OT – Who will run for President on the Republican side?

[bubba99]

I think the republicans are trying to lose the presidential race. The herd is really thin, and only represents the lunitic fringe of the party. When did the repubs become the party that:
– denies science (evolution)
– denies global warming
– parades a moose hunting dolt as VP candidate
– has a female candidate married to a gay, gay bashing “gay converter”
– represents only the richest 1% on tax breaks
– embraces the reactionary right christian wack jobs
– wants smaller govt, but insists on preventing a womans right to manage her own body.
– Is willing to let the US default on its financial obligations.

What ever happened to candidates like Lincoln, Teddy Rosevelt, Grant, Eisenhower, Regan? I can’t see any of these past presidents even in the same party as the current candidates.
–

[NotCranky]

I think they want the next big war in Iran to be on the democrat’s watch, either right before or right after the elections. It’s easier,that way, to keep us conquered and divided on the issue of imperialism or hegemony or what ever you want to call it.

[NotCranky]

I think they want the next big war in Iran to be on the democrat’s watch, either right before or right after the elections. It’s easier,that way, to keep us conquered and divided on the issue of imperialism or hegemony or what ever you want to call it.

[NotCranky]

I think they want the next big war in Iran to be on the democrat’s watch, either right before or right after the elections. It’s easier,that way, to keep us conquered and divided on the issue of imperialism or hegemony or what ever you want to call it.

[NotCranky]

I think they want the next big war in Iran to be on the democrat’s watch, either right before or right after the elections. It’s easier,that way, to keep us conquered and divided on the issue of imperialism or hegemony or what ever you want to call it.

[NotCranky]

I think they want the next big war in Iran to be on the democrat’s watch, either right before or right after the elections. It’s easier,that way, to keep us conquered and divided on the issue of imperialism or hegemony or what ever you want to call it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=bubba99]I think the republicans are trying to lose the presidential race. The herd is really thin, and only represents the lunitic fringe of the party. When did the repubs become the party that:
– denies science (evolution)
– denies global warming
– parades a moose hunting dolt as VP candidate
– has a female candidate married to a gay, gay bashing “gay converter”
– represents only the richest 1% on tax breaks
– embraces the reactionary right christian wack jobs
– wants smaller govt, but insists on preventing a womans right to manage her own body.
– Is willing to let the US default on its financial obligations.

What ever happened to candidates like Lincoln, Teddy Rosevelt, Grant, Eisenhower, Regan? I can’t see any of these past presidents even in the same party as the current candidates.
-[/quote]

Wow, that wasn’t polemic at all, and really fact- filled.

Forgetting that the “moose hunting dolt” was a VP candidate in the 2008 election (not the current one; she’s apparently going to run for Prez in 2012), you conveniently omit Jon Huntsman from your rogue’s gallery. He is none of those things you mention and, in point of fact, has taken a categoric stand against them.

I think you mentioned you’re law enforcement, so that makes your position relative to the Dems and unions pretty straightforward, and thus, I’d imagine, the polemic.

As far as the global warming issue goes, you also conveniently omit Al Gore’s recent rant, when many of his assertions relative to AGW were effectively debunked by that new NASA report, which shot holes in the whole CO2 theory.

Given “Regan’s” (Reagan’s) stance on Communism and the Evil Empire, many of the intelligentsia considered him a “lunitic” (lunatic) as well, back in the day.

Speaking of polemic and cheap shots: I’m absolutely NOT a fan of Michelle Bachmann, and feel she represents the worst sort of politician running, but to call out her husband for being gay, when he is not, is chicken shit. Even if he were gay: So what? Grow up.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=bubba99]I think the republicans are trying to lose the presidential race. The herd is really thin, and only represents the lunitic fringe of the party. When did the repubs become the party that:
– denies science (evolution)
– denies global warming
– parades a moose hunting dolt as VP candidate
– has a female candidate married to a gay, gay bashing “gay converter”
– represents only the richest 1% on tax breaks
– embraces the reactionary right christian wack jobs
– wants smaller govt, but insists on preventing a womans right to manage her own body.
– Is willing to let the US default on its financial obligations.

What ever happened to candidates like Lincoln, Teddy Rosevelt, Grant, Eisenhower, Regan? I can’t see any of these past presidents even in the same party as the current candidates.
-[/quote]

Wow, that wasn’t polemic at all, and really fact- filled.

Forgetting that the “moose hunting dolt” was a VP candidate in the 2008 election (not the current one; she’s apparently going to run for Prez in 2012), you conveniently omit Jon Huntsman from your rogue’s gallery. He is none of those things you mention and, in point of fact, has taken a categoric stand against them.

I think you mentioned you’re law enforcement, so that makes your position relative to the Dems and unions pretty straightforward, and thus, I’d imagine, the polemic.

As far as the global warming issue goes, you also conveniently omit Al Gore’s recent rant, when many of his assertions relative to AGW were effectively debunked by that new NASA report, which shot holes in the whole CO2 theory.

Given “Regan’s” (Reagan’s) stance on Communism and the Evil Empire, many of the intelligentsia considered him a “lunitic” (lunatic) as well, back in the day.

Speaking of polemic and cheap shots: I’m absolutely NOT a fan of Michelle Bachmann, and feel she represents the worst sort of politician running, but to call out her husband for being gay, when he is not, is chicken shit. Even if he were gay: So what? Grow up.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=bubba99]I think the republicans are trying to lose the presidential race. The herd is really thin, and only represents the lunitic fringe of the party. When did the repubs become the party that:
– denies science (evolution)
– denies global warming
– parades a moose hunting dolt as VP candidate
– has a female candidate married to a gay, gay bashing “gay converter”
– represents only the richest 1% on tax breaks
– embraces the reactionary right christian wack jobs
– wants smaller govt, but insists on preventing a womans right to manage her own body.
– Is willing to let the US default on its financial obligations.

What ever happened to candidates like Lincoln, Teddy Rosevelt, Grant, Eisenhower, Regan? I can’t see any of these past presidents even in the same party as the current candidates.
-[/quote]

Wow, that wasn’t polemic at all, and really fact- filled.

Forgetting that the “moose hunting dolt” was a VP candidate in the 2008 election (not the current one; she’s apparently going to run for Prez in 2012), you conveniently omit Jon Huntsman from your rogue’s gallery. He is none of those things you mention and, in point of fact, has taken a categoric stand against them.

I think you mentioned you’re law enforcement, so that makes your position relative to the Dems and unions pretty straightforward, and thus, I’d imagine, the polemic.

As far as the global warming issue goes, you also conveniently omit Al Gore’s recent rant, when many of his assertions relative to AGW were effectively debunked by that new NASA report, which shot holes in the whole CO2 theory.

Given “Regan’s” (Reagan’s) stance on Communism and the Evil Empire, many of the intelligentsia considered him a “lunitic” (lunatic) as well, back in the day.

Speaking of polemic and cheap shots: I’m absolutely NOT a fan of Michelle Bachmann, and feel she represents the worst sort of politician running, but to call out her husband for being gay, when he is not, is chicken shit. Even if he were gay: So what? Grow up.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=bubba99]I think the republicans are trying to lose the presidential race. The herd is really thin, and only represents the lunitic fringe of the party. When did the repubs become the party that:
– denies science (evolution)
– denies global warming
– parades a moose hunting dolt as VP candidate
– has a female candidate married to a gay, gay bashing “gay converter”
– represents only the richest 1% on tax breaks
– embraces the reactionary right christian wack jobs
– wants smaller govt, but insists on preventing a womans right to manage her own body.
– Is willing to let the US default on its financial obligations.

What ever happened to candidates like Lincoln, Teddy Rosevelt, Grant, Eisenhower, Regan? I can’t see any of these past presidents even in the same party as the current candidates.
-[/quote]

Wow, that wasn’t polemic at all, and really fact- filled.

Forgetting that the “moose hunting dolt” was a VP candidate in the 2008 election (not the current one; she’s apparently going to run for Prez in 2012), you conveniently omit Jon Huntsman from your rogue’s gallery. He is none of those things you mention and, in point of fact, has taken a categoric stand against them.

I think you mentioned you’re law enforcement, so that makes your position relative to the Dems and unions pretty straightforward, and thus, I’d imagine, the polemic.

As far as the global warming issue goes, you also conveniently omit Al Gore’s recent rant, when many of his assertions relative to AGW were effectively debunked by that new NASA report, which shot holes in the whole CO2 theory.

Given “Regan’s” (Reagan’s) stance on Communism and the Evil Empire, many of the intelligentsia considered him a “lunitic” (lunatic) as well, back in the day.

Speaking of polemic and cheap shots: I’m absolutely NOT a fan of Michelle Bachmann, and feel she represents the worst sort of politician running, but to call out her husband for being gay, when he is not, is chicken shit. Even if he were gay: So what? Grow up.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=bubba99]I think the republicans are trying to lose the presidential race. The herd is really thin, and only represents the lunitic fringe of the party. When did the repubs become the party that:
– denies science (evolution)
– denies global warming
– parades a moose hunting dolt as VP candidate
– has a female candidate married to a gay, gay bashing “gay converter”
– represents only the richest 1% on tax breaks
– embraces the reactionary right christian wack jobs
– wants smaller govt, but insists on preventing a womans right to manage her own body.
– Is willing to let the US default on its financial obligations.

What ever happened to candidates like Lincoln, Teddy Rosevelt, Grant, Eisenhower, Regan? I can’t see any of these past presidents even in the same party as the current candidates.
-[/quote]

Wow, that wasn’t polemic at all, and really fact- filled.

Forgetting that the “moose hunting dolt” was a VP candidate in the 2008 election (not the current one; she’s apparently going to run for Prez in 2012), you conveniently omit Jon Huntsman from your rogue’s gallery. He is none of those things you mention and, in point of fact, has taken a categoric stand against them.

I think you mentioned you’re law enforcement, so that makes your position relative to the Dems and unions pretty straightforward, and thus, I’d imagine, the polemic.

As far as the global warming issue goes, you also conveniently omit Al Gore’s recent rant, when many of his assertions relative to AGW were effectively debunked by that new NASA report, which shot holes in the whole CO2 theory.

Given “Regan’s” (Reagan’s) stance on Communism and the Evil Empire, many of the intelligentsia considered him a “lunitic” (lunatic) as well, back in the day.

Speaking of polemic and cheap shots: I’m absolutely NOT a fan of Michelle Bachmann, and feel she represents the worst sort of politician running, but to call out her husband for being gay, when he is not, is chicken shit. Even if he were gay: So what? Grow up.

[bake]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=bubba99]I think the republicans are trying to lose the presidential race. The herd is really thin, and only represents the lunitic fringe of the party. When did the repubs become the party that:
– denies science (evolution)
– denies global warming
– parades a moose hunting dolt as VP candidate
– has a female candidate married to a gay, gay bashing “gay converter”
– represents only the richest 1% on tax breaks
– embraces the reactionary right christian wack jobs
– wants smaller govt, but insists on preventing a womans right to manage her own body.
– Is willing to let the US default on its financial obligations.

What ever happened to candidates like Lincoln, Teddy Rosevelt, Grant, Eisenhower, Regan? I can’t see any of these past presidents even in the same party as the current candidates.
-[/quote]

Wow, that wasn’t polemic at all, and really fact- filled.

Forgetting that the “moose hunting dolt” was a VP candidate in the 2008 election (not the current one; she’s apparently going to run for Prez in 2012), you conveniently omit Jon Huntsman from your rogue’s gallery. He is none of those things you mention and, in point of fact, has taken a categoric stand against them.

I think you mentioned you’re law enforcement, so that makes your position relative to the Dems and unions pretty straightforward, and thus, I’d imagine, the polemic.

As far as the global warming issue goes, you also conveniently omit Al Gore’s recent rant, when many of his assertions relative to AGW were effectively debunked by that new NASA report, which shot holes in the whole CO2 theory.

Given “Regan’s” (Reagan’s) stance on Communism and the Evil Empire, many of the intelligentsia considered him a “lunitic” (lunatic) as well, back in the day.

Speaking of polemic and cheap shots: I’m absolutely NOT a fan of Michelle Bachmann, and feel she represents the worst sort of politician running, but to call out her husband for being gay, when he is not, is chicken shit. Even if he were gay: So what? Grow up.[/quote]

Agreed Bubba – Bachman’s husband looks like a child molester to me – I’d like to hear what those foster kids have to say about him…

[bake]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=bubba99]I think the republicans are trying to lose the presidential race. The herd is really thin, and only represents the lunitic fringe of the party. When did the repubs become the party that:
– denies science (evolution)
– denies global warming
– parades a moose hunting dolt as VP candidate
– has a female candidate married to a gay, gay bashing “gay converter”
– represents only the richest 1% on tax breaks
– embraces the reactionary right christian wack jobs
– wants smaller govt, but insists on preventing a womans right to manage her own body.
– Is willing to let the US default on its financial obligations.

What ever happened to candidates like Lincoln, Teddy Rosevelt, Grant, Eisenhower, Regan? I can’t see any of these past presidents even in the same party as the current candidates.
-[/quote]

Wow, that wasn’t polemic at all, and really fact- filled.

Forgetting that the “moose hunting dolt” was a VP candidate in the 2008 election (not the current one; she’s apparently going to run for Prez in 2012), you conveniently omit Jon Huntsman from your rogue’s gallery. He is none of those things you mention and, in point of fact, has taken a categoric stand against them.

I think you mentioned you’re law enforcement, so that makes your position relative to the Dems and unions pretty straightforward, and thus, I’d imagine, the polemic.

As far as the global warming issue goes, you also conveniently omit Al Gore’s recent rant, when many of his assertions relative to AGW were effectively debunked by that new NASA report, which shot holes in the whole CO2 theory.

Given “Regan’s” (Reagan’s) stance on Communism and the Evil Empire, many of the intelligentsia considered him a “lunitic” (lunatic) as well, back in the day.

Speaking of polemic and cheap shots: I’m absolutely NOT a fan of Michelle Bachmann, and feel she represents the worst sort of politician running, but to call out her husband for being gay, when he is not, is chicken shit. Even if he were gay: So what? Grow up.[/quote]

Agreed Bubba – Bachman’s husband looks like a child molester to me – I’d like to hear what those foster kids have to say about him…

[bake]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=bubba99]I think the republicans are trying to lose the presidential race. The herd is really thin, and only represents the lunitic fringe of the party. When did the repubs become the party that:
– denies science (evolution)
– denies global warming
– parades a moose hunting dolt as VP candidate
– has a female candidate married to a gay, gay bashing “gay converter”
– represents only the richest 1% on tax breaks
– embraces the reactionary right christian wack jobs
– wants smaller govt, but insists on preventing a womans right to manage her own body.
– Is willing to let the US default on its financial obligations.

What ever happened to candidates like Lincoln, Teddy Rosevelt, Grant, Eisenhower, Regan? I can’t see any of these past presidents even in the same party as the current candidates.
-[/quote]

Wow, that wasn’t polemic at all, and really fact- filled.

Forgetting that the “moose hunting dolt” was a VP candidate in the 2008 election (not the current one; she’s apparently going to run for Prez in 2012), you conveniently omit Jon Huntsman from your rogue’s gallery. He is none of those things you mention and, in point of fact, has taken a categoric stand against them.

I think you mentioned you’re law enforcement, so that makes your position relative to the Dems and unions pretty straightforward, and thus, I’d imagine, the polemic.

As far as the global warming issue goes, you also conveniently omit Al Gore’s recent rant, when many of his assertions relative to AGW were effectively debunked by that new NASA report, which shot holes in the whole CO2 theory.

Given “Regan’s” (Reagan’s) stance on Communism and the Evil Empire, many of the intelligentsia considered him a “lunitic” (lunatic) as well, back in the day.

Speaking of polemic and cheap shots: I’m absolutely NOT a fan of Michelle Bachmann, and feel she represents the worst sort of politician running, but to call out her husband for being gay, when he is not, is chicken shit. Even if he were gay: So what? Grow up.[/quote]

Agreed Bubba – Bachman’s husband looks like a child molester to me – I’d like to hear what those foster kids have to say about him…

[bake]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=bubba99]I think the republicans are trying to lose the presidential race. The herd is really thin, and only represents the lunitic fringe of the party. When did the repubs become the party that:
– denies science (evolution)
– denies global warming
– parades a moose hunting dolt as VP candidate
– has a female candidate married to a gay, gay bashing “gay converter”
– represents only the richest 1% on tax breaks
– embraces the reactionary right christian wack jobs
– wants smaller govt, but insists on preventing a womans right to manage her own body.
– Is willing to let the US default on its financial obligations.

What ever happened to candidates like Lincoln, Teddy Rosevelt, Grant, Eisenhower, Regan? I can’t see any of these past presidents even in the same party as the current candidates.
-[/quote]

Wow, that wasn’t polemic at all, and really fact- filled.

Forgetting that the “moose hunting dolt” was a VP candidate in the 2008 election (not the current one; she’s apparently going to run for Prez in 2012), you conveniently omit Jon Huntsman from your rogue’s gallery. He is none of those things you mention and, in point of fact, has taken a categoric stand against them.

I think you mentioned you’re law enforcement, so that makes your position relative to the Dems and unions pretty straightforward, and thus, I’d imagine, the polemic.

As far as the global warming issue goes, you also conveniently omit Al Gore’s recent rant, when many of his assertions relative to AGW were effectively debunked by that new NASA report, which shot holes in the whole CO2 theory.

Given “Regan’s” (Reagan’s) stance on Communism and the Evil Empire, many of the intelligentsia considered him a “lunitic” (lunatic) as well, back in the day.

Speaking of polemic and cheap shots: I’m absolutely NOT a fan of Michelle Bachmann, and feel she represents the worst sort of politician running, but to call out her husband for being gay, when he is not, is chicken shit. Even if he were gay: So what? Grow up.[/quote]

Agreed Bubba – Bachman’s husband looks like a child molester to me – I’d like to hear what those foster kids have to say about him…

[Author]

Posts