Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Sorry, but just to be clear, did we confirm that BrvHrt and BlnGuy prefer Gingrich to Romney and Santorum, ignoring the concept of electability?
I definitely prefer Gingrich to either of those guys. I think Gingrich is vastly more electable than Santorum (despite his current whatever numbers) and we might as well have Obama for another term over Romney.However, since Santorum is going to drop out within a week, I don't think this is even worth talking about. I would rather have Ron Paul than anyone. (unless there is a person somewhere with most of Ron Paul's belief system, and the personality of Chris Christie)
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

What's the difference between a particular gene sequence in an abstract sense and a particular gene sequence that exists within a cell? Can you explain the difference in a way that doesn't boil down

This is pretty funny. The problem isn't the itty bitty details. The problem is Romney refuses to say if he's going to play Poker or Go Fish with the cards, and is on record as saying he doesn't know

I see.   I'd rather give the poor tax breaks than give them welfare. As a general rule. Let them keep their money to live on rather than take their money and then provide for them.

I definitely prefer Gingrich to either of those guys. I think Gingrich is vastly more electable than Santorum (despite his current whatever numbers) and we might as well have Obama for another term over Romney.However, since Santorum is going to drop out within a week, I don't think this is even worth talking about. I would rather have Ron Paul than anyone. (unless there is a person somewhere with most of Ron Paul's belief system, and the personality of Chris Christie)
I feel the same way as the first paragraph.The second, not so much. I like 50% of what Paul says. But his extreme views on defense, nationalism and the economy (specifically the Fed) scare the hell out of me.Christie would have gotten 60% of the popular vote. Unless he just really doesn't want to be president, or he is that beholden to N.J., I don't understand why he didn't run.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I feel the same way as the first paragraph.The second, not so much. I like 50% of what Paul says. But his extreme views on defense, nationalism and the economy (specifically the Fed) scare the hell out of me.Christie would have gotten 60% of the popular vote. Unless he just really doesn't want to be president, or he is that beholden to N.J., I don't understand why he didn't run.
Christie doesn't want to run against an incumbent president and his propaganda machine a.k.a. the main stream media.That said, unless Chrisitie or Mitch Daniels enters the race, I will be voting for Gary Johnson who is going to run "third party".
Link to post
Share on other sites
Better hurry and get your point inPresident Obama is pushing for the senate to sign off on his 'treaty' that gives the Chinese the right to shut you down!While you guys make up reasons for why none of the republicans can win, your president is signing away your freedom of speech.It warms my heart to think of how much fun telling you guys I told you so when we are all in concentration camps together.Warms my heart.
Not saying I support ACTA, but China is not part of it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Not saying I support ACTA, but China is not part of it.
White House bypasses Senate to ink agreement that could allow Chinese companies to demand ISPs remove web content in US with no legal oversight
A country known for its enforcement of harsh Internet censorship policies like China could demand under the treaty that an ISP in the United States remove content or terminate a website on its server altogether. As we have seen from the enforcement of similar copyright policies in the US, websites are sometimes targeted for no justifiable reason.
I don't really know anything about this act, just like to bust your chops
Link to post
Share on other sites
The second, not so much. I like 50% of what Paul says. But his extreme views on defense, nationalism and the economy (specifically the Fed) scare the hell out of me.
I think it's sad and funny that "we can't afford to bomb everyone on Earth, and it wouldn't be good policy even if we could afford it" is considered an "extreme" view within the Republican party.We are currently paying the price for an unchecked Fed, so I'm not sure why reigning them in is extreme, either. Do we like this kind of economic slump now?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't really know anything about this act, just like to bust your chops
They could theoretically join the group, but they haven't, and weren't part of the negotiations. They opposed it because they think it supersedes earlier agreements that they like better.
Link to post
Share on other sites
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/...rida/?hpt=hp_t2Romney opening up a decent lead again....looks like I will be proven right in the end about Florida. The state has just been inundated in anti-Gingrich ads the last 5 days....I saw three in one episode of Wheel of Fortune last night and heard two more on the radio in my car. Money talks. Plus, the silence is deafening from all of Gingrich's old colleagues. Pretty much everyone who worked with him in Congress is NOT supporting him. Pretty telling, imo.Agree with Henry....Ron Paul's foreign policy views are something I enjoy hearing him talk about and those thoughts NEED to be in the public discourse. Of course, the fact that I like hearing his ideas is probably why they crush his GOP primary chances.
Link to post
Share on other sites
George Soros saying the first thing remotely close to reality from the extreme leftCliffs: Romney is just Obama-lightDemocrats are very luke warm about ObamaRepublicans will need to pick someone very conservative in order to drum up much interest.In other words, moderates fail in the republican party. Conservatives win. And President Obama is not even remotely close to being a shoe in.
Link to post
Share on other sites
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA you live in Florida and watch Wheel of Fortune.You are officially old now.
Now? I've been a member of the Wheel Watcher Club since 2006! I married my college sweetheart and I think tattoos and piercings are gross.....but khakis are always cool. It's a miracle I'm not already a Republican.Lol, at you siding with George Soros. He's obviously mind-****ing conservatives there. You want to see a fired up Democratic base? Nominate Newt Gingrich. All of a sudden, the left will be really super-pumped about Obama again.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Now? I've been a member of the Wheel Watcher Club since 2006! I married my college sweetheart and I think tattoos and piercings are gross. It's a miracle I'm not already a Republican.
Keep complaining about those things while cheating on your college sweetheart, then you can become a Republican.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Pat Sajak is pretty great.
Front page article on CNN yesterday about how he used to host Wheel drunk sometimes. Classic Sajak. I really enjoyed him on Le Batard.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, and he is a good republican. Did you read the news that he and Vanna used to do the show shit-faced?http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/27/...E80Q02U20120127You know he had to be hittin' that.
He told that story on LeBatard's radio show over a month ago. It's in the news now because he told the same story on his TV show a couple days ago.Re: Vanna
Radio show caller: Who would win in a fight between you and Alex Trebek and have you ever slept with Vanna White?Sajak: I would beat Alex Trebek because he has a bad back and I haven't slept with Vanna White because I have a bad back.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it's sad and funny that "we can't afford to bomb everyone on Earth, and it wouldn't be good policy even if we could afford it" is considered an "extreme" view within the Republican party.We are currently paying the price for an unchecked Fed, so I'm not sure why reigning them in is extreme, either. Do we like this kind of economic slump now?
I also agree with those things. But he wants to close all foreign bases, become practically isolationists and completely get rid of the Fed. It's the extreme take on the topics that people have the problem with.
Link to post
Share on other sites
We are currently paying the price for an unchecked Fed, so I'm not sure why reigning them in is extreme, either. Do we like this kind of economic slump now?
Dude, you really need to join reality.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I also agree with those things. But he wants to close all foreign bases, become practically isolationists and completely get rid of the Fed. It's the extreme take on the topics that people have the problem with.
I agree that closing *all* foreign bases is taking it to far. My plan would be to keep enough bases open that we could reduce any country in the world into a glowing ember with 12 hours notice. I have no idea how many bases that is, but with our air strike capability and our submarine and carrier capabilities, it is definitely way, way fewer than we have now. And we should only have bases in countries where the populace supports having us there, like Germany. Lots of countries would love to have that kind of economic boom combined with the inherent safety of having the US military there. I think the commanders would talk sense into Paul on this one.He has moderated his position somewhat on the Fed; he mostly wants to get rid of an un-accountable, unchecked Fed with the power to manipulate the economy. He calls it "End the Fed" because it's a catchy slogan.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, but just to be clear, did we confirm that BrvHrt and BlnGuy prefer Gingrich to Romney and Santorum, ignoring the concept of electability?
Rereading this, I think it was possible to misinterpret my question. So let me rephrase it:If electability weren't an issue, which Republican candidate would the two people I mentioned prefer?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Rereading this, I think it was possible to misinterpret my question. So let me rephrase it:If electability weren't an issue, which Republican candidate would the two people I mentioned prefer?
I'm not speaking for them, but this is literally the worst crop of candidates the Republicans have *eeeeeeeeeeeeeeever* had. At least Dole and McCain had readily apparent successors rights. This group of asshats is nothing more than has-beens grasping at limelight straws, Santorum hoping nobody googles his name and Ron Paul knowing he won't get the nod, but standing up there and sticking it to them out of conscience. No one turns out for this, Obama in a walk.The good news for the left is that Obama can finally 'be hisself' in a second term, so the reasons they voted for him in the first place will finally be set into motion.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully the R's win big in the house and senate and gridlock the shit out of Washington for his 2nd term.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...