The ONE & ONLY 2012 Politics/Election Thread

[1.8TRabbit]

[1.8TRabbit]

Ron Paul is just trying to build up brand-name recognition so his son has a chance at the oval office somewhere in the future.

If Gingrich can keep his **** together and avoid anymore of this Palin talk he will at least have won over one liberal. Yeah, that's not gonna happen...

I am going to describe a candidate for you right now, and I want you to think about whether or not you would support him.

This candidate was for the individual mandate that served as the model for "ObamaCare." He was originally for the TARP bank bailouts before he was against them. He joined with Nancy Pelosi to promote the anti-business "global warming" agenda.

He slammed Paul Ryan's budget plan as "extreme," calling it "right wing social engineering."

You might think I am talking about Mitt Romney. Heck, you might think I'm talking about a liberal Democrat. But I'm not.

That candidate I'm talking about is Newt Gingrich. He is what I like to call a "counterfeit conservative."

[Fritz27]

Mega eye roll.

[2.FOH!!]

I'm pretty sure he will. If Bill Clinton can get re-elected and Little George Bush, too, there's no reason to think that Obama will get booted, especially since the repubs don't have a real candidate running. Romney is just a paler Obama.

I don't think Clinton's re-election is a useful comparison. WJC was enjoying a
strong economy, relatively little trouble abroad & had to face one of the worst
Republican presidential candidates I can recall (& I actually liked Senator Bob Dole).

Clinton had mid 5% unemployment #s (oddly enough, so did GWB at re-election time).
Barry is sitting at ~ 9-1/2%. Relatively low inflation is keeping BHO afloat currently.
If prices go up & unemployment stays where it's at, Barry is quite beatable.

...but then again, I'm just an angry Obama hater, so what do I know?

[Tornado2dr]

I don't think Clinton's re-election is a useful comparison. WJC was enjoying a
strong economy, relatively little trouble abroad & had to face one of the worst
Republican presidential candidates I can recall (& I actually liked Senator Bob Dole).

Clinton had mid 5% unemployment #s (oddly enough, so did GWB at re-election time).
Barry is sitting at ~ 9-1/2%. Relatively low inflation is keeping BHO afloat currently.
If prices go up & unemployment stays where it's at, Barry is quite beatable.

...but then again, I'm just an angry Obama hater, so what do I know?

I just disagree that he is beatable by anyone that has been presented to the American Public as a candidate.

I am sure his team realizes their predicament...but I have a hard time believing that in June or so they can't unleash the dogs and get voters out again. I've seriously never seen so many polling places so crowded as I did in 2008.

[Sporin]

So much for the "Ron Paul Surge"

A distant 3rd in SC.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...mary-1590.html

A distant 4th in FL.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...mary-1597.html

I honestly have no strong opinions on Ron Paul either way but by the way his supporters flood seemingly every internet forum I would have thought the man had more support then that.

[Fritz27]

RP isn't even campaigning in Florida.

[Sporin]

How does he intend to show GOP voters he can beat Obama if he won't even try in a key swing state?

[Fritz27]

I think he just wants to be a foil to GOP dip****tery. I'm not sure he actually wants or cares to win.

[Sporin]

Primaries are about gaining sequentially, about carrying momentum forward into the next primary. Do poorly in a few early primaries and you never even get to the later states. If Ron Paul is serious about being President, then skipping Primaries in a key swing state seems counterproductive.

Oh well, he's not "my guy" so I really don't care much, just a curiosity is all.

[backinthegame]

Mega eye roll.

Yeah, that's pretty much the only response one can give when they really have no counter point.

[VarianceVQ]

Clinton had mid 5% unemployment #s (oddly enough, so did GWB at re-election time).
Barry is sitting at ~ 9-1/2%.

Try 8 1/2.

[VarianceVQ]

Yeah, that's pretty much the only response one can give when they really have no counter point.

You really don't expect anybody to counter every single point in that diatrabe, do you?

I mean, I guess it's easier to say things like this when one and the "author" of that agree on more points than they don't.

[2.FOH!!]

Try 8 1/2.

My mistake, although I'd prefer the 5 1/2 that Bush had going.

[1.8TRabbit]

So much for the "Ron Paul Surge"

A distant 3rd in SC.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...mary-1590.html

A distant 4th in FL.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...mary-1597.html

I honestly have no strong opinions on Ron Paul either way but by the way his supporters flood seemingly every internet forum I would have thought the man had more support then that.

You really believe those %'s after the Iowa **** mess?

[1.8TRabbit]

[ATL_Av8r]

lol. Mr. Richter is scared of ol Romney, I take it.

[barry2952]

My mistake, although I'd prefer the 5 1/2 that Bush had going.

How come everybody forgets that everything fell apart under Bush's watch?

[Sporin]

How come everybody forgets that everything fell apart under Bush's watch?

The economy was shedding a half a million jobs a month at the end of Bush's term.

But god forbid you mention that or you are "just blaming Bush."

It's ridiculous.

[barry2952]

The economy was shedding a half a million jobs a month at the end of Bush's term.

But god forbid you mention that or you are "just blaming Bush."

It's ridiculous.

Exactly. Republican blinders.

Anybody see Newt call his ex a liar on the debates. What a scumbag. Talk about doing the two-step. Funny ****.

[2.FOH!!]

Guys, I rarely insert a smillie.

I've mentioned it more than once, I was never a fan of Bush.

[barry2952]

Guys, I rarely insert a smillie.

I hate to tell you, but it made you look foolish. There was, and still is, nothing to smile about.

[2.FOH!!]

I hate to tell you, but it made you look foolish.

Tell you what, I'll acknowledge Bush's hand in things if Dem's will
concede Congress' being to blame as well. Fair?

[barry2952]

tell you what, i'll acknowledge bush's hand in things if dem's will
concede congress' being to blame as well. Fair?

Abso-****ing-lutely!

[Tornado2dr]

Tell you what, I'll acknowledge Bush's hand in things if Ds and Rs will concede Congress' being to blame as well. Fair?

Goddamned Right, but I fixed that for accuracy.

I refuse to give one man or one party all of the credit or all of the blame. They're all responsible for their action and inaction thruout their time in office

[Slipstream]

Abso-****ing-lutely!

I know you're referring to Republican obstructionism over the past few years, but BOTH sides are responsible for the financial cluster**** we're in right now. Congress really does need a massive reset. 80% of them are dirty.

[Tornado2dr]

80% of them are dirty.

That's nice.

I think I'd go with "Filthy ****ing whores"

[barry2952]

Try reading the thread before making a lame statement like that. I agreed that BOTH sides were to blame.

[Slipstream]

Perfect.

How come everybody forgets that everything fell apart under Bush's watch?

Exactly. Republican blinders.

Anybody see Newt call his ex a liar on the debates. What a scumbag. Talk about doing the two-step. Funny ****.

I hate to tell you, but it made you look foolish. There was, and still is, nothing to smile about.

Abso-****ing-lutely!

Try reading the thread before making a lame statement like that. I agreed that BOTH sides were to blame.

Above is everything you've said in this thread to date. Four snide, anti-Republican remarks and a fifth that could easily be interpreted as such given the poor choice of wording of the person you were quoting. I fail to see the obvious statement from you saying both sides were to blame.

I can't imagine why someone might assume you were being sarcastic with your:

Abso-****ing-lutely!

Someone needs to get the sand out.

[barry2952]

You need to learn to read.

[Slipstream]

You need to learn to read.

I just outlined your entire contribution to this thread. What exactly did I miss?

Given your obvious ire for all things conservative and Republican in this (and many other) threads, and your frequent use of sarcasm in THIS thread, you're either naiive or ignorant if you don't think your response to this:

Tell you what, I'll acknowledge Bush's hand in things if Dem's will
concede Congress' being to blame as well. Fair?

...could be perceived as yet another sarcastic jab at the Republican party.

[barry2952]

Slipstream reading fail:

Tell you what, I'll acknowledge Bush's hand in things if Dem's will
concede Congress' being to blame as well. Fair?

My response, absolutely agreeing that both sides are to blame.

Abso-****ing-lutely!

RIF

[2.FOH!!]

My point is(was) that people will throw out terms like "Republican blinders' & point out
the loss of jobs at the end of GW's term while conspicuously leaving out the fact that
the end of Bush's term was a full 2 yrs into a solid Democrat majority in congress.

Who has the blinders on?

Oh & I'll make jabs at Republicans.
Being that I'm a Republican, it's ok though. It's like black folks using the N word.

[Slipstream]

My response, absolutely agreeing that both sides are to blame.

If you're not going to read what I'm saying, and acknowledge that what you said could easily be interpreted as "Abso-****ing-lutely, the Dems would be more than happy to blame the (currently Republican) Congress for the current mess," then **** it... I can't explain it any more clearly. It obviously isn't me with the reading / mental comprehension problem.

If your intent was different, you could have easily said so in a decent manner. Instead, you decided to be a dick about it. Did someone piss in your Ensure this morning?

[barry2952]

If you're not going to read what I'm saying, and acknowledge that what you said could easily be interpreted as "Abso-****ing-lutely, the Dems would be more than happy to blame the (currently Republican) Congress for the current mess," then **** it... I can't explain it any more clearly. It obviously isn't me with the reading / mental comprehension problem.

If your intent was different, you could have easily said so in a decent manner. Instead, you decided to be a dick about it. Did someone piss in your Ensure this morning?

I am not responsible for your clear lack of comprehension. Had you asked the question in a civil manner you might have gotten a civil answer.

My age has nothing with your inability to read.