all republicans are evil

j0e · May 2, 2003, 07:29 AM

disprove it

Falstaff · May 2, 2003, 08:13 AM

[SIZE=x-large][COLOR=orange]http://www.evilrepublicans.com/[/COLOR][/size]

An auspcious beginning....is this economics you are referring to?

is this ideology you are referring to?

is this politics you are referring to?

no more help for you....lol

ToshiroOC · May 2, 2003, 08:17 AM

Abraham Lincoln was a republican.

Falstaff · May 2, 2003, 08:25 AM

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/pr...g/jefinau1.htm

[COLOR=limegreen]Jefferson certainly embraced values and he considered himself a republican as well...

Good one Tosh [/COLOR]

JavaFox · May 2, 2003, 06:12 PM

The Republican Party was a party founded for the explicit purpose of combating slavery.

Dom · May 2, 2003, 06:17 PM

Does slavery still exist?

JavaFox · May 2, 2003, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dom
Does slavery still exist?

In some African nations.

No, the point was that the RP was created for very alturistic reasons.

Dom · May 2, 2003, 06:43 PM

Well if slavery exists in a country I doubt it has Republicans in it. My point is if "The Republican Party was a party founded for the explicit purpose of combating slavery"; and slavery no longer exists in America, whats the point in the party anymore? Why not more their party to where their needed?

JavaFox · May 2, 2003, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dom
Well if slavery exists in a country I doubt it has Republicans in it. My point is if "The Republican Party was a party founded for the explicit purpose of combating slavery"; and slavery no longer exists in America, whats the point in the party anymore? Why not more their party to where their needed?

The RP stands for more than that. The reason they were started was to fight slavery. They have since moved on and represent conservative view in America.

The Internet was originally a Department of Defense project. Should it have just stayed that way?

Dom · May 2, 2003, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
The RP stands for more than that. The reason they were started was to fight slavery. They have since moved on and represent conservative view in America.

The Internet was originally a Department of Defense project. Should it have just stayed that way?

Theres a difference between a group of people created of something and a thing a group of people created.

Falstaff · May 2, 2003, 07:28 PM

[COLOR=skyblue]Theres a difference between a group of people created of something and a thing a group of people created.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=limegreen]Almost profound, more like a "profundity", ha ha...

One more glorious term in office and the United States might be pointed in the right direction[/COLOR]

Dom · May 2, 2003, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fallang_jeff
[COLOR=skyblue]Theres a difference between a group of people created of something and a thing a group of people created.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=limegreen]Almost profound, more like a "profundity", ha ha...

One more glorious term in office and the United States might be pointed in the right direction[/COLOR]

Glorious term, eh? Neglecting the economy is glorious? Okay.

JavaFox · May 2, 2003, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dom
Glorious term, eh? Neglecting the economy is glorious? Okay.

Even if this allegation of "neglecting the economy" were true of Bush it is one million times better than neglecting national security as the Democrats have frequently done.

Isn't anyone still mad about 9-11?

sinjin · May 2, 2003, 08:47 PM

the democrats will save us from apocylpse? i hate our choices....

anywho, the current administration will just allow another horrible terrorist attack to occur right around next year's election to garner support for sweeping new big brother oriented legislation and g.dubya will be at the helm for another 4 belt tightening years.

yay.

sinjin · May 2, 2003, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
Isn't anyone still mad about 9-11?

i'm mad that our government knew about it before it happened.

Dom · May 2, 2003, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
Even if this allegation of "neglecting the economy" were true of Bush it is one million times better than neglecting national security as the Democrats have frequently done.

Isn't anyone still mad about 9-11?

How can you say my statement is untrue? You think his isn't because of all of his tax-cuts?

Bush or his buddies were neglecting the national security before 9/11 as what happened then is self-explanatory.

JavaFox · May 2, 2003, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sinjin
i'm mad that our government knew about it before it happened.

Any objective person who has examined Clinton's policies cannot help but conclude that had he not been president, 9-11 would not have occured. It would have taken a lot of effort to find a president who cared less about terrorism.

BWX · May 2, 2003, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by j0e
disprove it

All democrats are satan worshipers-- everyone in who is in the religion of islam is a terrorist, disprove it.

That's about as intelligent as the original question.

Falstaff · May 2, 2003, 09:26 PM

[COLOR=orangered]All democrats are satan worshipers-- everyone in who is in the religion of islam is a terrorist, disprove it. [/COLOR]

[COLOR=limegreen]Touche........perhaps the evil of two lessers is ignorance, not the perpetuation of ignorance, ha ha...[/COLOR]

[COLOR=sienna]Any objective person who has examined Clinton's policies cannot help but conclude that had he not been president, 9-11 would not have occured. It would have taken a lot of effort to find a president who cared less about terrorism.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=limegreen]If Clinton had dealt with Osama Bin Laden when he had the chance, because he knew where this terrorist was when he travelled back and forth, and even knew the cell phone number where we could reach him...but Clinton balked, and perhaps that is what you are referring too, Clinton forced Bin Laden into hiding and umped the ante in this political game, now after 9/11 the stakes are so much higher, and we still haven't eliminated the viper. We know where he is generally, he still makes calls or his subordinates do, but we don't have permission to fly drones into Uzbekistan yet, but we will, we found one of his young leutenents, it is only a matter of time. [/COLOR]

[COLOR=limegreen]President Bush hasn't neglected the economy, he is repolarizing it. We americans expect instant gratification, but it will no doubt take longer, four more years should do it. yep...[/COLOR]

BWX · May 2, 2003, 09:34 PM

I didn't want a response from my statements, as they are moronic, just like the question that started this thread- Don't respond to it- it was a rhetorical question/ statement going to show that the first one was just as ridiculouse.

I can't believe you guys give people like "j0e" with statements like his the time of day- they really aren't even worthy of a resonse. He is your typical drive-by poster.

Behemoth69 · May 2, 2003, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
The Republican Party was a party founded for the explicit purpose of combating slavery.

Only reason slavery was combatted was because lincon knew that no country with the ammount of its population being slaves could ever be sucessful and as powerful as the european nations. As for all those pro war americans here, I agree with Einstein: Freedom cannont be kept though force, it can only be achieved though understanding.

Falstaff · May 2, 2003, 10:26 PM

From even before this country began to emerge from the infancy of democracy, there was a deep religious objection to slavery.

Behemoth69 · May 2, 2003, 10:31 PM

tell that to the deep south

Falstaff · May 2, 2003, 11:54 PM

[COLOR=skyblue]You know your a redneck when:
You go to family reunions to get a date..

You learned the sleeper hold from your Grandmother..

You Grandma spits a cigarette out of her mouth and waits long enough to light another one to
tell the highway patrolman to kiss her ass.....ha ha..

Just where do you think the deep south is?....

L.A.? (lower alabama)
[/COLOR]

Vampyromaniac · May 3, 2003, 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
Any objective person who has examined Clinton's policies cannot help but conclude that had he not been president, 9-11 would not have occured.

I don't think he was President when the attack occured