Hillary taking on the tough issues

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: scott
How on earth could ANY intelligent person even consider voting for the utterly corrupt through and through scumbag Hillary Clinton?

are people really that willing to be led by the nosering? That asleep?

Yes. 2004 was full of sheep voting for Kerry for the sole reason "He isn't Bush" ...

2008 will see a similar group voting for whoever the Dem nominee is on similarly shallow reasoning.

How is that reasoning shallow? Do you even know the definition of the word? They were voting to have someone else be President based upon the catastrophic damage that Bush had done in his first 4 years. That's the best of all possible reasons, actual observed performance.

Now Giuliani and Romney are pledging to carry on the exact same policies... but now take them even farther. Any reasonably intelligent person that doesn't like Bush now certainly can safely assume they won't like the Super Bush they are pledging to be. Therefore, you vote for the only viable alternative.

Maybe if the Republicans didn't want so many people voting for Hillary they wouldn't choose such hilariously terrible candidates.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: scott
How on earth could ANY intelligent person even consider voting for the utterly corrupt through and through scumbag Hillary Clinton?

are people really that willing to be led by the nosering? That asleep?

Yes. 2004 was full of sheep voting for Kerry for the sole reason "He isn't Bush" ...

2008 will see a similar group voting for whoever the Dem nominee is on similarly shallow reasoning.

Actuaqlly as it turned out because he wasn't Bush would have been a good reason and we would have been much better off as a country if more had followed that reasoning.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
How is that reasoning shallow? Do you even know the definition of the word? They were voting to have someone else be President based upon the catastrophic damage that Bush had done in his first 4 years. That's the best of all possible reasons, actual observed performance.

How is it shallow? :laugh:

I think when you can't come up with a single argument to support your logic for voting one way or the other, besides "he's not Bush" or "She's a woman!" or what have you, it is safe to call you a shallow voter. And likely a very shallow human being as well.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: eskimospy
How is that reasoning shallow? Do you even know the definition of the word? They were voting to have someone else be President based upon the catastrophic damage that Bush had done in his first 4 years. That's the best of all possible reasons, actual observed performance.

How is it shallow? :laugh:

I think when you can't come up with a single argument to support your logic for voting one way or the other, besides "he's not Bush" or "She's a woman!" or what have you, it is safe to call you a shallow voter. And likely a very shallow human being as well.

So you are agreeing with me then that it isn't shallow?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: eskimospy
How is that reasoning shallow? Do you even know the definition of the word? They were voting to have someone else be President based upon the catastrophic damage that Bush had done in his first 4 years. That's the best of all possible reasons, actual observed performance.

How is it shallow? :laugh:

I think when you can't come up with a single argument to support your logic for voting one way or the other, besides "he's not Bush" or "She's a woman!" or what have you, it is safe to call you a shallow voter. And likely a very shallow human being as well.

Actually it's you who are rather shallow and rather dimwitted if you haven't any idea what "he isn't Bush" actually means.

 

[Jeff7]

Geez, Walmart wouldn't even sell me The Orange Box until I showed them that I was older than 17. Don't they do that for the Manhunt games too?


Still, too bad that 1) Parents aren't regulating what their children can do. and 2) lawmakers are wasting time on this. Oh my god, video games are going to destroy American!!! Wah wah wah....
So were Pac-Man and Pong supposed to be dangers to society. And TV, and radio, and cars, and everything else.

Originally posted by: Genx87
Havent you heard? Doom is basically a trainer for the military. Apparently our military is so bored with whipping other nations military's ass, they are planning on opening up a gate to hell and fight satan himself!

Heh, yeah, and if these games actually were military trainers, wouldn't the government be in favor of having a population that would be willing participants in any armed conflict.
"Welcome new recruits. Oh, by the way, your guns won't be controlled with a keyboard and mouse anymore, though it is still a point-and-click interface. You'll just get a bit more kickback than from a mouse. Oh, and the bullets really do kill you this time. Have fun!"

What next, detailed legislation about how much airtime Princess Diana and Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole Smith can get?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
What next, detailed legislation about how much airtime Princess Diana and Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole Smith can get?

I might actually support that. :laugh: