Author Topic: I finally feel the Bern - Dems on parade (Read 6118 times)

Quote from: libliblibliblibliblib on November 14, 2015, 08:33:23 PM
jd may be a little obsessed

I am obsessed with The Bern. He's remarkable in his libtardiness.

he sure is

wetwillie · « **Reply #8 on:** November 14, 2015, 09:23:48 PM »

They dumped jim Webb, that's a shame. Bernie looks really flushed tonight.

K-S-U-Wildcats! · « **Reply #9 on:** November 15, 2015, 08:00:20 AM »

http://www.politico.com/blogs/live-from-des-moines/2015/11/cbs-democratic-debate-length-215892

Debate ended early last night. Welp, I guess that's enough questions!

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.

sonofdaxjones · « **Reply #10 on:** November 15, 2015, 09:20:22 AM »

Wow, I mean outside of an incumbent has a party ever coddled and protected a candidate like this?

K-S-U-Wildcats! · « **Reply #11 on:** November 15, 2015, 09:37:43 AM »

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

K-S-U-Wildcats! · « **Reply #12 on:** November 15, 2015, 10:05:12 AM »

Oh man....

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/15/hillary_clinton_on_her_wall_street_campaign_donations_i_represented_new_york_on_911.html

MakeItRain · « **Reply #13 on:** November 16, 2015, 04:23:24 PM »

Quote from: 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.

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.

MakeItRain · « **Reply #14 on:** November 16, 2015, 04:28:37 PM »

Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 14, 2015, 08:32:16 PM

You may be the only watching this debate. Apparently the DNC selected nights with the lowest possible viewership.

Quote from: sonofdaxjones on November 15, 2015, 09:20:22 AM

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.

K-S-U-Wildcats! · « **Reply #15 on:** November 16, 2015, 04:29:48 PM »

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/none-of-the-democrats-has-a-strategy-for-isis

meow meow · « **Reply #16 on:** November 16, 2015, 04:31:11 PM »

having a debate on a Saturday night just seemed really odd.

meow meow · « **Reply #17 on:** November 16, 2015, 04:31:30 PM »

^hot take

MakeItRain · « **Reply #18 on:** November 16, 2015, 05:02:51 PM »

Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 16, 2015, 04:29:48 PM

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.

MakeItRain · « **Reply #19 on:** November 16, 2015, 05:04:43 PM »

Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 15, 2015, 10:05:12 AM

Oh man.... 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.

sonofdaxjones · « **Reply #20 on:** November 16, 2015, 05:05:50 PM »

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.

ednksu · « **Reply #21 on:** November 16, 2015, 05:14:38 PM »

Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 15, 2015, 09:37:43 AM

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

If you don't understand how fantastic those answers were you probably shouldn't be voting.

MakeItRain · « **Reply #22 on:** November 16, 2015, 05:54:23 PM »

Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 15, 2015, 09:37:43 AM

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

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?

K-S-U-Wildcats! · « **Reply #23 on:** November 16, 2015, 06:16:09 PM »

Quote from: MakeItRain on November 16, 2015, 05:54:23 PM

Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 15, 2015, 09:37:43 AM
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

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.

MakeItRain · « **Reply #24 on:** November 16, 2015, 10:38:20 PM »

Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 16, 2015, 06:16:09 PM

Quote from: MakeItRain on November 16, 2015, 05:54:23 PM
Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 15, 2015, 09:37:43 AM
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

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.