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

[jpinpb]

Still liking Roemer

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
On the one hand, you decry the loss of civility, and complain of the ranting and the smears, but then turn around in engage in that behavior yourself. Dude.[/quote]

Guilty as charged. I was trying to be funny.

eavesdropper’s well thought out posts make me want to be a better person and look at the issues as a whole, and in perspective.

But often times, it just too tempting to jump in and make a snide remark.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
On the one hand, you decry the loss of civility, and complain of the ranting and the smears, but then turn around in engage in that behavior yourself. Dude.[/quote]

Guilty as charged. I was trying to be funny.

eavesdropper’s well thought out posts make me want to be a better person and look at the issues as a whole, and in perspective.

But often times, it just too tempting to jump in and make a snide remark.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
On the one hand, you decry the loss of civility, and complain of the ranting and the smears, but then turn around in engage in that behavior yourself. Dude.[/quote]

Guilty as charged. I was trying to be funny.

eavesdropper’s well thought out posts make me want to be a better person and look at the issues as a whole, and in perspective.

But often times, it just too tempting to jump in and make a snide remark.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
On the one hand, you decry the loss of civility, and complain of the ranting and the smears, but then turn around in engage in that behavior yourself. Dude.[/quote]

Guilty as charged. I was trying to be funny.

eavesdropper’s well thought out posts make me want to be a better person and look at the issues as a whole, and in perspective.

But often times, it just too tempting to jump in and make a snide remark.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
On the one hand, you decry the loss of civility, and complain of the ranting and the smears, but then turn around in engage in that behavior yourself. Dude.[/quote]

Guilty as charged. I was trying to be funny.

eavesdropper’s well thought out posts make me want to be a better person and look at the issues as a whole, and in perspective.

But often times, it just too tempting to jump in and make a snide remark.

[bubba99]

[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

Al
– 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]

Allan,

Thank you so much for your considerate response. I truly appreciate your insightful comments.

Have a good day sir. (Have someone in Law enforcement translate this for you)

“Regan is an Anglicized form of the Irish surname Ó Riagáin (“son of Riagáin”) derived from the Irish personal name Riagáin, which meant “little king”. I guess you missed the “pun”

[bubba99]

[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

Al
– 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]

Allan,

Thank you so much for your considerate response. I truly appreciate your insightful comments.

Have a good day sir. (Have someone in Law enforcement translate this for you)

“Regan is an Anglicized form of the Irish surname Ó Riagáin (“son of Riagáin”) derived from the Irish personal name Riagáin, which meant “little king”. I guess you missed the “pun”

[bubba99]

[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

Al
– 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]

Allan,

Thank you so much for your considerate response. I truly appreciate your insightful comments.

Have a good day sir. (Have someone in Law enforcement translate this for you)

“Regan is an Anglicized form of the Irish surname Ó Riagáin (“son of Riagáin”) derived from the Irish personal name Riagáin, which meant “little king”. I guess you missed the “pun”

[bubba99]

[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

Al
– 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]

Allan,

Thank you so much for your considerate response. I truly appreciate your insightful comments.

Have a good day sir. (Have someone in Law enforcement translate this for you)

“Regan is an Anglicized form of the Irish surname Ó Riagáin (“son of Riagáin”) derived from the Irish personal name Riagáin, which meant “little king”. I guess you missed the “pun”

[bubba99]

[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

Al
– 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]

Allan,

Thank you so much for your considerate response. I truly appreciate your insightful comments.

Have a good day sir. (Have someone in Law enforcement translate this for you)

“Regan is an Anglicized form of the Irish surname Ó Riagáin (“son of Riagáin”) derived from the Irish personal name Riagáin, which meant “little king”. I guess you missed the “pun”

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=bubba99][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

Al
– 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]

Allan,

Thank you so much for your considerate response. I truly appreciate your insightful comments.

Have a good day sir. (Have someone in Law enforcement translate this for you)

“Regan is an Anglicized form of the Irish surname Ó Riagáin (“son of Riagáin”) derived from the Irish personal name Riagáin, which meant “little king”. I guess you missed the “pun”[/quote]

Bubba: Uh, yeah. And “lunitic”? What’s that Irish for? Imaginative, though, I’ll give you that.

As for law enforcement “translation”: I’ll ask for that right around the time I ask someone in law enforcement to teach me how to shoot. You know, if I need to know how to pump 41 pistol rounds into an unarmed suspect.

You play fast-and-loose with the “facts” and get called out, and then bail. Interesting. Isn’t the SOP to call for backup?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=bubba99][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

Al
– 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]

Allan,

Thank you so much for your considerate response. I truly appreciate your insightful comments.

Have a good day sir. (Have someone in Law enforcement translate this for you)

“Regan is an Anglicized form of the Irish surname Ó Riagáin (“son of Riagáin”) derived from the Irish personal name Riagáin, which meant “little king”. I guess you missed the “pun”[/quote]

Bubba: Uh, yeah. And “lunitic”? What’s that Irish for? Imaginative, though, I’ll give you that.

As for law enforcement “translation”: I’ll ask for that right around the time I ask someone in law enforcement to teach me how to shoot. You know, if I need to know how to pump 41 pistol rounds into an unarmed suspect.

You play fast-and-loose with the “facts” and get called out, and then bail. Interesting. Isn’t the SOP to call for backup?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=bubba99][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

Al
– 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]

Allan,

Thank you so much for your considerate response. I truly appreciate your insightful comments.

Have a good day sir. (Have someone in Law enforcement translate this for you)

“Regan is an Anglicized form of the Irish surname Ó Riagáin (“son of Riagáin”) derived from the Irish personal name Riagáin, which meant “little king”. I guess you missed the “pun”[/quote]

Bubba: Uh, yeah. And “lunitic”? What’s that Irish for? Imaginative, though, I’ll give you that.

As for law enforcement “translation”: I’ll ask for that right around the time I ask someone in law enforcement to teach me how to shoot. You know, if I need to know how to pump 41 pistol rounds into an unarmed suspect.

You play fast-and-loose with the “facts” and get called out, and then bail. Interesting. Isn’t the SOP to call for backup?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=bubba99][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

Al
– 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]

Allan,

Thank you so much for your considerate response. I truly appreciate your insightful comments.

Have a good day sir. (Have someone in Law enforcement translate this for you)

“Regan is an Anglicized form of the Irish surname Ó Riagáin (“son of Riagáin”) derived from the Irish personal name Riagáin, which meant “little king”. I guess you missed the “pun”[/quote]

Bubba: Uh, yeah. And “lunitic”? What’s that Irish for? Imaginative, though, I’ll give you that.

As for law enforcement “translation”: I’ll ask for that right around the time I ask someone in law enforcement to teach me how to shoot. You know, if I need to know how to pump 41 pistol rounds into an unarmed suspect.

You play fast-and-loose with the “facts” and get called out, and then bail. Interesting. Isn’t the SOP to call for backup?

[Author]

Posts