UConn James Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 Link It may be more of a 'Hey, remember me next time in case Barry wins' thing, as the GOP prefers previously known / vetted pols, but if either of them goes for it, the previously-termed "unspectacular" pot of candidates would have a fire started under it. I'm supporting Romney, but a wider field of people who bring fiscal-issue bones wouldn't hurt to push the debates away from the social-issues that Bachmann and Perry would probably like to have the fore. Frankly, I could give a sh-- either way on many of the social issues. We need someone who can help turn around the economy as his or her first, second, third, fourth and fifth priority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 WSJ was practically begging for someone (read Ryan, Christie) to come in and rescue the GOP field. By the same token, NYT should start a subliminal campaign to launch Hillary's primary challenge. Yes, she can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 Frankly, I could give a sh-- either way on many of the social issues. We need someone who can help turn around the economy as his or her first, second, third, fourth and fifth priority. I agree completely, it's got to be about the economy, and what policies the candidate can provide that will help us get out of this hole. What matters to me most in regards to qualifications is; Does he look presidential? Does he have executive experience? What track record does he have with his experience? What sort of business experience does he have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 Now that's funny! Paul Ryan for President?? The clown isn't even going to consider the open senate seat in his own state. Why? Because he would lose, that's why. The man is a cancer. He needs to hide in his own safe little House district and hope they can't even get him there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 Link It may be more of a 'Hey, remember me next time in case Barry wins' thing, as the GOP prefers previously known / vetted pols, but if either of them goes for it, the previously-termed "unspectacular" pot of candidates would have a fire started under it. I'm supporting Romney, but a wider field of people who bring fiscal-issue bones wouldn't hurt to push the debates away from the social-issues that Bachmann and Perry would probably like to have the fore. Frankly, I could give a sh-- either way on many of the social issues. We need someone who can help turn around the economy as his or her first, second, third, fourth and fifth priority. I'm with you on this. The GOP should stay away from the social issues and stick with the economy. Regardless, the dems will try to paint any GOP candidate as some far wacked out religious zealot. That's after they accuse the republicans of wanting to eliminate SS and medicare while forcing grandma to eat dog food. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Hedd Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 boy, these two will really rivet the electorate. I also hear David Duke is considering again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 I'm with you on this. The GOP should stay away from the social issues and stick with the economy. Regardless, the dems will try to paint any GOP candidate as some far wacked out religious zealot. That's after they accuse the republicans of wanting to eliminate SS and medicare while forcing grandma to eat dog food. The GOP doesn't need any help, they paint themselves into the far right social corner. They always include an anti-abortion plank at the convention, and probably will have some defense of marriage plank this time. And let's not forget the opposition to building Mosques, because they're just havens for domestic terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Regardless, the dems will try to paint any GOP candidate as some far wacked out religious zealot. That's after they accuse the republicans of wanting to eliminate SS and medicare while forcing grandma to eat dog food. remind me again which team jerry falwell and pat robertson played for. and they're just the most visible behind the curtain, repug extremists. it's not imagined and it's getting more prevalent every day in the grand old fundamentalist party. medicare and SS? yup, privatizing these would result in increased alpo sales. there are grandmas eating it now (i'm told it's fairly easy to eat without teeth) and going without needed medications. ya think the picture's likely to get more rockwellian with a new right wing prez? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 remind me again which team jerry falwell and pat robertson played for. and they're just the most visible behind the curtain, repug extremists. it's not imagined and it's getting more prevalent every day in the grand old fundamentalist party. medicare and SS? yup, privatizing these would result in increased alpo sales. there are grandmas eating it now (i'm told it's fairly easy to eat without teeth) and going without needed medications. ya think the picture's likely to get more rockwellian with a new right wing prez? You are an ass that is fulfilling my prediction that the dems will try to paint the GOP as wanting to eliminate SS and Medicare while making grandma eat dogfood. Same old schit, different day. Anybody that is a fiscal conservative is a homophobic wacked out religious zealot wanting to ban reading the "funny pages" on Sunday? You are a Kool Aid drinker of the likes of Conner, Dave in Norfolk and pBrain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 At least Bachmann isn't charging people to come see her. This sissy Ryan is really running scared! It will cost $15 to ask Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) a question in person during the August congressional recess. The House Budget Committee chairman isn't holding any face-to-face open-to-the-public town hall meetings during the recess, but like several of his colleagues he will speak only for residents willing to open their wallets. http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=F0E997EA-EC57-4E4B-B174-D857948A0787 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 At least Bachmann isn't charging people to come see her. This sissy Ryan is really running scared! http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=F0E997EA-EC57-4E4B-B174-D857948A0787 Figures they'd find a way to tax free speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 At least Bachmann isn't charging people to come see her. This sissy Ryan is really running scared! http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=F0E997EA-EC57-4E4B-B174-D857948A0787 You are dishonest. I guess your political beliefs mandate free lunches? From the article: "Seifert added that Ryan has nothing to do with the Whitnall Park Rotary Club’s decision to charge $15 for admissiona fee that will pay for the catered lunch of meat and potatoes the group will provide, club president Kent Bieganski told POLITICO." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 You are dishonest. I guess your political beliefs mandate free lunches? From the article: "Seifert added that Ryan has nothing to do with the Whitnall Park Rotary Club's decision to charge $15 for admissiona fee that will pay for the catered lunch of meat and potatoes the group will provide, club president Kent Bieganski told POLITICO." So he's just a whore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 So he's just a whore? Did you read the article? It's just a shameful hack job quoting the the Wisconsin Democrat Party spokesperson and the Executive Director of MoveOn.org. Dave_in_Norfolk either didn't read what he posted or deliberately set out to be dishonest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Did you read the article? It's just a shameful hack job quoting the the Wisconsin Democrat Party spokesperson and the Executive Director of MoveOn.org. Dave_in_Norfolk either didn't read what he posted or deliberately set out to be dishonest. Yeah, sorry, I really don't care about this at all. I just enjoy watching you get all indignant when the man is keeping you down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 So he's just a whore? No, he's trying to turn the tables on you, using my argument against his idiotic "The US is paying terrorists' salaries!" nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 No, he's trying to turn the tables on you, using my argument against his idiotic "The US is paying terrorists' salaries!" nonsense. My headline was much closer to the truth than Dave's total misrepresentation of the truth in his post. You obviously didn't read the article or you would have seen what I'm talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Hell, it's a bargain. WTF can you do for $15 these days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 My headline was much closer to the truth than Dave's total misrepresentation of the truth in his post. You obviously didn't read the article or you would have seen what I'm talking about. Yes, I did, and yes, it was. That's not my point. My point is that not only are you dishonest, but you're a hypocrite. The story...isn't. It's a complete non-story (or, more accurately, the story is that it's only $15 a head, rather than the usual $2500+ per plate fundraiser that most politicians have.) But Dave's total misrepresentation was completely in line with the standard you followed yesterday regarding the PA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Yes, I did, and yes, it was. That's not my point. My point is that not only are you dishonest, but you're a hypocrite. The story...isn't. It's a complete non-story (or, more accurately, the story is that it's only $15 a head, rather than the usual $2500+ per plate fundraiser that most politicians have.) But Dave's total misrepresentation was completely in line with the standard you followed yesterday regarding the PA. I'm not going to argue anymore with you about this. If you can't see the difference between the two then you need to work on other things. I've already said I could have worded that headline better but it still remains that the U.S. was providing the money that went to terrorists as salary, based on their prison terms for terrorist acts. Dave deliberately misled with his post. I know, a $15 lunch isn't much to talk about but Dave made out to be that he was charging $15 to ask him a question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts