Is the Republican Party dying?
Yes
47.1% (65)
47.1% (65)
No
52.9% (73)
52.9% (73)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Is the Republican Party "Dying"? Will it "Die" Sometime In The Near Future?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

farson135:

Tyler Perry:

pyrate:
I'm sorry but you cannot claim a weak German economy, providing no sources, then demand people give you sources to prove your claim incorrect.

Actually I did. Several in fact.

[quote]Was the German economy perfect, no. It had its cracks, just like every economy then and now. However, you don't prepare and fight a war on the scale that Germany did on the back of a poor economy.

The Soviets managed it and with almost half their population, most of their railways and roads, much of their industry, much of their available resources, and most of their immediately available soldiers under German control.

Read through the sources I provided and they will explain it in great detail (especially the Tooze book).

And look at the results. The Soviets suffered twice the military casualties despite outnumbering the Germans more than 2:1. On top of that they suffered millions of civilian deaths through famine.

You can go to war with a bad economy, it just is not going to turn out well, case and point the Soviets. Sure, they won in the end, but it resulted in more than 25 million casualties. If Germany was not fighting on two fronts the Soviets would not have stood a chance.

This is actually a perfect example of one reason why the Republicans alienate most young voters. The anti-intellectual, revisionist history of the Republicans does not go well with a voter block that is made up of college students.

Also from what I've seen, the Republicans would currently vote in favour of bombing American churches and using taxpayer money to build mosques in the rubble, if Obama publicly stated it was a bad thing.

They're so obsessed with negative campaigns they seem to just stick their fingers in their ears and go 'no no no lalala' no matter what is on the table, for fear of agreeing with the Democrats and actually letting something happen.

Note this is how they appear to a Brit, based on what I read and see on TV, hear on radio, etc. I'm not claiming any sources, just stating an opinion.

I do think however, despite preferring Obama to any of the Republican offerings, I think it's bad for democracy in general when they cannot put forward a professional defence, and I think it could lead to Obama rolling in for a second term not on being a great world leader, but by simply not being as nuts as what's been offered on the other side.

I actually consider Romney to have been the best of a lot of them, and I'm pleased he rose to the top, I think Santorum would have been scary, frankly and Bachman and Gingrich weren't much better options.

SenseOfTumour:
Note this is how they appear to a Brit, based on what I read and see on TV, hear on radio, etc. I'm not claiming any sources, just stating an opinion.

It's how they look to an American, too. That said, I'm told that I'd fit in better in Europe, so take that as you will.

SenseOfTumour:
Also from what I've seen, the Republicans would currently vote in favour of bombing American churches and using taxpayer money to build mosques in the rubble, if Obama publicly stated it was a bad thing.

They're so obsessed with negative campaigns they seem to just stick their fingers in their ears and go 'no no no lalala' no matter what is on the table, for fear of agreeing with the Democrats and actually letting something happen.

Note this is how they appear to a Brit, based on what I read and see on TV, hear on radio, etc. I'm not claiming any sources, just stating an opinion.

I do think however, despite preferring Obama to any of the Republican offerings, I think it's bad for democracy in general when they cannot put forward a professional defence, and I think it could lead to Obama rolling in for a second term not on being a great world leader, but by simply not being as nuts as what's been offered on the other side.

I actually consider Romney to have been the best of a lot of them, and I'm pleased he rose to the top, I think Santorum would have been scary, frankly and Bachman and Gingrich weren't much better options.

Tell me something, in British political parties do they have multiple competing interests within the same party?

That is how it is in the United States, especially since most of the interest groups in the country have to unite behind one of the two major parties (well more or less). Romney represents a more moderate part of the Republican party. Just as the more liberal members of the Democratic party arent thrilled with Obama, the more conservative members of the Republican party aren't thrilled with Romney, but most of them will vote for their respective candidate anyway.

Little know fact, about 40% of American voters self identify as Conservatives, about 35% are Moderate, and only 20% are Liberal (no idea what the last 5% are).

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152021/conservatives-remain-largest-ideological-group.aspx

As a result the Republican party which is more attractive to Conservatives have a larger base of support so politically they can afford to be more ideological because they do not have to win as many moderate voters as the Democratic party does. The Democratic party has to appeal more to the center to survive. For the Republican party it can actually be sometime of a liability to appeal more to the middle than to their larger Conservative base. If Conservatives decide to stay home in large numbers rather than vote for Romney then Obama WILL win the election. The Republican party is, I think, playing a high risk game, assuming that Obama will energize Conservatives to vote for Romney for them. It makes sense but if it doesnt work and Romney loses the narrative will be that he is just another McCain, a squishy moderate without Conservative convictions. I think this narrative will be unfair and false but in politics so much is false and unfair that its not even worth correcting.

Just thought I would try and explain the realities of American political culture.

Also the reason Naheal has probably been told he would fit in more in Europe is because in America we have like about a dozen different socialist third parties which leech votes from each other. Of course even if you put all their votes together it would be an insignificant result. Obama is probably the furthest to the left a politician can be and still be elected President of the United States today.

Seekster:
Little know fact, about 40% of American voters self identify as Conservatives, about 35% are Moderate, and only 20% are Liberal (no idea what the last 5% are).

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152021/conservatives-remain-largest-ideological-group.aspx

more stuff

I've heard you bandy this around a lot, and I have to question its validity. The poll itself seems questionable in the sense that it fails to clearly define what "conservative" means, and the problem with this (especially in the sense of the conclusions you draw from it) is that the Republican party isn't really that conservative. They're extremely socially conservative, but their conservatism on non-social issues amounts, most of the time, to so much bluster and bullshit. No republican president since Nixon has been a genuine fiscal conservative. The republican party fails as the "conservative" party in many regards, unless you want to define "conservative" as "what the republican party is". I'm not saying it's necessarily a faulty conclusion, but it certainly isn't something you can so simply assert.

Stagnant:
I've heard you bandy this around a lot, and I have to question its validity. The poll itself seems questionable in the sense that it fails to clearly define what "conservative" means,...

From what I know, polls on actual individual issues such as the public option, taxes on the rich, military interventions etc. show a much more liberal slant among the polled despite many people self-identifying as conservative. One explanation was that the words liberal and progressive have become so tainted over the years of smears that people don't like to identify as such despite holding these views on the actual issues. The public option in particular was a great example of this as polls usually got between 60 and 80% of approval.

Seekster:
Obama is probably the furthest to the left a politician can be and still be elected President of the United States today.

Only goes to show how much the American spectrum has moved to the right these past years.

Skeleon:

Stagnant:
I've heard you bandy this around a lot, and I have to question its validity. The poll itself seems questionable in the sense that it fails to clearly define what "conservative" means,...

From what I know, polls on actual individual issues such as the public option, taxes on the rich, military interventions etc. show a much more liberal slant among the polled despite many people self-identifying as conservative. One explanation was that the words liberal and progressive have become so tainted over the years of smears that people don't like to identify as such despite holding these views on the actual issues. The public option in particular was a great example of this as polls usually got between 60 and 80% of approval.

This is exactly what I mean. It seems like the poll would indicate that more people would agree with basic conservative policies... But that's not accurate. Ridiculously high numbers of people agree with welfare, agree with social security, believe that we need to raise taxes on the rich and on corporations, believe that we need more regulation on the banks... So something is wrong with your methodology, Seekster.

Stag the poll asks people what they self-identify as. You can question the results all you like. As for policy, not even Conservatives are always happy with the policies of the Republican party, the polls is a reflection of political ideology not party loyalty.

Skeleon:

Seekster:
Obama is probably the furthest to the left a politician can be and still be elected President of the United States today.

Only goes to show how much the American spectrum has moved to the right these past years.

Actually from about the second half of the 20th Century on America has been notably to the right of your typical European country on the political spectrum, and there is nothing at all wrong with that.

Seekster:
Actually from about the second half of the 20th Century on America has been notably to the right of your typical European country on the political spectrum, and there is nothing at all wrong with that.

I'm not arguing that it hasn't for a long time been to the right of Europe. But considering the analyses of various past policies and their evaluation at the time, even Ronald Reagan's, and comparing them to what nowadays goes for liberal and conservative, I seriously doubt that it's stayed on the same spot and not moved further to the right.

As for the other point (with Stagnant), the question was exactly that: Are they actually conservative policy-wise or do they only refer to themselves as conservative? Polling on individual issues would indicate the latter at least for a sizeable number.

Skeleon:

Seekster:
Actually from about the second half of the 20th Century on America has been notably to the right of your typical European country on the political spectrum, and there is nothing at all wrong with that.

I'm not arguing that it hasn't for a long time been to the right of Europe. But considering the analyses of various past policies and their evaluation at the time, even Ronald Reagan's, and comparing them to what nowadays goes for liberal and conservative, I seriously doubt that it's stayed on the same spot and not moved further to the right.

As for the other point (with Stagnant), the question was exactly that: Are they actually conservative policy-wise or do they only refer to themselves as conservative? Polling on individual issues would indicate the latter at least for a sizeable number.

Another aspect of that poll is that just looking at moderates you have more moderates that lean right than lean left. And yes people are funny in surveys and you can ask them questions and get contradictory answers. Still the results are not insignificant and Gallup has been keeping track of this particular stat for some time. Individuals are not often unreasonable in their views on issues.

And yes I think its fair to say that the country has moved further to the right in recent years. Its a bit like a pendulum really but it doesnt just stay in one spot.

Seekster:
Stag the poll asks people what they self-identify as. You can question the results all you like. As for policy, not even Conservatives are always happy with the policies of the Republican party, the polls is a reflection of political ideology not party loyalty.

But that's entirely the point I'm trying to make. Just because a lot of people self-identify as "conservatives" does not even remotely mean that the republicans can be more "ideological" and maintain public support. It means more people self-identify as conservatives, even when they aren't.

Actually Stag it kind of does mean that the Republicans can afford to appeal more to Conservative ideology even if you wouldn't call it Conservative ideology. Now the Republicans can't make it so they only appeal to Conservative hardliners but they can afford to be less moderate than the Democratic party can and still be a very viable party.

pyrate:
You can go to war with a bad economy, it just is not going to turn out well, case and point the Soviets.

Do you even remember what you were arguing, because you just contradicted yourself?

This is actually a perfect example of one reason why the Republicans alienate most young voters. The anti-intellectual, revisionist history of the Republicans does not go well with a voter block that is made up of college students.

YOU JUST CONTRADICTED YOURSELF AND YOU ARE INSULTING ME. Stop trying to debate historical topics with me because you have nothing to offer.

BTW I still have not changed my party since the last time I told you I am not a republican.

farson135:
snip

Again, you are reading my words incorrectly. I never said we didn't need to cut our defense program. We do but at the point we are at if it isn't cut, it is still a large part of our budget.

Those illegal immigrants found? Yeah, they may have been caught in Colorado but it wasn't Colorado dealing with them. Immigration and Customs got them, not the state. The way they did it was also in all states and territories so it definitely wasn't a state issue.

Again, I am not advocating for a command economy but worrying about the economy is still very important. I'm not saying stimulus and new Keynesian. I'm saying watch it and be able to understand what's wrong and how to fix it.

Since when did saying medicare comes from the feds means that they have the right to waste money. That is not what I said and you better read what I say because if you are going to intentionally misread what I say, I will be done. And you were saying most funding for that came from the states when in actuality it came from the federal government, thus, you are wrong.

What resources? The country is in trillions of dollars of debt. They have the ability to borrow from China, yeah, but that doesn't mean I support it either. And when I mentioned earlier that government has more money and issues to deal with, you ignored me and laughed it off but when you see it as an advantage (false) for yourself, you are all willing to say it. Just like Obama who said the part of his bill was a tax just to prevent it from getting voted against when he originally said it wasn't. Don't be a hypocrite.

Also, Seekster, the idea that you trust Fox News more than Think Progress. Hah! That's a laugh. You don't need to get us started on how that is a joke. They both have biases but Fox intentionally gives wrong information.

I hope the two party system goes to shit, especially since it's the main reason the Republicans are in any way relevant nowadays.

Seekster:
Actually Stag it kind of does mean that the Republicans can afford to appeal more to Conservative ideology even if you wouldn't call it Conservative ideology. Now the Republicans can't make it so they only appeal to Conservative hardliners but they can afford to be less moderate than the Democratic party can and still be a very viable party.

...Err, were you listening? If the majority of people feel a stronger adherence on the issues to the democratic party, then it makes no difference if they self-identify as conservatives, because clearly, to them, the republicans don't represent "conservative".

Well thats the thing Stag...they don't. Furthermore some people may actually disagree with a party on a few issues but still vote for them because they agree with them on most issues. Its a fact that the Republican party is still very much a viable party, not even you can deny that.

Sad I missed the beginning of this...

Anyway on topic- the GOP may not "DIE" persay, but it will definitely not be what it is/has been today for too much longer. In some insane way the GOP has moved soooo far to the right that Ronald Reagan their lord and savior would not even have a chance to get elected in their primaries.

They have gotten insane, it seems that they will argue against anything democrats or liberals say whether its santorum ragging on college calling people who want college educations snobs, Limbaugh calling women whores on syndicated radio or a bunch of governors endorsing pink slime meat. They have gone crazy and i for one blame Karl Rove.

Karl Rove was the mastermind who had to figure out how to change the tone of politics after 8 amazing years of Bill Clinton (still dont know how Gore didnt win in a landslide). The only way he could accomplish such a thing is by turning the GOP into the equivalent of a WWE villian. It worked to the tune of 8 disasterous years of Bush and now things have gotten so out of hand that a republican cant even admit to believing in the big bang theory...

Sad really.

recruit00:
Again, you are reading my words incorrectly.

Try proof reading before you post (half of this post makes it sound like you are drunk).

I never said we didn't need to cut our defense program. We do but at the point we are at if it isn't cut, it is still a large part of our budget.

A large part of a large budget that has a large amount of resources to draw on.

You vastly underestimate the amount of money the DoD wastes.

Those illegal immigrants found? Yeah, they may have been caught in Colorado but it wasn't Colorado dealing with them. Immigration and Customs got them, not the state. The way they did it was also in all states and territories so it definitely wasn't a state issue.

And who deals with them when an illegal immigrant is pulled over and caught? Who deals with illegal immigration more, the Brownsville PD or ICE? ICE deals with raids and deportation BUT the local PDs deal with the majority of immigration. Let me ask you something how exactly could ICE enforce federal law by itself? It can't, which is why the states deal with it. In fact if you read the article you would have noticed that ICE was arresting CRIMINAL aliens not regular aliens.

Again, I am not advocating for a command economy but worrying about the economy is still very important. I'm not saying stimulus and new Keynesian. I'm saying watch it and be able to understand what's wrong and how to fix it.

And just watching the economy requires a massive budget because?

Since when did saying medicare comes from the feds means that they have the right to waste money. That is not what I said and you better read what I say because if you are going to intentionally misread what I say, I will be done.

You seem to think that just because the government spends a lot they have the right to be less responsible with the money they are given.

Exact quote from what I said earlier. Try reading that a few times and see if you can get it. The feds waste a ton of money and you are saying that spending levels cannot be dropped to reasonable rates and the budget cannot be caped simply because the government spends a lot of money. That is nonsensical and illogical.

And you were saying most funding for that came from the states when in actuality it came from the federal government, thus, you are wrong.

Since when does health care=Medicare?

What resources? The country is in trillions of dollars of debt. They have the ability to borrow from China, yeah, but that doesn't mean I support it either. And when I mentioned earlier that government has more money and issues to deal with, you ignored me and laughed it off but when you see it as an advantage (false) for yourself, you are all willing to say it. Just like Obama who said the part of his bill was a tax just to prevent it from getting voted against when he originally said it wasn't. Don't be a hypocrite.

What? That does not even make sense.

The US government has the resources provided by the entire country to draw from while states just have the resources provided by the people living in those states. How are you not getting this?

Also, Seekster, the idea that you trust Fox News more than Think Progress. Hah! That's a laugh. You don't need to get us started on how that is a joke. They both have biases but Fox intentionally gives wrong information.

You think that Think Progress does not intentionally give out false information? Yeah right.

Alright, since you continue to read my stuff out of context or even read it, I see no reason to continue this debate. If you aren't going to put an effort into reading my stuff the way I wrote it rather than twisting my words, I'm out of here.

Oh, and do you think Fox is a very reputable source? If yes, then HAHA I'm done. If not, yay intelligence.

farson135:
You think that Think Progress does not intentionally give out false information? Yeah right.

Care to cite any instance where this has actually happened? I'm curious if you feel that TP "intentionally giving out false information" is a documented offense, or if you're just assuming they have because of their partisan bent.

recruit00:
Alright, since you continue to read my stuff out of context or even read it, I see no reason to continue this debate. If you aren't going to put an effort into reading my stuff the way I wrote it rather than twisting my words, I'm out of here.

Oh, and do you think Fox is a very reputable source? If yes, then HAHA I'm done. If not, yay intelligence.

Fox News is roughly the equivalent of MSNBC in terms of credibility. Neither are very credible but compared to groups like ThinkProgress which are openly and unapologeticaly biased those sources are more reputable.

Seekster:

recruit00:
Alright, since you continue to read my stuff out of context or even read it, I see no reason to continue this debate. If you aren't going to put an effort into reading my stuff the way I wrote it rather than twisting my words, I'm out of here.

Oh, and do you think Fox is a very reputable source? If yes, then HAHA I'm done. If not, yay intelligence.

Fox News is roughly the equivalent of MSNBC in terms of credibility. Neither are very credible but compared to groups like ThinkProgress which are openly and unapologeticaly biased those sources are more reputable.

I don't know. I think I would rather trust MSNBC before Fox News.

We can always hope, can't we? The party started dying with Reagan, now it seems to be either white collar criminals or psychotics. The party is a fucking mess, and while i don't know if it is going to fall apart anytime soon considering there are still American's supporting it (For some inexplicable reason) improved education and general disgust towards more conservative policies will be increasing the number of either Democrats or third party supporters. We'll have to wait and see how things turn out, but yeah, the Republican party is losing it's identity to the fanatics and thieves and is in big trouble.

Seekster:

recruit00:
Alright, since you continue to read my stuff out of context or even read it, I see no reason to continue this debate. If you aren't going to put an effort into reading my stuff the way I wrote it rather than twisting my words, I'm out of here.

Oh, and do you think Fox is a very reputable source? If yes, then HAHA I'm done. If not, yay intelligence.

Fox News is roughly the equivalent of MSNBC in terms of credibility. Neither are very credible but compared to groups like ThinkProgress which are openly and unapologeticaly biased those sources are more reputable.

STOP IT.

If you're counting on Think Progress, say, to give you unbiased analysis, then sure, I can understand not counting on that.

But what is being claimed here, by you and others, is that ThinkProgress is disseminating false information. And you've done nothing to prove that; you've just dismissed it offhand.

recruit00:

Seekster:

recruit00:
Alright, since you continue to read my stuff out of context or even read it, I see no reason to continue this debate. If you aren't going to put an effort into reading my stuff the way I wrote it rather than twisting my words, I'm out of here.

Oh, and do you think Fox is a very reputable source? If yes, then HAHA I'm done. If not, yay intelligence.

Fox News is roughly the equivalent of MSNBC in terms of credibility. Neither are very credible but compared to groups like ThinkProgress which are openly and unapologeticaly biased those sources are more reputable.

I don't know. I think I would rather trust MSNBC before Fox News.

YOU would. I would trust Fox News over MSNBC but I don't really trust either one without being able to verify their claims from another source.

Seekster:

recruit00:

Seekster:

Fox News is roughly the equivalent of MSNBC in terms of credibility. Neither are very credible but compared to groups like ThinkProgress which are openly and unapologeticaly biased those sources are more reputable.

I don't know. I think I would rather trust MSNBC before Fox News.

YOU would. I would trust Fox News over MSNBC but I don't really trust either one without being able to verify their claims from another source.

Okay, that is understandable. Granted, still not the best but at least you would check another source afterwards.

recruit00:

Seekster:

recruit00:

I don't know. I think I would rather trust MSNBC before Fox News.

YOU would. I would trust Fox News over MSNBC but I don't really trust either one without being able to verify their claims from another source.

Okay, that is understandable. Granted, still not the best but at least you would check another source afterwards.

Im a journalist (and historian) by profession. If I find something in a story from ANY source dubious I will at least try and find a second source that mentions the same kind of thing.

recruit00:
Alright, since you continue to read my stuff out of context or even read it, I see no reason to continue this debate. If you aren't going to put an effort into reading my stuff the way I wrote it rather than twisting my words, I'm out of here.

Considering what you are about to say I think you need to step back and take a look at yourself. Or not. After all if you actually thought about what you posted then maybe you actually make some sense and your character would be ruined. Auf Wiedersehen.

Oh, and do you think Fox is a very reputable source? If yes, then HAHA I'm done. If not, yay intelligence.

And when did I say that?

Tyler Perry:
Care to cite any instance where this has actually happened? I'm curious if you feel that TP "intentionally giving out false information" is a documented offense, or if you're just assuming they have because of their partisan bent.

Actually I have heard of it a few times. Here is a lesser one that comes to mind- http://www.atr.org/progress-publishes-lies-taxpayer-protection-pledge-a6413

farson135:

recruit00:
Alright, since you continue to read my stuff out of context or even read it, I see no reason to continue this debate. If you aren't going to put an effort into reading my stuff the way I wrote it rather than twisting my words, I'm out of here.

Considering what you are about to say I think you need to step back and take a look at yourself. Or not. After all if you actually thought about what you posted then maybe you actually make some sense and your character would be ruined. Auf Wiedersehen.

Oh, and do you think Fox is a very reputable source? If yes, then HAHA I'm done. If not, yay intelligence.

And when did I say that?

Tyler Perry:
Care to cite any instance where this has actually happened? I'm curious if you feel that TP "intentionally giving out false information" is a documented offense, or if you're just assuming they have because of their partisan bent.

Actually I have heard of it a few times. Here is a lesser one that comes to mind- http://www.atr.org/progress-publishes-lies-taxpayer-protection-pledge-a6413

Oh, the Fox News question was simply to ask your thoughts on it. I know you didn't mention it. And everyone other person on this site has been able to understand what I write if they actually read it so it's not me. Also, I love how to counter Think Progress, you use a very biased site as your counter source. That's a laugh.

farson135:

Tyler Perry:
Care to cite any instance where this has actually happened? I'm curious if you feel that TP "intentionally giving out false information" is a documented offense, or if you're just assuming they have because of their partisan bent.

Actually I have heard of it a few times. Here is a lesser one that comes to mind- http://www.atr.org/progress-publishes-lies-taxpayer-protection-pledge-a6413

That one's kinda weak. Again, that's analysis. I'm referring to actual facts and figures. Numbers. Verifiable data.

recruit00:
Oh, the Fox News question was simply to ask your thoughts on it. I know you didn't mention it.

Misread. Fox is as reputable as any other cable news program. That is not saying much but then again what else is new. Solzhenutsyn talked about how shitty our news was at length (and that was back in the 70s).

And everyone other person on this site has been able to understand what I write if they actually read it so it's not me.

Did you even read what you wrote? Either you were drunk or didn't give a shit. Either way half of what you post has to be deciphered through the god awful grammatical structure (at least I have an excuse for crappy grammar).

farson135:

recruit00:
Oh, the Fox News question was simply to ask your thoughts on it. I know you didn't mention it.

Misread. Fox is as reputable as any other cable news program. That is not saying much but then again what else is new. Solzhenutsyn talked about how shitty our news was at length (and that was back in the 70s).

And everyone other person on this site has been able to understand what I write if they actually read it so it's not me.

Did you even read what you wrote? Either you were drunk or didn't give a shit. Either way half of what you post has to be deciphered through the god awful grammatical structure (at least I have an excuse for crappy grammar).

And what is your excuse? I don't spend ten minutes typing out my responses. I have other things to do other than post on the forum. And Fox News is reputable? That is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

farson135:
Fox is as reputable as any other cable news program.

I wouldn't quite go that far, but all cable news is shit.

Tyler Perry:
That one's kinda weak. Again, that's analysis. I'm referring to actual facts and figures. Numbers. Verifiable data.

It is facts. They say that this politician signed an affirmation from a particular group and he didn't.

Also, I am aware it is weak but then again I have not been paying much attention to American News. For this semester I have two classes that are taught exclusively in German so I get my news mostly from German sources so that I can read the news and practice at the same time. Ask around and I am sure someone else has something better.

Tyler Perry:
I wouldn't quite go that far, but all cable news is shit.

Duh.

recruit00:
And what is your excuse?

I am dyslexic . Also I just got home from 3 hours of class and 5 hours of work (plus an hour of commute) and have already put down a couple of beers and shots and have taken my nap (I have never been good at napping and the depressants help). After I eat supper I will be studying for my finals. I do this on the side in order to take a two minute(ish) break from my study time and I sure as hell will not be doing my best work.

And Fox News is reputable?

As much as any other cable news outlet.

That is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Your lack of awareness is astonishing.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked