Who?

ZRX1200 wrote:

I hope you laughed at my sarcasm.....


I listened to him interviewed on NPR a longtime before the circus started and he makes some good points (for my views) but I think he's too liberal for a majority of the base offsetting middle gains. He's closest to Barry Soetoro of the R candidates and of Barry wasn't so bad I think he would have a better shot.

All the R candidates have redeeming qualities, just the little problem of most belonging to one party rule with different flavored syrup.

But I'm just a Ron Paul kinda guy so what do I know. It worth what it cost ya!

ZRX1200 wrote:

I went deer hunting last week but Le HockeyDad don't want your votes!

HockeyDad wrote:

I'm with ZRX on his general characterization of the Republican party as a different flavored cough syrup.. . Huntsman seems bright enough but the fact that he is heavily backed (and seemingly anointed) by the Bush family is major turnoff for me, Frank.

To me, Huntsman comes across as a smarmy, rich, one world bootlick who has substantial holdings in China and the rest of the world and to which he gives the SAME level of priority as he does this country. IMHO, people like that are responsible for converting our country into a Walmart distribution center of Chinese goods. They have no real love of country nor sense of loyalty.

The irony is that this man with anemic poll numbers can still be President despite his lack of financial support from supporters or committing any millions from his own personal piggybank. Daddykins has set-up a substantial and very rich political action committee ready to come to his aid shortly if he has the testicular fortitude to continue his rather embarrassing, self-serving run.

bloody spaniard wrote:

I don't get it, unless it's a Romney reference.

frankj1 wrote:

Yes, it was a Mormon joke. Mormon jokes suck....they always have to be explained.

HockeyDad wrote:

Obama will win re-election. Accept the reality.

HockeyDad wrote:

I'm with ZRX on his general characterization of the Republican party as a different flavored cough syrup.. . Huntsman seems bright enough but the fact that he is heavily backed (and seemingly anointed) by the Bush family is major turnoff for me, Frank.

To me, Huntsman comes across as a smarmy, rich, one world bootlick who has substantial holdings in China and the rest of the world and to which he gives the SAME level of priority as he does this country. IMHO, people like that are responsible for converting our country into a Walmart distribution center of Chinese goods. They have no real love of country nor sense of loyalty.

The irony is that this man with anemic poll numbers can still be President despite his lack of financial support from supporters or committing any millions from his own personal piggybank. Daddykins has set-up a substantial and very rich political action committee ready to come to his aid shortly if he has the testicular fortitude to continue his rather embarrassing, self-serving run.

bloody spaniard wrote:

Funny, I substituted the names of Romney, Newt, Cain, Bachman, and it pretty much summed them up too.

Can we get another crop...please?

DrMaddVibe wrote:

Funny, I substituted the names of Romney, Newt, Cain, Bachman, and it pretty much summed them up too.

Can we get another crop...please?

DrMaddVibe wrote:

no one satisfies everything, that's long been known. except a benevolent dictator. And other than Alan Iverson, no one is "The Answer" either.

Sure he's a cream of wheat candidate, I don't care. But people may want a break from spicey food already cuz it's been poison to the country. My interest is more like a marketing question. Obviously Bachmann et all have no shot.

I just don't understand why a party that has spent 4 years determined to make sure Dems fail (hey, that's the game plan, I didn't make it up) so as to push them out of ofice wouldn't back the most likely candidate to have the broadest, blandest appeal. I can't understand the inability to identify and support the person most likely after successfully regaining so much of Congress...

frankj1 wrote:

Obama will win re-election. Accept the reality.

HockeyDad wrote:

Obama will win re-election. Accept the reality.

HockeyDad wrote:

It's true.
The real question is, how many more election cycles will it take before people start to WAKE THE F**K UP and realize they are being conned?
I used to think we needed a strong, viable 3rd party. I now realize we need a strong, viable 2nd party.

borndead1 wrote:

It's true.

The real question is, how many more election cycles will it take before people start to WAKE THE F**K UP and realize they are being conned?

I used to think we needed a strong, viable 3rd party. I now realize we need a strong, viable 2nd party.

borndead1 wrote: