GOP: 90% White and mostly Christian

[Yurt]

Yurt, I didn't say I would not debate you, I said the result would be the same as before and that you were stupid to think differently. I will allow you to pick a subject. I did that twice with Oddball and he ran away both times. So this time I will let you. One ground rule: we both had to be polite. Can you do that?

Now I have family matters to attend, so I will mark the page and check tomorrow morning. Looking forward to exchanging ideas.

well...i can "had" to be polite...you have no business setting ground rules because you have repeatedly failed to follow any you have set before

so...i will keep it civil because its a one on one...and after offering you the topic, you now want me to pick it....

fine: the second amendment protects the right of individuals to maintain arms, not just militias

where should we put the debate?

I am back. Had matters to take care of that suddenly came up. OK. (1) I asked you where we would put the debate. (2) We both will be polite if we debate: makes no difference whether you like it, because that is the way it will be if you wish to debate with me. I wont, and don't want you, if you begin losing by responding with screaming and personal attacks. That always has been the mark of a loser, so let's not do that. (3) As to the 2nd Amendment, I happen to agree that militia and individual have a right to own and bear arms.

So let me formulate a premise and see if you agree to debate: "The right to own and bear arms should be unregulated by government."

yet you were posting many times in other threads....

well...we seem to agree...so...lets see if this is another agreement: i believe there can be some regulation of arms

 

[DiveCon]

Well, that's somewhat better, divecon. You still have a way to go.

you are not the one that gets to decide what is better or worse
your judgment is never acceptable

 

[JakeStarkey]

well...i can "had" to be polite...you have no business setting ground rules because you have repeatedly failed to follow any you have set before

so...i will keep it civil because its a one on one...and after offering you the topic, you now want me to pick it....

fine: the second amendment protects the right of individuals to maintain arms, not just militias

where should we put the debate?

I am back. Had matters to take care of that suddenly came up. OK. (1) I asked you where we would put the debate. (2) We both will be polite if we debate: makes no difference whether you like it, because that is the way it will be if you wish to debate with me. I wont, and don't want you, if you begin losing by responding with screaming and personal attacks. That always has been the mark of a loser, so let's not do that. (3) As to the 2nd Amendment, I happen to agree that militia and individual have a right to own and bear arms.

So let me formulate a premise and see if you agree to debate: "The right to own and bear arms should be unregulated by government."

yet you were posting many times in other threads....

well...we seem to agree...so...lets see if this is another agreement: i believe there can be some regulation of arms

Quick looks elsewhere, no time for longer. So pick something.

How about something along the lines of Jefferson and or Hamilton as the appropriate model for the 21st century?

 

[JakeStarkey]

My judgment always has trumped yours. So we will see how you do.

 

[DiveCon]

My judgment always has trumped yours. So we will see how you do.

maybe if you actually quoted who you were talking to, your conversations would make sense

and only in your delusional world do you ever have good judgment

 

[Yurt]

I am back. Had matters to take care of that suddenly came up. OK. (1) I asked you where we would put the debate. (2) We both will be polite if we debate: makes no difference whether you like it, because that is the way it will be if you wish to debate with me. I wont, and don't want you, if you begin losing by responding with screaming and personal attacks. That always has been the mark of a loser, so let's not do that. (3) As to the 2nd Amendment, I happen to agree that militia and individual have a right to own and bear arms.

So let me formulate a premise and see if you agree to debate: "The right to own and bear arms should be unregulated by government."

yet you were posting many times in other threads....

well...we seem to agree...so...lets see if this is another agreement: i believe there can be some regulation of arms

Quick looks elsewhere, no time for longer. So pick something.

How about something along the lines of Jefferson and or Hamilton as the appropriate model for the 21st century?

hmmmm

 

[JakeStarkey]

yet you were posting many times in other threads....

well...we seem to agree...so...lets see if this is another agreement: i believe there can be some regulation of arms

Quick looks elsewhere, no time for longer. So pick something.

How about something along the lines of Jefferson and or Hamilton as the appropriate model for the 21st century?

hmmmm

Pros and Cons can be made for both as well as a mixture of the two. I think that all Americans have traits from both men in them in terms of what we think is Americanism.

 

[California Girl]

My judgment always has trumped yours. So we will see how you do.

maybe if you actually quoted who you were talking to, your conversations would make sense

and only in your delusional world do you ever have good judgment

I wonder if Joke realizes how moronic, and yet how arrogant, he sounds to others when he makes these stupid pronouncements of his? Somehow I doubt it.

 

[DiveCon]

My judgment always has trumped yours. So we will see how you do.

maybe if you actually quoted who you were talking to, your conversations would make sense

and only in your delusional world do you ever have good judgment

I wonder if Joke realizes how moronic, and yet how arrogant, he sounds to others when he makes these stupid pronouncements of his? Somehow I doubt it.

he's delusional, how could he
LOL

 

[JakeStarkey]

CaliforniaGirl is absolutely silly. She can't hold an argument, she kisses butt like crazy, and she knocks me who has shown her the door many times in argument? How funny.

 

[DiveCon]

CaliforniaGirl is absolutely silly. She can't hold an argument, she kisses butt like crazy, and she knocks me who has shown her the door many times in argument? How funny.

more totally delusional bullshit from jokey
you couldn't show the door to a toddler

 

[JakeStarkey]

This from the toddler!

 

[DiveCon]

This from the toddler!

given the fact of what i said, it still puts me ahead of you, jokey
but that was a pathetic comeback

 

[JakeStarkey]

It was a great one, divecon.

 

[DiveCon]

It was a great one, divecon.

this just shows how pathetically delusional you are

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sigh. OK, divecon, you are a genius and beat me yet again.

 

[DiveCon]

Sigh. OK, divecon, you are a genius and beat me yet again.

never claimed either

stay delusional jokey

 

[AllieBaba]

I don't understand why this makes some people angry when I point out these truths about the Republican Party.

There is NOTHING wrong with a political party being 90% white and mostly Christian.

Some studies say the party could be as little as 89% white. Not a lot of difference.

This is why the Republican Party is the most powerful in the US, because they are a block. The vote as a block. They see their interests as the same.

It's not about who you are, but what you do.

The criticism hasn't been about the party being white, but about the party voting against the interests of the "middle class". The perception that the party works for the interests of corporations over the interests of the average American Citizen.

Do you ever support your ridiculous posts with things like, I don't know, links, references, citations or numbers?

 

[California Girl]

I don't understand why this makes some people angry when I point out these truths about the Republican Party.

There is NOTHING wrong with a political party being 90% white and mostly Christian.

Some studies say the party could be as little as 89% white. Not a lot of difference.

This is why the Republican Party is the most powerful in the US, because they are a block. The vote as a block. They see their interests as the same.

It's not about who you are, but what you do.

The criticism hasn't been about the party being white, but about the party voting against the interests of the "middle class". The perception that the party works for the interests of corporations over the interests of the average American Citizen.

Do you ever support your ridiculous posts with things like, I don't know, links, references, citations or numbers?

Rdean is one of the most ridiculous posters on the board. His constant scream about racism in the GOP is funny.... when you consider how much racism there is in the Democrats.

 

[Big Fitz]

I don't understand why this makes some people angry when I point out these truths about the Republican Party.

There is NOTHING wrong with a political party being 90% white and mostly Christian.

Some studies say the party could be as little as 89% white. Not a lot of difference.

This is why the Republican Party is the most powerful in the US, because they are a block. The vote as a block. They see their interests as the same.

It's not about who you are, but what you do.

The criticism hasn't been about the party being white, but about the party voting against the interests of the "middle class". The perception that the party works for the interests of corporations over the interests of the average American Citizen.

Do you ever support your ridiculous posts with things like, I don't know, links, references, citations or numbers?

Rdean is one of the most ridiculous posters on the board. His constant scream about racism in the GOP is funny.... when you consider how much racism there is in the Democrats.

Edmund: "Baldrick... do you know what Irony is?"
Baldrick: "Yeah... it's like Goldy or Bronzey isn't it?