Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
[pt] KEIOS
srs bsns
+231|5773|pimelteror.de
So good judgement would be to think of black and white, good and evil, them and us? And am i to blame for the faults of others?
lowing
Banned
+1,662|5772|USA

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:


1. President George Bush
2. Vicki Iseman
3. Rev. John Hagee

Never mind these inane distractions... focus on the issues America, your country is in bother.
That is exactly why this is a topic that should be the America people.
I am the America people. 

Lowing, we know you hate self-described liberals and Muslims - so why do you keep posting about them?  I've never seen a post by you praising McCain or the Republican Party.  Why is that?
Don't hate Muslims, I hate Islam. and know you know why I post against IT. Same thing for liberal ideology. Why would I post and try to debate against  something I agree with?
lowing
Banned
+1,662|5772|USA

[pt] KEIOS wrote:

So good judgement would be to think of black and white, good and evil, them and us? And am i to blame for the faults of others?
Nope, good judgement would be not to befriend criminals wh oare unrepentent for their crimes and is in fact proud of them.

Nope, you are not to blame forthe fault of others.
topal63
. . .
+533|5839

lowing wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

lowing wrote:


That is exactly why this is a topic that should be the America people.
I am the America people. 

Lowing, we know you hate self-described liberals and Muslims - so why do you keep posting about them?  I've never seen a post by you praising McCain or the Republican Party.  Why is that?
Don't hate Muslims, I hate Islam. and know you know why I post against IT. Same thing for liberal ideology. Why would I post and try to debate against  something I agree with?
That is not possibly a real thought? Why would you debate something you agree with? LOL... eh because you're smarter than that? So, you would debate against those posters who WILL/WOULD assume the opposite side of the debate that don't agree with you.
Braddock
Agitator
+916|5411|Éire

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Braddock wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:


Yes Braddock... ALWAYS.
On this forum it always seems to be... you yourself just brought race into it this debate when no one else was talking about the colour of anyone's skin.

The race card gives Republicans a handy conversation killer on difficult topics.
Twas' sarcasm.
It was and it wasn't... I mean it's nearly always sarcasm but it still does what it set out to do i.e. play the race card.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|5772|USA

topal63 wrote:

lowing wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:


I am the America people. 

Lowing, we know you hate self-described liberals and Muslims - so why do you keep posting about them?  I've never seen a post by you praising McCain or the Republican Party.  Why is that?
Don't hate Muslims, I hate Islam. and know you know why I post against IT. Same thing for liberal ideology. Why would I post and try to debate against  something I agree with?
That is not possibly a real thought? Why would you debate something you agree with? LOL... eh because you're smarter than that? So, you would debate against those posters who WILL/WOULD assume the opposite side of the debate that don't agree with you.
Why would I post and try to debate against  something I agree with <------------ this is what I said, note the word AGAINST. I will debate but I will usually post when I do not agree, or start a thread on a topic that I do not agree with, then fight it.
topal63
. . .
+533|5839
I guess that just brings it right back to KEN-JENNINGS point. You don't really have much praise floating about for what you supposedly agree with.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|5772|USA

topal63 wrote:

I guess that just brings it right back to KEN-JENNINGS point. You don't really have much praise floating about for what you supposedly agree with.
LOL, or  Iwould rather spend my time arguing shit I disagree with, but whatever.
(T)eflon(S)hadow
R.I.P. Neda
+456|5950|Grapevine, TX
Can anybody expand on what Obama has stated in the last two Debates?
"Oil companies have over 68 million acres of land (on and off-shore) to develop into production. If they don't use it they will lose it."- Obama
What does that mean? The permit to explore and develop oil and gas leases will expire/ the US govt. will take these fields? -
adv3rsary
Member
+28|5836
vote for Obama, because the other choice will be the end of the U.S.
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|5811|Tampa Bay Florida
[pt] KEIOS
srs bsns
+231|5773|pimelteror.de

lowing wrote:

[pt] KEIOS wrote:

So good judgement would be to think of black and white, good and evil, them and us? And am i to blame for the faults of others?
Nope, good judgement would be not to befriend criminals wh oare unrepentent for their crimes and is in fact proud of them.

Nope, you are not to blame forthe fault of others.
Not everyone i know, is my friend. And i can get along with a lot of people, without being friends. Knowing someone doesn´t mean, you share his values and agree with his way of life. So can Obama be blamed for the people he knows?
SealXo
Member
+309|5656
forgot louis farakon and kalid al monsour
lowing
Banned
+1,662|5772|USA

[pt] KEIOS wrote:

lowing wrote:

[pt] KEIOS wrote:

So good judgement would be to think of black and white, good and evil, them and us? And am i to blame for the faults of others?
Nope, good judgement would be not to befriend criminals wh oare unrepentent for their crimes and is in fact proud of them.

Nope, you are not to blame forthe fault of others.
Not everyone i know, is my friend. And i can get along with a lot of people, without being friends. Knowing someone doesn´t mean, you share his values and agree with his way of life. So can Obama be blamed for the people he knows?
and how many NON-Friends of yours have thrown you a party? Also, if it were McCain that had these relationships you would not be so understanding and passive.
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|5886|Cambridge (UK)

[pt] KEIOS wrote:

Knowing someone doesn´t mean, you share his values and agree with his way of life.
QFT
lowing
Banned
+1,662|5772|USA

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

[pt] KEIOS wrote:

Knowing someone doesn´t mean, you share his values and agree with his way of life.
QFT
to both of you.

I agree however associating with them and Doing business with them is more than knowing them so stop trying to downplay these relationships to just knowing someone exists.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|5650|Global Command
The republicans blew it. /thread.
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|5886|Cambridge (UK)

lowing wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

[pt] KEIOS wrote:

Knowing someone doesn´t mean, you share his values and agree with his way of life.
QFT
to both of you.

I agree however associating with them and Doing business with them is more than knowing them so stop trying to downplay these relationships to just knowing someone exists.
I don't think we are.

Like someone else has said, I know all sorts of very dodgy people. Some of them I even consider to be more than mere associates. That doesn't mean I share their opinions or would do certain things they do.

I mean, say, for example, that you regularly shop at this local store, and you get to know the proprietor of that store, even to the point where you would describe him as a friend, then one day he goes and rapes a child, does that make you a paedophile-by-association?

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-10-16 18:44:15)

topal63
. . .
+533|5839
Obama clearly had to know about Tony Rezko.

That slum lord cheat sleazbag, now an orange jump-suit wearing maybe?-butt buddy to someone, held a fund raiser for Obama at his home years after many disturbing things surfaced about Tony Rezko. To say he just exercised bad judgment; or naivety; or it's an unfair association; is nonsense. No one is saying Obama did what Tony Rezko did or what Ayers did or said what the not-so-good Rev. said. It's that he clearly didn't have a problem with some of those people's character. If anything accepting money and engaging in business deals with a known Chicago slum-lord; Tony Rezko; is not so easily dismissed. "We'll that doesn't make Obama a slumlord." Of course not - it makes him a man that would associate and accept money from; engage in business deals; with a known slum-lord.

Obama saying he didn't really know about the knowable; know the slum-lord real-estate activity of "Tony Rezko," is playing dumb as opposed to being dumb. If Sarah Palin can't name knowable; known; media sources that's being dumb as opposed to playing dumb.

____
But as far as association-gaffes go what about McCain and the Keating 5? Clearly McCain isn't Keating either. It's the same thing. There are some association-skeletons in more than one closet.

Last edited by topal63 (2008-10-16 19:33:33)

lowing
Banned
+1,662|5772|USA

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:


QFT
to both of you.

I agree however associating with them and Doing business with them is more than knowing them so stop trying to downplay these relationships to just knowing someone exists.
I don't think we are.

Like someone else has said, I know all sorts of very dodgy people. Some of them I even consider to be more than mere associates. That doesn't mean I share their opinions or would do certain things they do.

I mean, say, for example, that you regularly shop at this local store, and you get to know the proprietor of that store, even to the point where you would describe him as a friend, then one day he goes and rapes a child, does that make you a paedophile-by-association?
Bad analogy, the relationships in question were all during or after the questionable conduct, not before.

Also, if he has nothing to hide and thinks these relationships are perfectly acceptable, why deny them, downplay them or distance yourself from them?
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,760|5273|what

Isn't it funny that in order for McCain to be president he has to DIS-associate or himself, or deny associations with so many people and groups from his past

1. Bush
2. Cheney
3. Rice
4. Rumsfeld

Why? and why would he do so ONLY when it became politically imperative to do so? More importantly, why is he getting a pass for all of this?

Seems like McCain has a lot to hide or is ashamed of.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png

"coz you a far cry from acclaim nigga ubisoft"
lowing
Banned
+1,662|5772|USA

topal63 wrote:

Obama clearly had to knew about Tony Rezko.

That slum lord cheat sleazbag, now an orange jump-suit wearing maybe?-butt buddy to someone, held a fund raiser for Obama at his home years after many disturbing things surfaced about Tony Rezko. To say he just exercised bad judgment; or naivety; or it's an unfair association; is nonsense. No one is saying Obama did what Tony Rezko did or what Ayers did or said what the not-so-good Rev. said. It's that he clearly didn't have a problem with some of those people's character. If anything accepting money and engaging in business deals with a known Chicago slum-lord; Tony Rezko; is not so easily dismissed. "We'll that doesn't make Obama a slumlord." Of course not - it makes him a man that would associate and accept money from; engage in business deals; with a known slum-lord.

Obama saying he didn't really know about the knowable; know the slum-lord real-estate activity of "Tony Rezko," is playing dumb as opposed to being dumb. If Sarah Palin can't name knowable; known; media sources that's being dumb as opposed to playing dumb.

____
But as far as association-gaffes go what about McCain and Keating 5? Clearly McCain isn't Keating either. It's the same thing. There are some association-skeletons in more than one closet.
McCain's association with Keating was before the scandal developed. It was ended AFTERWARDS. McCain was also investigated and cleared from any wrongdoing. Also he did not deny anything or distance himself from it, nor hide it.
topal63
. . .
+533|5839
Just because he was cleared of wrong doing by his "peer" associates and said some things to the media doesn't mean I know jack shit about his personal dealings with Keating.
_________
PS: John McCain is the only major party presidential nominee in US history to have been rebuked after a Congressional ethics investigation. He was cleared of illegal activity but criticized for "poor judgment."

Last edited by topal63 (2008-10-16 19:46:11)

lowing
Banned
+1,662|5772|USA

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Isn't it funny that in order for McCain to be president he has to DIS-associate or himself, or deny associations with so many people and groups from his past

1. Bush
2. Cheney
3. Rice
4. Rumsfeld

Why? and why would he do so ONLY when it became politically imperative to do so? More importantly, why is he getting a pass for all of this?

Seems like McCain has a lot to hide or is ashamed of.
Actually yer wrong, what he is doing is keeping people like you from claiming they are all one in the same, (which they are not). He has the facts, you have the accusations.

Difference is, with Obama, the facts and the accusations are all one in the same.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|5772|USA

topal63 wrote:

Just because he was cleared of wrong doing by his "peer" associates and said some things to the media doesn't mean I know jack shit about his personal dealings with Keating.
Uhhhhhh, it is what can be proven that counts is it not? All of the relationships with Obama are FACT and he has been caught in lies about those facts, in fact, everyone of them.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2021 Jeff Minard