't be held accountable for rhetoric spewed while committing atrocities. Those people in all cases in no way represent the religions and shouldn't get the benefit of a religious tie when all most people want to do is worship their God and want to be left alone to do so.
-
Words, and Orwellian twisting of them, are really, really important to the Democrat Party.
Take, for example, the refusal of any Dem candidate to acknowledge "radical Islam" last night. One of these (well, Hillary at least) could be president of the GOP fucks up their nomination. And she can't even acknowledge the obvious. Who's going to be the first libtard here to defend this?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/15/cbss_john_dickerson_asks_democratic_candidates_if_they_use_the_phrase_radical_islam_none_will.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/15/cbss_john_dickerson_asks_democratic_candidates_if_they_use_the_phrase_radical_islam_none_will.html)
I'm sure this is addressed in another thread that I won't read but why when discussing atrocities committed "in the name of christianity" why aren't people as forceful in describing it as radical christianity?
Because Islam has a unique violence problem and if you can't admit that then I can't help you. Yes, this has been discussed in the "sensible Muslims" thread, the libtards offered about a dozen excuses - I think lack of trade was my favorite - but I think those excuses have all been put to rest.
The notion that atrocities in the name of Christianity are even remotely on par to what's occurring in the name of Islam is laughably absurd.
The atrocities committed in the name of Christianity are much more historic and have claimed a lot more bodies. Things that you won't claim like the crusades, slavery, the holocaust, native american ethnic cleansing, klan murders; are much worse than things that muslims won't claim. A religion or group of people practicing that religion shouldn't be held accountable for rhetoric spewed while committing atrocities. Those people in all cases in no way represent the religions and shouldn't get the benefit of a religious tie when all most people want to do is worship their God and want to be left alone to do so.
This isn't a matter of playing some historical blame game, libtard. What matters is what's happening now.
Furthermore, some of your examples are laughable. The Crusades were wars largely started by Muslim aggression. The holocaust was not perpetrated in the name of Christianity. Christians led the "crusade" for abolition of slavery.
-
Words, and Orwellian twisting of them, are really, really important to the Democrat Party.
Take, for example, the refusal of any Dem candidate to acknowledge "radical Islam" last night. One of these (well, Hillary at least) could be president of the GOP fucks up their nomination. And she can't even acknowledge the obvious. Who's going to be the first libtard here to defend this?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/15/cbss_john_dickerson_asks_democratic_candidates_if_they_use_the_phrase_radical_islam_none_will.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/15/cbss_john_dickerson_asks_democratic_candidates_if_they_use_the_phrase_radical_islam_none_will.html)
I'm sure this is addressed in another thread that I won't read but why when discussing atrocities committed "in the name of christianity" why aren't people as forceful in describing it as radical christianity?
Because Islam has a unique violence problem and if you can't admit that then I can't help you. Yes, this has been discussed in the "sensible Muslims" thread, the libtards offered about a dozen excuses - I think lack of trade was my favorite - but I think those excuses have all been put to rest.
The notion that atrocities in the name of Christianity are even remotely on par to what's occurring in the name of Islam is laughably absurd.
The atrocities committed in the name of Christianity are much more historic and have claimed a lot more bodies. Things that you won't claim like the crusades, slavery, the holocaust, native american ethnic cleansing, klan murders; are much worse than things that muslims won't claim. A religion or group of people practicing that religion shouldn't be held accountable for rhetoric spewed while committing atrocities. Those people in all cases in no way represent the religions and shouldn't get the benefit of a religious tie when all most people want to do is worship their God and want to be left alone to do so.
This isn't a matter of playing some historical blame game, libtard. What matters is what's happening now.
Furthermore, some of your examples are laughable. The Crusades were wars largely started by Muslim aggression. The holocaust was not perpetrated in the name of Christianity. Christians led the "crusade" for abolition of slavery.
Oh, so you want to distance Christianity from atrocities that people have linked to Christianity. Very good, I'm glad that we agree and I'm certain that you will now not tie Islam to atrocities committed by terrorists. Happy to see you opening your mind ksuw :cheers:
-
Words, and Orwellian twisting of them, are really, really important to the Democrat Party.
Take, for example, the refusal of any Dem candidate to acknowledge "radical Islam" last night. One of these (well, Hillary at least) could be president of the GOP fucks up their nomination. And she can't even acknowledge the obvious. Who's going to be the first libtard here to defend this?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/15/cbss_john_dickerson_asks_democratic_candidates_if_they_use_the_phrase_radical_islam_none_will.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/15/cbss_john_dickerson_asks_democratic_candidates_if_they_use_the_phrase_radical_islam_none_will.html)
I'm sure this is addressed in another thread that I won't read but why when discussing atrocities committed "in the name of christianity" why aren't people as forceful in describing it as radical christianity?
Because Islam has a unique violence problem and if you can't admit that then I can't help you. Yes, this has been discussed in the "sensible Muslims" thread, the libtards offered about a dozen excuses - I think lack of trade was my favorite - but I think those excuses have all been put to rest.
The notion that atrocities in the name of Christianity are even remotely on par to what's occurring in the name of Islam is laughably absurd.
The atrocities committed in the name of Christianity are much more historic and have claimed a lot more bodies. Things that you won't claim like the crusades, slavery, the holocaust, native american ethnic cleansing, klan murders; are much worse than things that muslims won't claim. A religion or group of people practicing that religion shouldn't be held accountable for rhetoric spewed while committing atrocities. Those people in all cases in no way represent the religions and shouldn't get the benefit of a religious tie when all most people want to do is worship their God and want to be left alone to do so.
This isn't a matter of playing some historical blame game, libtard. What matters is what's happening now.
Furthermore, some of your examples are laughable. The Crusades were wars largely started by Muslim aggression. The holocaust was not perpetrated in the name of Christianity. Christians led the "crusade" for abolition of slavery.
Oh, so you want to distance Christianity from atrocities that people have linked to Christianity. Very good, I'm glad that we agree and I'm certain that you will now not tie Islam to atrocities committed by terrorists. Happy to see you opening your mind ksuw :cheers:
So most of your examples are fallacious, yet somehow you feel you've proven your point that Islam is no more prone to violent extremism than Christianity. :lol:
Show of hands, anybody else agree with MIR on this one? Step forward! :lol:
-
The holocaust and slavery tied to Christendom? I must not have paid attention in history.
-
instead of arguing about whether christianity or islam has historically inspired the most violence, i think it's more interesting to consider whether the two of them are identifiably more violent than all other extant religions (at least major religions). my sense is that they are, but i haven't put any effort into confirming or refuting that thought.
afaik, they are the only two extant major religions that are determinedly evangelical in nature. my sense is that violence is correlated with that characteristic.
-
The holocaust and slavery tied to Christendom? I must not have paid attention in history.
Glad you asked wetwillie! You think our Christ based education would talk about this in detail? When they discussed Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation did they talk about his anti-Semitism? Anyway here you go.
Holocaust:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1453766?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
http://blogs.bu.edu/guidedhistory/jews-in-russia-and-eastern-europe/shoshana-koff/
http://www.sixmillioncrucifixions.com/Endorsements.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Luther_on_Jews.html
Slavery:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/12/how-the-bible-was-used-to-justify-slavery-abolitionism/
http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2013/09/17/slavery-segregation-and-biblical-literalism-contd/
https://friendsofjustice.wordpress.com/2013/09/17/the-southern-roots-of-biblical-literalism/
http://benirwin.me/2012/07/27/slavery-and-the-folly-of-biblical-literalism/
If you're interested I have other links for the other things that ksuw doesn't want to be associated with like, native american culture clensing, the Bosnian genocide of the 90s, the current genocide in Central Africa, and much more.
-
mir, i would distinguish between violence inspired by religion and violence accompanied by religious justification.
-
instead of arguing about whether christianity or islam has historically inspired the most violence, i think it's more interesting to consider whether the two of them are identifiably more violent than all other extant religions (at least major religions). my sense is that they are, but i haven't put any effort into confirming or refuting that thought.
afaik, they are the only two extant major religions that are determinedly evangelical in nature. my sense is that violence is correlated with that characteristic.
I'm not arguing that one is more violent than the other, my argument is that nether religion should be identified by an extreme minority of people practicing the religions. If anything I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of Christians that want extremism and Islam tied together. I'm sure there are plenty of Islamic hypocrites making the same arguments as Christian hypocrites but I don't have to deal with them everyday. The ironic part is that both groups of hypocrites give birth to the extremism the two sides want to label the other with.
As far as why these two religions appear to be the only two with a taste for violence, I think it's an issue of the sheer number of each and that they appear to be the more mobile of the two religions. When talking about world religions we only have a big four; Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Islam. Buddhism and Hinduism haven't had to deal with turf warfare as much as the other two, I'd be willing to bet that if Hinduism and Buddhism weren't so globally contained there would be more violence committed under the guise of those religions. I would assume that the Indian/Pakistan conflict has some elements of this, and of course Buddist links are historically violent with each other and with governments so there's no reason to believe they won't fight for land if need be.
-
What about Croat genocide of Serbs during WWII? Got anything on that?
-
mir, i would distinguish between violence inspired by religion and violence accompanied by religious justification.
Probably right but how would the people victimized feel? I know muslims who think ISIS are the world's biggest islamaphobes. Either way it's a slippery slope, thin line, whatever cliche you want to use.
-
What about Croat genocide of Serbs during WWII? Got anything on that?
What about it?
-
Got anything on it?
-
Got anything on it?
No, why would I?
-
The holocaust and slavery tied to Christendom? I must not have paid attention in history.
Glad you asked wetwillie! You think our Christ based education would talk about this in detail? When they discussed Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation did they talk about his anti-Semitism? Anyway here you go.
Holocaust:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1453766?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
http://blogs.bu.edu/guidedhistory/jews-in-russia-and-eastern-europe/shoshana-koff/
http://www.sixmillioncrucifixions.com/Endorsements.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Luther_on_Jews.html
Slavery:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/12/how-the-bible-was-used-to-justify-slavery-abolitionism/
http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2013/09/17/slavery-segregation-and-biblical-literalism-contd/
https://friendsofjustice.wordpress.com/2013/09/17/the-southern-roots-of-biblical-literalism/
http://benirwin.me/2012/07/27/slavery-and-the-folly-of-biblical-literalism/
If you're interested I have other links for the other things that ksuw doesn't want to be associated with like, native american culture clensing, the Bosnian genocide of the 90s, the current genocide in Central Africa, and much more.
That's pretty crazy stuff, I didn't know Luther laid the foundations of the nazi party.
-
The holocaust and slavery tied to Christendom? I must not have paid attention in history.
Glad you asked wetwillie! You think our Christ based education would talk about this in detail? When they discussed Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation did they talk about his anti-Semitism? Anyway here you go.
Holocaust:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1453766?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
http://blogs.bu.edu/guidedhistory/jews-in-russia-and-eastern-europe/shoshana-koff/
http://www.sixmillioncrucifixions.com/Endorsements.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Luther_on_Jews.html
Slavery:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/12/how-the-bible-was-used-to-justify-slavery-abolitionism/
http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2013/09/17/slavery-segregation-and-biblical-literalism-contd/
https://friendsofjustice.wordpress.com/2013/09/17/the-southern-roots-of-biblical-literalism/
http://benirwin.me/2012/07/27/slavery-and-the-folly-of-biblical-literalism/
If you're interested I have other links for the other things that ksuw doesn't want to be associated with like, native american culture clensing, the Bosnian genocide of the 90s, the current genocide in Central Africa, and much more.
That's pretty crazy stuff, I didn't know Luther laid the foundations of the nazi party.
I see we're now being Intentionally simplistic. I will say that when I hear people say that Islam is designed for violence because of the teachings of Muhammad, I think about some people accusing Martin Luther of anti-Semitism, none of it is particularly fair.
-
The holocaust and slavery tied to Christendom? I must not have paid attention in history.
Glad you asked wetwillie! You think our Christ based education would talk about this in detail? When they discussed Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation did they talk about his anti-Semitism? Anyway here you go.
Holocaust:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1453766?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
http://blogs.bu.edu/guidedhistory/jews-in-russia-and-eastern-europe/shoshana-koff/
http://www.sixmillioncrucifixions.com/Endorsements.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Luther_on_Jews.html
Slavery:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/12/how-the-bible-was-used-to-justify-slavery-abolitionism/
http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2013/09/17/slavery-segregation-and-biblical-literalism-contd/
https://friendsofjustice.wordpress.com/2013/09/17/the-southern-roots-of-biblical-literalism/
http://benirwin.me/2012/07/27/slavery-and-the-folly-of-biblical-literalism/
If you're interested I have other links for the other things that ksuw doesn't want to be associated with like, native american culture clensing, the Bosnian genocide of the 90s, the current genocide in Central Africa, and much more.
That's pretty crazy stuff, I didn't know Luther laid the foundations of the nazi party.
I see we're now being Intentionally simplistic. I will say that when I hear people say that Islam is designed for violence because of the teachings of Muhammad, I think about some people accusing Martin Luther of anti-Semitism, none of it is particularly fair.
The part about Mohammed is. But otherwise I agree.
You know what you don't hear very often? "You know that warlord pedophile Muhammed? - he's really misunderstood, man."
-
Got anything on it?
No, why would I?
Just curious.
-
I know muslims who think ISIS are the world's biggest islamaphobes.
i mean, they definitely are.
-
As far as why these two religions appear to be the only two with a taste for violence, I think it's an issue of the sheer number of each and that they appear to be the more mobile of the two religions.
i think it's more than that, but i admit my opinion is founded on little but a few moments of reflection.
-
I found this article and pictures to be interesting.
http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/muslim-waffen-ss-13th-division-1943/
-
Uh, cool? :dunno:
-
You may be the only watching this debate. Apparently the DNC selected nights with the lowest possible viewership.
Wow, I mean outside of an incumbent has a party ever coddled and protected a candidate like this?
Debbie Wasserman Schultz has made a lot of mistakes in how far she's protecting her gal Hilz, she has even lied on record once about four different people and three of them said she lied and I'm pissed that she hasn't been fired yet. I'm okay with the number of debates, I'm not okay with when they are scheduled, it's a joke and the democrats should be ashamed that they put a structure in place where one person has so much authority as to how these primaries will go.
eff this bitch, she's the absolute worst. She's going to lose her primary for her seat and I'm happy as hell. What an out of touch assbag.
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/01/dnc_chair_debbie_wasserman_schultz_joins_hands_with_gop_in_assault_on_elizabeth_warrens_consumer_protection_agency/
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/03/dnc-chair-lends-a-hand-to-payday-lenders.html
-
dead man walking.
didn't read the articles on dws, but i'm sure i agree on at least one point. she's (dws) horrible.
-
Kansas feels the Bern! :emawkid:
-
Nebraska should follow suit
-
This Nebraska press conference is painful, shut the eff up and give us the data.
-
blah blah blah blah, STFU guy. Is he going to do this again when it goes to 100%?
-
RCP says Bernie wins KS with zero percent reporting. How's that work?
-
RCP says Bernie wins KS with zero percent reporting. How's that work?
Eye test
-
RCP says Bernie wins KS with zero percent reporting. How's that work?
Exit polls, the same way he won Vermont and NH without 0 percent reporting. FWIW the reporting number definitely isn't 0 anymore.
-
Tonight's dem debate -- The Bern claims ISIS is a product of climate change - BOOM, he's now my guy.
The democrat party is so mumped
-
I so want Bernie to win the nomination, but it's just too good to be true. For some reason, racial minorities really aren't feelin' the bern.
-
I so want Bernie to win the nomination, but it's just too good to be true. For some reason, racial minorities really aren't feelin' the bern.
Neither are white people with a brain. The dude is a lunatic
-
I so want Bernie to win the nomination, but it's just too good to be true. For some reason, racial minorities really aren't feelin' the bern.
Neither are white people with a brain. The dude is a lunatic
-
The Bern on MSNBC, talking to Maddow, claiming they need a progressive equivalent to Fox News. Did I mention he's on MSNBC? :lol:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/sanders-calls-for-a-democratic-fox-news-681133123695 (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/sanders-calls-for-a-democratic-fox-news-681133123695)
-
The Bern on MSNBC, talking to Maddow, claiming they need a progressive equivalent to Fox News. Did I mention he's on MSNBC? :lol:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/sanders-calls-for-a-democratic-fox-news-681133123695 (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/sanders-calls-for-a-democratic-fox-news-681133123695)
Xinhua Chinese News Network?
-
The Bern on MSNBC, talking to Maddow, claiming they need a progressive equivalent to Fox News. Did I mention he's on MSNBC? :lol:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/sanders-calls-for-a-democratic-fox-news-681133123695 (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/sanders-calls-for-a-democratic-fox-news-681133123695)
Other than Maddow, MSNBC is a garbagey waste land
-
BERN's GONNA WIN!!!
-
I think Bernie shocks the world tomorrow and wins big Cali. If the pubs couldn't give us convention drama maybe the dems can.
-
Maybe they'll each sick their respective astroturf goons on the other and we'll get a watts style riot out of this contrived primary
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.infowars.com%2Fpoliticalsidebarimage%2Fmakebernie_large.jpg&hash=c25c91a8bb0af0e6f7364a04a1027c86944bb12d)
-
https://twitter.com/DavidShuster/status/775093724363784192
-
Holy crap!
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk