Dr. Ben Carson for President 2016 by JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
Ben Carson iz a puppet. A slow puppet. A pozable manikin.

The rest are also puppets andor idiots. Christie iz the only guy who haz a credible chans agenst any democrat thats likely to be nominated.

Hah! Krispy spells doom for the conservatives - if he is the candidate, the GOP will have succeeded in failing again.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 6, 2015 11:10 PM

JO753

rezident owtsidr

Wut dont you like about him?

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 7, 2015 5:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
Wut dont you like about him?

He is of the same mold the GOP chooses whenever they want to lose a Presidential election. The same Ford/Dole/McCain/Romney loser clone like JEB, Graham, and Pataki: east coast liberal caving capitulator, which is what conservatives vote against.

Your PoV obviates the fact you reside in a libtard media bubble. Which one are you in?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 7, 2015 5:41 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"Your PoV obviates the fact you reside in a libtard media bubble."

Despite what you assume, to 'obviate' does not mean 'to make obvious'.

ob·vi·ate
'äbve?at/
verb
3rd person present: obviates
remove (a need or difficulty)
"the Venetian blinds obviated the need for curtains"
synonyms: preclude, prevent, remove, get rid of, do away with, get around, rule out, eliminate, make/render unnecessary

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 7, 2015 5:47 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

I could have told you Jo - the problem is he's from the east coast. Only people from the south, the boonies, or 'flyover' states can be conservative. Besides, he has a NJ accent. That almost sounds like NYC. VERY suspicious for a conservative.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 7, 2015 9:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

The same Ford/Dole/McCain/Romney loser clone like JEB, Graham, and Pataki: east coast liberal caving capitulator, which is what conservatives vote against.

"Conservatives" will watch Hillary waltz into the White House the same way that Obama did when "conservatives" sat it out on election day. Yep, those righteous hard-liners sure showed everybody the value of intransigent ideological purity!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 7, 2015 9:59 PM

JO753

rezident owtsidr

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Despite what you assume, to 'obviate' does not mean 'to make obvious'.

The GoP eko chamber iz so big that they hav their own dictionary.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 7, 2015 10:08 PM

JO753

rezident owtsidr

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
He is of the same mold the GOP chooses whenever they want to lose a Presidential election.

Great! That meanz I dont need to worry about another Wall Street Wins Even More decade.

Quote:
Your PoV obviates the fact you reside in a libtard media bubble. Which one are you in?

I'm in the wun wich reports on events that happen on Earth and providez akses to history and the Oxford English Dictionary.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 8, 2015 5:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I could have told you Jo - the problem is he's from the east coast. Only people from the south, the boonies, or 'flyover' states can be conservative. Besides, he has a NJ accent. That almost sounds like NYC. VERY suspicious for a conservative.

Not all east coasters are liberals. Some conservatives reside there. I believe Dr. Carson has resided on the east coast for quite some time.
Krispy is not one of them.

Thank you for correcting my wrong usage of obviate. I did intend to say "makes obvious".
Edit: OK, I did not recall using the word obviate, but that was what was posted. I now think I must have been using the same version of computer I am using now, which unpredictably does some seriously wacky word substitution, when it is not busy deleting 30 minutes of typing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 10, 2015 4:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I could have told you Jo - the problem is he's from the east coast. Only people from the south, the boonies, or 'flyover' states can be conservative. Besides, he has a NJ accent. That almost sounds like NYC. VERY suspicious for a conservative.

Not all east coasters are liberals. Some conservatives reside there. I believe Dr. Carson has resided on the east coast for quite some time.
Krispy is not one of them.

Thank you for correcting my wrong usage of obviate. I did intend to say "makes obvious".
Edit: OK, I did not recall using the word obviate, but that was what was posted. I now think I must have been using the same version of computer I am using now, which unpredictably does some seriously wacky word substitution, when it is not busy deleting 30 minutes of typing.

I think most reasonable people consider Nikki Haley a conservative, even before she defeated the multitudes of Libtard Democrat racists to remove the Confederate Flag. But she might be considered from the South, instead of the East Coast like Atlanta and Florida.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 10, 2015 5:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
The same Ford/Dole/McCain/Romney loser clone like JEB, Graham, and Pataki: east coast liberal caving capitulator, which is what conservatives vote against.

"Conservatives" will watch Hillary waltz into the White House the same way that Obama did when "conservatives" sat it out on election day. Yep, those righteous hard-liners sure showed everybody the value of intransigent ideological purity!

On display here is a fair example of the attitude of liberals trying to take over the GOP, run it into the ground, and destroy it. Libtards on the Democrat side must be dancing.

These liberals insist that conservatives should not have a choice, should not be allowed to vote for the best remaining candidate. They insist upon selecting an unelectable candidate, a candidate they know will lose, and then try to blame it on those terrible conservatives who continue to elect the best candidates in other races and seats.
When they put up Benedict Arnold as their chosen candidate, they insist that everybody must fawn at the brilliance of their choice, must not have any ability to make their own choice with their vote. When they insist that their candidate must be Adolf Hitler, they decry that everybody must give them proxy for the election, and nobody may stray to a less despicable candidate. When they make Pol Pot their candidate, they insist it is the best candidate available and everybody must be forced to follow their great wisdom.
The liberals of the GOP really, really hate that Americans have the freedom to vote for the best remaining candidate.
Even when Romney was able to prove during the primaries that he would never be able to get elected, they still insisted on foisting him upon us. The result? Romney became THE ONLY Republican candidate for President to EVER win less than half of the states. Maybe they did it just to prove that when he proved it in the primaries it was no fluke.
They hope to never, ever have another Ronald Reagan - he was far too effective, the economic juggernaut he created was out of control, and he didn't kowtow to the failures of liberals nor hold back the American populace to suffer libtard utopian delusions. The most successful President of modern times is exactly what they crave to avoid.
The continued failures and shortcomings of this crowd are what spawned the Patriots of the Tea Party. As long as they continue to be gatekeepers to exclude any quality candidate, they will continue to ride the GOP into the dirt until it is non-viable anymore.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 10, 2015 9:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
The same Ford/Dole/McCain/Romney loser clone like JEB, Graham, and Pataki: east coast liberal caving capitulator, which is what conservatives vote against.

"Conservatives" will watch Hillary waltz into the White House the same way that Obama did when "conservatives" sat it out on election day. Yep, those righteous hard-liners sure showed everybody the value of intransigent ideological purity!

On display here is a fair example of the attitude of liberals trying to take over the GOP, run it into the ground, and destroy it. Libtards on the Democrat side must be dancing.

These liberals insist that conservatives should not have a choice, should not be allowed to vote for the best remaining candidate. They insist upon selecting an unelectable candidate, a candidate they know will lose, and then try to blame it on those terrible conservatives who continue to elect the best candidates in other races and seats.
When they put up Benedict Arnold as their chosen candidate, they insist that everybody must fawn at the brilliance of their choice, must not have any ability to make their own choice with their vote. When they insist that their candidate must be Adolf Hitler, they decry that everybody must give them proxy for the election, and nobody may stray to a less despicable candidate. When they make Pol Pot their candidate, they insist it is the best candidate available and everybody must be forced to follow their great wisdom.
The liberals of the GOP really, really hate that Americans have the freedom to vote for the best remaining candidate.
Even when Romney was able to prove during the primaries that he would never be able to get elected, they still insisted on foisting him upon us. The result? Romney became THE ONLY Republican candidate for President to EVER win less than half of the states. Maybe they did it just to prove that when he proved it in the primaries it was no fluke.
They hope to never, ever have another Ronald Reagan - he was far too effective, the economic juggernaut he created was out of control, and he didn't kowtow to the failures of liberals nor hold back the American populace to suffer libtard utopian delusions. The most successful President of modern times is exactly what they crave to avoid.
The continued failures and shortcomings of this crowd are what spawned the Patriots of the Tea Party. As long as they continue to be gatekeepers to exclude any quality candidate, they will continue to ride the GOP into the dirt until it is non-viable anymore.

Romney lost because millions of Christian Conservatives didn't vote for him because he is a Mormon. They boycotted the election and Obama won. So I say fuck them.

And it didn't help that millions of Tea Party Conservatives didn't vote for him because he wasn't deemed "conservative" enough for their liking. They boycotted the election and Obama won. So I say fuck them too.

Romney was the Republican Party candidate because after Republicans voted in 50 state primaries he had enough election victories to secure enough of a delegate majority to win the nomination. Santorum came in 2nd. If he had beaten Romney in more states he'd have been the nominee. It's a fair process and it's on full display in the open Convention. Your repeated assertions that the RNC somehow conspires against conservatives in favor of moderates is not just absurd, it's impossible.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 11, 2015 3:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
The same Ford/Dole/McCain/Romney loser clone like JEB, Graham, and Pataki: east coast liberal caving capitulator, which is what conservatives vote against.

"Conservatives" will watch Hillary waltz into the White House the same way that Obama did when "conservatives" sat it out on election day. Yep, those righteous hard-liners sure showed everybody the value of intransigent ideological purity!

On display here is a fair example of the attitude of liberals trying to take over the GOP, run it into the ground, and destroy it. Libtards on the Democrat side must be dancing.

These liberals insist that conservatives should not have a choice, should not be allowed to vote for the best remaining candidate. They insist upon selecting an unelectable candidate, a candidate they know will lose, and then try to blame it on those terrible conservatives who continue to elect the best candidates in other races and seats.
When they put up Benedict Arnold as their chosen candidate, they insist that everybody must fawn at the brilliance of their choice, must not have any ability to make their own choice with their vote. When they insist that their candidate must be Adolf Hitler, they decry that everybody must give them proxy for the election, and nobody may stray to a less despicable candidate. When they make Pol Pot their candidate, they insist it is the best candidate available and everybody must be forced to follow their great wisdom.
The liberals of the GOP really, really hate that Americans have the freedom to vote for the best remaining candidate.
Even when Romney was able to prove during the primaries that he would never be able to get elected, they still insisted on foisting him upon us. The result? Romney became THE ONLY Republican candidate for President to EVER win less than half of the states. Maybe they did it just to prove that when he proved it in the primaries it was no fluke.
They hope to never, ever have another Ronald Reagan - he was far too effective, the economic juggernaut he created was out of control, and he didn't kowtow to the failures of liberals nor hold back the American populace to suffer libtard utopian delusions. The most successful President of modern times is exactly what they crave to avoid.
The continued failures and shortcomings of this crowd are what spawned the Patriots of the Tea Party. As long as they continue to be gatekeepers to exclude any quality candidate, they will continue to ride the GOP into the dirt until it is non-viable anymore.

Romney lost because millions of Christian Conservatives didn't vote for him because he is a Mormon. They boycotted the election and Obama won. So I say fuck them.

Erroneous logic does not further your cause. You really, really think that Christian Conservatives are going to vote in droves for a Muslim over a Mormon? You think The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is not a Christian denomination? You think Mormons as a whole are not more conservative than the average Christian? You really think that voters who self-identify as "Christian Conservatives" would refuse to vote for a fellow Christian based solely upon his religious provenance? Which is what your assertion seems to claim, in essence. You can really, really convince yourself of such idiotic drivel?

Quote:

And it didn't help that millions of Tea Party Conservatives didn't vote for him because he wasn't deemed "conservative" enough for their liking. They boycotted the election and Obama won. So I say fuck them too.

Romney wasn't conservative period. Not in the same plateau to evaluate conservative "enough." They had already made it abundantly clear in the Primaries that they were not voting for him, they were not going to vote for him, and he avoided any possibility that they might suspect he wanted their vote or was slightly interested in garnering their vote. So apparently the GOP thought it a great idea to make his unfounded and losing campaign the flagship of the Party.

Quote:

Romney was the Republican Party candidate because after

now you are traveling into delusional lands, reserved for those gullible to swallow the scat that MSM libtards feed to all. I can repeat it with corrections for you to learn.

Quote:

...Republicans voted in 50 state primaries he had enough election victories to secure enough of a delegate majority to win the nomination. Santorum came in 2nd.

...Republicans and Democrats voted in 50 state primaries he had enough Democrat votes for election victories over Republicans to secure enough of a liberal delegate majority over actual Republicans to win the GOP nomination with his Democrat vote-getting campaign strategy to defeat conservatives and Republicans. Santorum came in 2nd among combined Democrat and Republican votes, but came in first among Republican voters - losing to Romney's Democrat vote-grovelling strategy to defeat conservatives and Republicans.

Quote:

If he had beaten Romney in more states he'd have been the nominee.

If the RNC had chosen the highest vote-getter of Republicans instead of the most Democrat voters, Santorum would have been the nominee.

Quote:

It's a fair process and it's on full display in the open Convention.

Which is why Romney threw out conservatives from the "open" Convention, and expelled conservatives from the "open" Convention, and barred more conservatives from entering the "open" Convention and made rule changes to prohibit conservatives from being allowed into future "open" Conventions. How nice of him. How tolerant of him. How Libtard of him.
A really big surprise why conservatives were appalled by his form of tyranny or dictatorship.

Quote:

Your repeated assertions that the RNC somehow conspires against conservatives in favor of moderates is not just absurd, it's impossible.

News Flash: I am not the arbiter of election victories. My vote is not more valued than yours - unless you miss an election, which I haven't save one since I turned 18. If you insist upon avoiding intellectual honesty and do not wish to understand the viewpoints of others, then perhaps you are destined to continue to repeat the clear history of failure which you insist upon denying. (see also: Ford. Dole. McCain.) Conservatives understand the capitulating caving philosophy you aspire to, even if they don't agree. You failing to understand conservatives viewpoint so that you may stubbornly be able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory will discern your future of continued failures. If you took the opportunity to understand, you may be able to harness this power. Many Senators, Representatives, Governors, and other office holders have made good on their abilities to represent their constituents, why must you and your ilk of the GOP refuse to represent constituents and garner a victory?
Why on earth would you think that Romney's Primary campaign to only target Democrats to vote for him, only campaign in Democrat strongholds, only broadcast ads in locations where only Democrats win, would result in any chance of victory come the General Elections, when those who voted for him in the primaries would return to their actual candidate on the Democrat ticket? And, more worrisome, why would the GOP fall for this nonsense?
If Krispy can garner a gazillion Israeli votes in the primaries, do you really imagine that would translate to Presidential victory? How about if he adds a gazillion Canadian votes? And, of course, steals away a gazillion Mexican votes from the DNC. Why do they and you believe that non-Republican votes should determine the best, most viable GOP candidate? Will the Tea Party Patriots need to form a separate party before sense will dawn upon you?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 11, 2015 5:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Erroneous logic does not further your cause. You really, really think that Christian Conservatives are going to vote in droves for a Muslim over a Mormon?

Romney wasn't conservative period. Not in the same plateau to evaluate conservative "enough.".

Did I say Evangelicals and Conservatives voted for Obama? NO, I did not. I said they didn't vote for Romney. They stayed home in droves. Romney got millions less of their votes than McCain got in 2008. That's an indisputable fact. Romney was certainly more conservative than Obama, but that wasn't good enough for the irrational bastards.

Quote:
Santorum came in 2nd among combined Democrat and Republican votes, but came in first among Republican voters - losing to Romney's Democrat vote-grovelling strategy to defeat conservatives and Republicans.

If the RNC had chosen the highest vote-getter of Republicans instead of the most Democrat voters, Santorum would have been the nominee.

Which is why Romney threw out conservatives from the "open" Convention, and expelled conservatives from the "open" Convention, and barred more conservatives from entering the "open" Convention and made rule changes to prohibit conservatives from being allowed into future "open" Conventions. How nice of him. How tolerant of him. How Libtard of him.
A really big surprise why conservatives were appalled by his form of tyranny or dictatorship.

News Flash: I am not the arbiter of election victories. My vote is not more valued than yours - unless you miss an election, which I haven't save one since I turned 18. If you insist upon avoiding intellectual honesty and do not wish to understand the viewpoints of others, then perhaps you are destined to continue to repeat the clear history of failure which you insist upon denying. (see also: Ford. Dole. McCain.) Conservatives understand the capitulating caving philosophy you aspire to, even if they don't agree. You failing to understand conservatives viewpoint so that you may stubbornly be able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory will discern your future of continued failures. If you took the opportunity to understand, you may be able to harness this power. Many Senators, Representatives, Governors, and other office holders have made good on their abilities to represent their constituents, why must you and your ilk of the GOP refuse to represent constituents and garner a victory?
Why on earth would you think that Romney's Primary campaign to only target Democrats to vote for him, only campaign in Democrat strongholds, only broadcast ads in locations where only Democrats win, would result in any chance of victory come the General Elections, when those who voted for him in the primaries would return to their actual candidate on the Democrat ticket? And, more worrisome, why would the GOP fall for this nonsense?
If Krispy can garner a gazillion Israeli votes in the primaries, do you really imagine that would translate to Presidential victory? How about if he adds a gazillion Canadian votes? And, of course, steals away a gazillion Mexican votes from the DNC. Why do they and you believe that non-Republican votes should determine the best, most viable GOP candidate? Will the Tea Party Patriots need to form a separate party before sense will dawn upon you?

Nice insane rant there. LOL!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 13, 2015 7:21 PM

And Scott Walker today.

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Erroneous logic does not further your cause. You really, really think that Christian Conservatives are going to vote in droves for a Muslim over a Mormon?

Romney wasn't conservative period. Not in the same plateau to evaluate conservative "enough.".

Did I say Evangelicals and Conservatives voted for Obama? NO, I did not. I said they didn't vote for Romney. They stayed home in droves. Romney got millions less of their votes than McCain got in 2008. That's an indisputable fact. Romney was certainly more conservative than Obama, but that wasn't good enough for the irrational bastards.

Your figures are dubious. In 2008 1.5% voted for neither McCain nor Obama. In 2012 Romney got almost a million more votes than McCain got in 2008, and Obama got 3 and a half million less than he did in 2008. And 1.7% voted for neither Obama nor Romney. You claim RINO McCain's voters didn't vote in 2012 - but they did vote, only they voted for the conservative candidate, which was not Romney. The people staying home were Obama's 2008 drones.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 13, 2015 8:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Santorum came in 2nd among combined Democrat and Republican votes, but came in first among Republican voters - losing to Romney's Democrat vote-grovelling strategy to defeat conservatives and Republicans.

If the RNC had chosen the highest vote-getter of Republicans instead of the most Democrat voters, Santorum would have been the nominee.

Which is why Romney threw out conservatives from the "open" Convention, and expelled conservatives from the "open" Convention, and barred more conservatives from entering the "open" Convention and made rule changes to prohibit conservatives from being allowed into future "open" Conventions. How nice of him. How tolerant of him. How Libtard of him.
A really big surprise why conservatives were appalled by his form of tyranny or dictatorship.

News Flash: I am not the arbiter of election victories. My vote is not more valued than yours - unless you miss an election, which I haven't save one since I turned 18. If you insist upon avoiding intellectual honesty and do not wish to understand the viewpoints of others, then perhaps you are destined to continue to repeat the clear history of failure which you insist upon denying. (see also: Ford. Dole. McCain.) Conservatives understand the capitulating caving philosophy you aspire to, even if they don't agree. You failing to understand conservatives viewpoint so that you may stubbornly be able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory will discern your future of continued failures. If you took the opportunity to understand, you may be able to harness this power. Many Senators, Representatives, Governors, and other office holders have made good on their abilities to represent their constituents, why must you and your ilk of the GOP refuse to represent constituents and garner a victory?
Why on earth would you think that Romney's Primary campaign to only target Democrats to vote for him, only campaign in Democrat strongholds, only broadcast ads in locations where only Democrats win, would result in any chance of victory come the General Elections, when those who voted for him in the primaries would return to their actual candidate on the Democrat ticket? And, more worrisome, why would the GOP fall for this nonsense?
If Krispy can garner a gazillion Israeli votes in the primaries, do you really imagine that would translate to Presidential victory? How about if he adds a gazillion Canadian votes? And, of course, steals away a gazillion Mexican votes from the DNC. Why do they and you believe that non-Republican votes should determine the best, most viable GOP candidate? Will the Tea Party Patriots need to form a separate party before sense will dawn upon you?

Nice insane rant there. LOL!

Good thing you are ignoring it, proving the point.
You forgot to call me Hitler or a Nazi. Isn't that supposed to be your main defense?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 13, 2015 8:57 PM

Why does the GOP Old Guard insist upon losing? A reasonable person would think they would adjust their sights to follow the winning pattern.

In 1976 when the RNC delegates wanted to nominate Ronald Reagan, the GOP instead wanted to usher in Jimminy Carter and decided to quash the sensible winning idea and go with east Coast liberal Jerry Ford. Predictable results.

In 1980 RNC again wanted Reagan, and allowed the Republicans to win, and again in 1984. Then in 1988 they went with East Coast liberal George Bush - yes, the verysame handpicked by Dick Nixon to be annointed Veep and then 38th President in 1973 - running as Reagan lite and winning. Then exposed in 1990 as liberal when his "No new taxes" became "Know new taxes" with his liberal capitulation to the left, and then keeping this dead horse in 1992 to usher in Clinton.

1994 showed the conservative strength with Gingrich and the Contract with America, but the GOP shunned victory and went with East Coast liberal Dole in 1996 to give Clinton another term to destroy America.

The Reagan economic juggernaut eased up about the time Clinton left office. and the GOP insisted upon forgetting anything it could have learned.
So instead of a winning choice, it went with McCain and Romney.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 14, 2015 7:14 PM

You must be enthralled with the Iran treaty to give them a Nuclear arsenal.

Obama and Secretary Swiftboat Ketchup refusing to stand for anything, security, safety, American interests, and capitulating to give Obama's muslim buddies in Iran anything they want.

Just like you are thrilled that your hero McConnell capitulates to every whim of Obama and Harry, and refusing to stand up for the good of Americans.

Just like you cherish your savior Johnny Boner for capitulating to every desire of Obama and Pelosi and stabbing patriotic Americans in the back while refusing to stand for any of his promises or pledges or responsibilities.

Just like you wish those darn pesky Patriotic Americans known as conservatives would just cave and capitulate to the greater losing logic of the GOP liberals and their campaign to avoid victory.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 17, 2015 5:48 PM

Latest poll has Trump, Walker, JEB the only GOP in double didgits.
Hillary at 39% approval among dems

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 18, 2015 4:46 PM

The GOP has identified the most consistently voting, most loyal voting base, most persistently enduring voting block and has repeatedly denigrated these voters, undercut them at every opportunity, expelled them, repelled them, and insisted upon forcing them to choose between an unwinnable and unpalatable candidate of the GOP's selection or else voting for the best candidate which is not on the GOP ticket.
And then the GOP feigns confusion at this clear logic and claims to be dumbfounded at their own stupidity and upset that their Machiavellian shenanigans backfired as history keeps proving repeatedly.

Hey, let us ask the Liberals of Iowa who should be the GOP candidate and then pick that liberal loser to lose the election for the GOP!!
Hey, let us ask the Liberals of New Hampshire who should be the GOP candidate and then pick that liberal loser to lose the election for the GOP!!
Hey, let us ask that bastion of libtardism Nevada for it's liberals to tell us who should be the GOP candidate and then pick that liberal loser to lose the election for the GOP!!

Hey, let us ask the Gold Star Republicans (having selected the winning GOP candidate of every single open-race for President: Reagan 1980, Bush 1988, Bush 2000) of South Carolina who should be the winning GOP candidate and then ignore their perfect track record and choose anybody else to be able to lose the election for the GOP!! Yes, the 3 liberal counties picked Romney in 2012, but the rest of the state had more sense.

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Erroneous logic does not further your cause. You really, really think that Christian Conservatives are going to vote in droves for a Muslim over a Mormon?

Romney wasn't conservative period. Not in the same plateau to evaluate conservative "enough.".

Did I say Evangelicals and Conservatives voted for Obama? NO, I did not. I said they didn't vote for Romney. They stayed home in droves. Romney got millions less of their votes than McCain got in 2008. That's an indisputable fact. Romney was certainly more conservative than Obama, but that wasn't good enough for the irrational bastards.

The claim that Romney was supposedly more conservative than Obama had been made, and was of great dispute. The more applicable phrasing would be that Romney was less liberal than Obama, which was also greatly disputed.
The greatest Obamination since 2008 has been the horrific Obamacare, which was copied from Romneycare, which was instituted by guess who?

Romney was Gov of one of the most liberal states in the nation, while Obama was expected to lose his race in a more conservative State of Illinois to Jack Ryan.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 25, 2015 2:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Plus Trump.

The good news is that i noticed a decent candidate for the Reform party, in case the GOP chooses another Ford/Dole/McCain/Romney loser like Jeb.

Now I wish I could recall who this was. Needed more time to jot it down.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 25, 2015 2:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
He announced yesterday.

Others announced:
Skip Andrews
Michael Bickelmeyer
Kerry Bowers
Dale Christensen
Ted Cruz
John Dummett, Jr.
Mark Everson
Carly Fiorina
Chris Hill
Mike Huckabee
Michael Kinlaw
Rand Paul
Michael Petyo
Marco Rubio
Brian Russell
Rick Santorum
George Pataki
Lindsay Graham.
Brooks Cullison.
JEB

Donald Trump
Chris
Christie
Scott Walker
John Kasich.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 27, 2015 8:37 PM

With so many in the field and only 10 in the first debate, this could be the first time that only one or two RINOs are present to hog all the time and prevent real issues from being debated. If enough conservatives are debating, there could be some worthwhile discussion.

Has anybody heard there is a debt? Or should they still discuss Caitlyn again?

How about the worst unemployment since the Great Depression? Or will Barack Kardashian dominate the topics?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 27, 2015 9:34 PM

The conservatives are so desperate that they dusted off George Pataki!!! Are you fucking kidding me!? And here's the cherry on top - Trump, of all people, is leading the Polls.........wait, I gotta let out a good belly laugh......lol......WTF!?

Debate!? This is going to be a debacle. Trump! he's leading the charge!

And Ben Carson, where's he? In June, he was at the forefront of the National Polls, and now!? Currently he is 6th polling at 8%. Well, he's in for that wonderful Fox Debate.

But let me have Jack come in here and make a statement. Jack Nicholson everybody!

"He's at home, washing his tights!"

Thank you Jack, for that great announcement.

It's all yours Irving!

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
With so many in the field and only 10 in the first debate, this could be the first time that only one or two RINOs are present to hog all the time and prevent real issues from being debated. If enough conservatives are debating, there could be some worthwhile discussion.

Has anybody heard there is a debt? Or should they still discuss Caitlyn again?

How about the worst unemployment since the Great Depression? Or will Barack Kardashian dominate the topics?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 28, 2015 6:53 AM

Well, let us take a look at the Unemployment Rate, shall we? According to the Bureau of Statistics, same one that was in office when Bush was there for 8 years from 2000-2008. From 2005-2008 (when BLS Stats for Bush are available) the National UR hovered between 4.4 to 5.3 at various times, with 5.0 being the mean average. The bottom fell in May 2008 when the economy went from 5.0 UR in April 2008 to 5.4 in May 2008 and steadily climbed from there until the country topped out at 10.0 in October 2009.

When Obama took over the country in January 2009, unemployment was at 7.8% (from May until December 2008, while Bush was still in office, unemployment went from 5.4 to 7.3%, a nearly 2 point jump). But that could be attributed to Obama, since it was inevitable that he would win. The economy knew enough to tank because of Obama's putrid leadership abilities (you can't fool the economy). Yeppers, he's to blame, nothing to do with Bush or Cheney setting the table. Bush in office, the economy is clicking along at about a 5.0 pace in UR, suddenly it takes a turn for the worse and the economy engine fails miserably 8 months before the new POTUS is to take over.

By April 2009, it's at 9.0 and it doesn't let go for the next 30 months, and 15 of those 30 months it hovered above 9.5%. Ugly! That's 2.5 years of UR misery. Poor leadership, that's what it was. Everybody knew it. The average during that stretch was 9.5%. But something happened in October of 2011, the fever broke and we went below 9.0% (8.8) and continued steadily downward for the next 4 years, until June 2015 where it lay at 5.3%. That's exactly where we were 10 years earlier when Bush and Darth Cheney were in office (January 2005, 5.3%). We've come a long way, no
thanks to Obama and his leadership skills. And if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

Couldn't be anything else but his leadership skills that brought us out of the stone age in the economy. The rich were definitely reaping the benefits, it was, and is, the poor middle class that's hurting. But 5.3 from a high of 10.0 at it's worst level - classic! You blame him for the worst UR since the Depression. Ok, let's say that's true, then you have to give him credit for pulling us out of the fire as well. You can't have it both ways. As a matter of fact, if July's rate goes below 5.3%, he would be better than Bush from 10 years ago.

So, still want to blame Obama for the worst UR since the Depression era? Then prepare thyself neighbor, you're about to eat humble pie. (I could've used another metaphor, but I wanted to keep it clean for once. It involved ankles and KY Jelly).
It's all there. Drops mic and walks away.................

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
With so many in the field and only 10 in the first debate, this could be the first time that only one or two RINOs are present to hog all the time and prevent real issues from being debated. If enough conservatives are debating, there could be some worthwhile discussion.

Has anybody heard there is a debt? Or should they still discuss Caitlyn again?

How about the worst unemployment since the Great Depression? Or will Barack Kardashian dominate the topics?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 28, 2015 5:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Well, let us take a look at the Unemployment Rate, shall we? According to the Bureau of Statistics, same one that was in office when Bush was there for 8 years from 2000-2008. From 2005-2008 (when BLS Stats for Bush are available) the National UR hovered between 4.4 to 5.3 at various times, with 5.0 being the mean average. The bottom fell in May 2008 when the economy went from 5.0 UR in April 2008 to 5.4 in May 2008 and steadily climbed from there until the country topped out at 10.0 in October 2009.

When Obama took over the country in January 2009, unemployment was at 7.8% (from May until December 2008, while Bush was still in office, unemployment went from 5.4 to 7.3%, a nearly 2 point jump). But that could be attributed to Obama, since it was inevitable that he would win. The economy knew enough to tank because of Obama's putrid leadership abilities (you can't fool the economy). Yeppers, he's to blame, nothing to do with Bush or Cheney setting the table. Bush in office, the economy is clicking along at about a 5.0 pace in UR, suddenly it takes a turn for the worse and the economy engine fails miserably 8 months before the new POTUS is to take over.

By April 2009, it's at 9.0 and it doesn't let go for the next 30 months, and 15 of those 30 months it hovered above 9.5%. Ugly! That's 2.5 years of UR misery. Poor leadership, that's what it was. Everybody knew it. The average during that stretch was 9.5%. But something happened in October of 2011, the fever broke and we went below 9.0% (8.8) and continued steadily downward for the next 4 years, until June 2015 where it lay at 5.3%. That's exactly where we were 10 years earlier when Bush and Darth Cheney were in office (January 2005, 5.3%). We've come a long way, no
thanks to Obama and his leadership skills. And if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

Couldn't be anything else but his leadership skills that brought us out of the stone age in the economy. The rich were definitely reaping the benefits, it was, and is, the poor middle class that's hurting. But 5.3 from a high of 10.0 at it's worst level - classic! You blame him for the worst UR since the Depression. Ok, let's say that's true, then you have to give him credit for pulling us out of the fire as well. You can't have it both ways. As a matter of fact, if July's rate goes below 5.3%, he would be better than Bush from 10 years ago.

So, still want to blame Obama for the worst UR since the Depression era? Then prepare thyself neighbor, you're about to eat humble pie. (I could've used another metaphor, but I wanted to keep it clean for once. It involved ankles and KY Jelly).
It's all there. Drops mic and walks away.................

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
With so many in the field and only 10 in the first debate, this could be the first time that only one or two RINOs are present to hog all the time and prevent real issues from being debated. If enough conservatives are debating, there could be some worthwhile discussion.

Has anybody heard there is a debt? Or should they still discuss Caitlyn again?

How about the worst unemployment since the Great Depression? Or will Barack Kardashian dominate the topics?

Bureau of Lies and Shenanigans under Obama is not impressive. Try facts next time.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 28, 2015 8:54 PM

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4545961/ted-cruz

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/07/24/ted-cruz-on-the-senate-floor-mit
ch-mcconnells-a-liar-and-our-new-majority-is-a-cronyist-fraud/

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/07/24/cruz-mcconnell
-lied-on-ex-im-bank-cannot-be-trusted

Ted Cruz had an excellent time in the Senate last Friday, exposing the libtards of the GOP.

But does his speech realy argue for making him President? Or was that not his intent? It would seem to argue that he should be kept in the Senate, and more of him added or cloned in the Senate. Why take the most responsible and reasonable Senator and remove him to the White House, leaving a void of excellence in the Senate?

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2015/07/24/sen-ted-cruz-sen-mitch-mcconnell-li
ed-on-ex-im-bank-cannot-be-trusted/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 28, 2015 8:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
With so many in the field and only 10 in the first debate, this could be the first time that only one or two RINOs are present to hog all the time and prevent real issues from being debated. If enough conservatives are debating, there could be some worthwhile discussion.

Has anybody heard there is a debt? Or should they still discuss Caitlyn again?

How about the worst unemployment since the Great Depression? Or will Barack Kardashian dominate the topics?

Are you fucking kidding me!? And here's the cherry on top - Trump, of all people, is leading the Polls.........wait, I gotta let out a good belly laugh......lol......WTF!?

Debate!? This is going to be a debacle. Trump! he's leading the charge!

And Ben Carson, where's he? In June, he was at the forefront of the National Polls, and now!? Currently he is 6th polling at 8%. Well, he's in for that wonderful Fox Debate.

Carson at 6th is still in the top 10. Sounds very interesting. May be a debate to watch.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 28, 2015 9:41 PM

When the "mega debate" is over no one will really remember or care who said what. I'm only going to watch because there's a chance it could get ugly and spiral out of control. That'll be some must-see tv.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 29, 2015 6:03 AM

Bureau of Lies and Shenanigans under Obama is not impressive. Try facts next time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I knew you would say that. You know a part of the facts I gave you were accumulated and reported while Bush and Cheney were in power. What say you to that? Was Obama so powerful? Or did he use the Jedi Mind trick to influence the Cheney Adminis---er, Bush Administration.

Explain away that little tidbit. Here it comes.........call in Sanitation we're about to get a truckload of bullshit.

SGG

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 29, 2015 6:10 AM

Amen to that Jong! It'll be better than any reality TV bullshit the networks can throw at us. Move over Caitlyn and you Kardashian whores, here comes real entertainment.

I was watching a Republican analyst on MSNBC and he suggested, tongue firmly in cheek, that they settle this with a WWE-like Thunderdome Death Match, a kind of Royal Battle Brawl extraordinaire! Fucking hilarious!

Oh, one more thing............Thank you Fox!

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
When the "mega debate" is over no one will really remember or care who said what. I'm only going to watch because there's a chance it could get ugly and spiral out of control. That'll be some must-see tv.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 29, 2015 6:22 AM

Carson at 6th is still in the top 10. Sounds very interesting. May be a debate to watch.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Casich, a moderate conservative, has actually jumped into 4th place. And he just announced last week, this really is getting interesting. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio may be out.

Fox, really Thank You!!!

Whoever thought of this National Poll thing over there should get a big fat raise. Imagine putting a revolving door on the Clown Car, fucking genius!

As an aside, Fox is making a mint with the political ads, Just saying!
Those knuckleheads over at Fox are crazy like a fox.....brilliant move guys.

SGG

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 29, 2015 7:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I was watching a Republican analyst on MSNBC

I vomited a little in my mouth.
You mean a RINO who analyses on MSNBC?
Or an analyst of Republicans on MSNBC?
MSNBC has no Republican who analyses.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 29, 2015 7:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
With so many in the field and only 10 in the first debate, this could be the first time that only one or two RINOs are present to hog all the time and prevent real issues from being debated. If enough conservatives are debating, there could be some worthwhile discussion.

Has anybody heard there is a debt? Or should they still discuss Caitlyn again?

How about the worst unemployment since the Great Depression? Or will Barack Kardashian dominate the topics?

Well, let us take a look at the Unemployment Rate, shall we?

OK.

Quote:

According to the Bureau of Statistics, same one that was in office when Bush was there for 8 years from 2000-2008.

What the heck? You cannot even supply one single sentence without resorting to lies, distortions, untruths, falsehoods (all aka "liberal facts" and "facts with liberal bias")? Are you really so deluded and in bed with libtards up your butt that you cannot think for yourself for once?

U.S. Secretary of Labor, 2001-2009 (20 Jan): Elaine Chao
U.S. Secretary of Labor, 2009-2013: Hilda Solis. (Californexico Democrat Libtard Obamabot)
U.S. Secretary of Labor, 2013-current: Thomas Perez. (Civil Rights attorney libtard Obamabot)

Elaine Chao, Hilda Solis, and Tom Perez are not the same person.
You owe an apology to Secretary Chao.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 30, 2015 12:35 PM

My apologies to Ms. Chao, or Mrs. McConnell as she is known in D.C. Forgive the lapse in lumping you together with "Libtard" Secretary of Labor from other regimes, er, I mean administrations. Obviously being a Bush appointee not only made history, for her contributions to our beloved country, but for her marriage to such a powerful man.

Let's take a look at her illustrious career, shall we:

From 2001-2009 she led the nation through some pretty rough times, both a brilliant statistician and economist:

In 2001 she took over from the Clinton Administration an Unemployment Rate of 4.2%, the economy was booming. But from then on the UR steadily climbed for 2 years to a high of 6.3% unemployment. With Bush's help she got it back under control and it took 4 years to get the UR back under 5.0%, but then again in 2008, under the ever popular Bush/Cheney Administration she quickly got it back up to a respectable 7.3% unemployment by December.

Now comes Obama, and she turned it around, no wait.......it continued out of control and by October 2009 the UR reached 10.0% unemployment. Question is: Did she really have control of the Labor stats all those years while under Bush? Or was that Obama's fault? Bush? Cheney? No, by your own admission, she was in charge during those years Bush was in the White House. Chao was picked by Bush and was

"the longest tenured Secretary of Labor since World War II, and the only member of President Bush’s original cabinet to have served the entire eight years of his Administration."

So, let me get this straight. She was in charge of the BLS during Bush's formative years. Impressive! Which begs the question which one is to blame for the economy's poor showing throughout the years 2001-2009? Anyone!? Anyone!?

Was she a Libtard in disguise? Or Bush? No not Cheney, never. Take your time to answer. I'll be back. Don't strain yourself!

SGG

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
With so many in the field and only 10 in the first debate, this could be the first time that only one or two RINOs are present to hog all the time and prevent real issues from being debated. If enough conservatives are debating, there could be some worthwhile discussion.

Has anybody heard there is a debt? Or should they still discuss Caitlyn again?

How about the worst unemployment since the Great Depression? Or will Barack Kardashian dominate the topics?

Well, let us take a look at the Unemployment Rate, shall we?

OK.
Quote:

According to the Bureau of Statistics, same one that was in office when Bush was there for 8 years from 2000-2008.

What the heck? You cannot even supply one single sentence without resorting to lies, distortions, untruths, falsehoods? Are you really so deluded and in bed with libtards up your butt that you cannot think for yourself for once?

U.S. Secretary of Labor, 2001-2009 (20 Jan): Elaine Chao
U.S. Secretary of Labor, 2009-2013: Hilda Solis. (Californexico Democrat Libtard Obamabot)
U.S. Secretary of Labor, 2013-current: Thomas Perez. (Civil Rights attorney libtard Obamabot)

Elaine Chao, Hilda Solis, and Tom Perez are not the same person.
You owe an apology to Secretary Chao.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 30, 2015 7:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
With so many in the field and only 10 in the first debate, this could be the first time that only one or two RINOs are present to hog all the time and prevent real issues from being debated. If enough conservatives are debating, there could be some worthwhile discussion.

Has anybody heard there is a debt? Or should they still discuss Caitlyn again?

How about the worst unemployment since the Great Depression? Or will Barack Kardashian dominate the topics?

Well, let us take a look at the Unemployment Rate, shall we?

OK.
Quote:

According to the Bureau of Statistics, same one that was in office when Bush was there for 8 years from 2000-2008.

What the heck? You cannot even supply one single sentence without resorting to lies, distortions, untruths, falsehoods? Are you really so deluded and in bed with libtards up your butt that you cannot think for yourself for once?

U.S. Secretary of Labor, 2001-2009 (20 Jan): Elaine Chao
U.S. Secretary of Labor, 2009-2013: Hilda Solis. (Californexico Democrat Libtard Obamabot)
U.S. Secretary of Labor, 2013-current: Thomas Perez. (Civil Rights attorney libtard Obamabot)

Elaine Chao, Hilda Solis, and Tom Perez are not the same person.
You owe an apology to Secretary Chao.

My apologies to Ms. Chao, or Mrs. McConnell as she is known in D.C. Forgive the lapse in lumping you together with "Libtard" Secretary of Labor from other regimes, er, I mean administrations. Obviously being a Bush appointee not only made history, for her contributions to our beloved country, but for her marriage to such a powerful man.

Let's take a look at her illustrious career, shall we:

From 2001-2009 she led the nation through some pretty rough times, both a brilliant statistician and economist:

In 2001 she took over from the Clinton Administration an Unemployment Rate of 4.2%, the economy was booming. But from then on the UR steadily climbed for 2 years to a high of 6.3% unemployment. With Bush's help she got it back under control and it took 4 years to get the UR back under 5.0%, but then again in 2008, under the ever popular Bush/Cheney Administration she quickly got it back up to a respectable 7.3% unemployment by December.

Now comes Obama, and she turned it around, no wait.......it continued out of control and by October 2009 the UR reached 10.0% unemployment. Question is: Did she really have control of the Labor stats all those years while under Bush? Or was that Obama's fault? Bush? Cheney? No, by your own admission, she was in charge during those years Bush was in the White House. Chao was picked by Bush and was

"the longest tenured Secretary of Labor since World War II, and the only member of President Bush’s original cabinet to have served the entire eight years of his Administration."

So, let me get this straight. She was in charge of the BLS during Bush's formative years. Impressive! Which begs the question which one is to blame for the economy's poor showing throughout the years 2001-2009? Anyone!? Anyone!?

Was she a Libtard in disguise? Or Bush? No not Cheney, never. Take your time to answer. I'll be back. Don't strain yourself!

SGG

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

Avoiding the question by trying to change the subject? Diversionary tactic, right?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 30, 2015 8:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
With so many in the field and only 10 in the first debate, this could be the first time that only one or two RINOs are present to hog all the time and prevent real issues from being debated. If enough conservatives are debating, there could be some worthwhile discussion.

Has anybody heard there is a debt? Or should they still discuss Caitlyn again?

How about the worst unemployment since the Great Depression? Or will Barack Kardashian dominate the topics?

Well, let us take a look at the Unemployment Rate, shall we?

SGG

Let us look at some common sense data, shall we?

Amount of Federal Revenue from Income Tax. This is from people who are not completely unemployed.
2000 1.00 Trillion Dollars
2001 0.99
2002 0.86
2003 0.79
2004 0.81
2005 0.93
2006 1.04
2007 1.16
2008 1.14
2009 0.91
2010 0.90
2011 1.09
2012 1.13
2013 1.31

Adjusted for inflation, 2007's 1.16 T is equivalent to 1.30 in 2013. But the Obama revenues are much more heavily weighed on individual earners, with corporate tax revenues far less than in 2006, 2007. So for all of the Obama years, fewer people have been able to work and be productive and pay taxes.

Number of Tax Returns filed. And some population estimates.
2000 128 Million
2001 129 returns. Pop 285 million.
2002 128
2003 128
2004 130
2005 133
2006 136
2007 141 returns. 47% of the 301 M pop.
2008 140
2009 138
2010 135
2011 136.6 returns. <44% of the 311 M pop.

Fewer workers are able to find work. More millions are unemployed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 31, 2015 4:31 PM

Trump Palin ticket?
Man, I really will need to evaluate all options.

http://patriotupdate.com/trump-makes-epic-announcement-about-sarah-pal
in/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 31, 2015 4:32 PM

Some might be wondering: how is it that Obama is able to keep lying about his fake unemployment figures?

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/how-the-department-of-labor-lies
-about-unemployment/question-3680921/

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-participatio
n-rate

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 1, 2015 3:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Carson at 6th is still in the top 10. Sounds very interesting. May be a debate to watch.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Casich, a moderate conservative, has actually jumped into 4th place. And he just announced last week, this really is getting interesting. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio may be out.

SGG

In the last few days I saw a poll which had Carson tied for 4th place - I think Cruz and maybe Rubio were also tied. Top 3 were Trump, Walker, and John Ellis Bush. Trump already indicated he might pick Sarah Palin as Veep. Walker would likely not pick Paul Ryan, but what if he also chose Palin? If I had to choose between Trump-Palin and Walker-Palin, I'd go with Walker.

What if the top 6 candidates all said they would pick Palin for VP, because they wanted to win? Would this be the first time that people might vote in Primary considering which VP the candidate purported to want?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 3, 2015 7:57 PM

Somehow, I neglected to mention that as long as the GOP is trying very hard to lose the election, it should ask libtards on the internet to decide who their candidate should be. Now I'm too late, because that is exactly what Fox is doing for the debates by asking the clueless minions of Facebook what topics should be debated, in what could have been the best, most serious, most cerebral debate in a very long time.

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Fox, really Thank You!!!

Whoever thought of this National Poll thing over there should get a big fat raise. Imagine putting a revolving door on the Clown Car, fucking genius!

As an aside, Fox is making a mint with the political ads, Just saying!
Those knuckleheads over at Fox are crazy like a fox.....brilliant move guys.

SGG

From the intellectual giants of Facebook, what are the most important topics for Presidential candidates to address in America? National Debt? Federal Deficit? Runaway spending? Broken Healthcare? Murdering babies across America? Funding Iran's Nuclear Profileration and ICBM importation? The crimes committed by Loretta Lynch?
Nope, none of those.
Top 5 are "Immigrants" and "Mexico" maybe aka "illegal aliens" plus Caitlyn, racism, and Ecomony.

How did they forget Cosby? Cecil? Deflategate? NFL's Silver Season? Poor cell reception inhibiting texting while driving?

The very same Mensa candidates have made their most popular:

10 Bieber
9 Bob Marley
8 Fresh Prince of Cinema
7 Wacko Jacko
6 Lionel Messi (Argentina)
5 Rihanna
4 M&M
3 Vin Diesel
2 Shakira
1 Cristiano Ronaldo (Portugal)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 4, 2015 3:49 AM

You did see the numbers I provided above, from the Bush Administration and your beloved Elaine Chao, who was in charge of the BLS from 2001-2009. Are those numbers lies? Were they fake?

It did go up from 4.2% in 2000, when she was in charge, to 7.3% in 2009, did it not? And those trillions were being traded by bankers worldwide, the upper 1%, like Bernie Madoff, Goldman Sachs and Shearson Leahman. Unless you have a hidden bank account with all the loot in the world somewhere.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Some might be wondering: how is it that Obama is able to keep lying about his fake unemployment figures?

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/how-the-department-of-labor-lies
-about-unemployment/question-3680921/

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-participatio
n-rate

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 4, 2015 3:57 AM

Palin!? That's a joke right? Has Fox been raiding the liquor cabinet again?
Palin, Palin..........that name sounds familiar, say didn't she run the McCain campaign into the ground with her brilliant political and governmental savvy?
For either Trump or Walker, that would be the Kiss of Death.

Trump is a novice at this, so him I could understand, but Walker should know better, he's been at this for a while now. Seriously, Palin!? You guys are desperate.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Carson at 6th is still in the top 10. Sounds very interesting. May be a debate to watch.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Casich, a moderate conservative, has actually jumped into 4th place. And he just announced last week, this really is getting interesting. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio may be out.

SGG

In the last few days I saw a poll which had Carson tied for 4th place - I think Cruz and maybe Rubio were also tied. Top 3 were Trump, Walker, and John Ellis Bush. Trump already indicated he might pick Sarah Palin as Veep. Walker would likely not pick Paul Ryan, but what if he also chose Palin? If I had to choose between Trump-Palin and Walker-Palin, I'd go with Walker.

What if the top 6 candidates all said they would pick Palin for VP, because they wanted to win? Would this be the first time that people might vote in Primary considering which VP the candidate purported to want?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 4, 2015 4:05 AM

As far as the Polling is concerned, that's going to jump around quite a bit over the next year and a half. Wasn't Carson in the lead back in June? These guys will be playing musical chairs for about a year before the dust settles. Meanwhile this is more fun than a barrel of monkeys.

By the way, when was the last time you've heard from Palin? (On a National level, podcasts don't count).

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Carson at 6th is still in the top 10. Sounds very interesting. May be a debate to watch.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Casich, a moderate conservative, has actually jumped into 4th place. And he just announced last week, this really is getting interesting. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio may be out.

SGG

In the last few days I saw a poll which had Carson tied for 4th place - I think Cruz and maybe Rubio were also tied. Top 3 were Trump, Walker, and John Ellis Bush. Trump already indicated he might pick Sarah Palin as Veep. Walker would likely not pick Paul Ryan, but what if he also chose Palin? If I had to choose between Trump-Palin and Walker-Palin, I'd go with Walker.

What if the top 6 candidates all said they would pick Palin for VP, because they wanted to win? Would this be the first time that people might vote in Primary considering which VP the candidate purported to want?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 4, 2015 4:31 AM

"I neglected to mention that as long as the GOP is trying very hard to lose the election"

You got that right!!! What a bunch of ignoramuses, they're making the case against themselves! Really, I haven't laughed so hard since, well........Palin was interviewed by Katie Couric.

What Fox didn't realize is that not every American is a nutjob looking to deport anyone that has even the slightest of tans. Not stopping to think for a moment that we also have a border to the north, where illegal aliens also come from, and not just the ones from the deep south, but white Europeans as well.

I can't wait to see the debates. I want to see what they will replace Obamacare with. That should be interesting. Imagine, Romneycare has been around since 2006, and Obamacare became official in 2010. What could they possibly come up with that will replace the most popular, and effective, health care program since Medicaid.
I got my popcorn ready, my scorecard and my comfy chair because this is going to be a bumpy ride.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Somehow, I neglected to mention that as long as the GOP is trying very hard to lose the election, it should ask libtards on the internet to decide who their candidate should be. Now I'm too late, because that is exactly what Fox is doing for the debates by asking the clueless minions of Facebook what topics should be debated, in what could have been the best, most serious, most cerebral debate in a very long time.

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Fox, really Thank You!!!

Whoever thought of this National Poll thing over there should get a big fat raise. Imagine putting a revolving door on the Clown Car, fucking genius!

As an aside, Fox is making a mint with the political ads, Just saying!
Those knuckleheads over at Fox are crazy like a fox.....brilliant move guys.

SGG

From the intellectual giants of Facebook, what are the most important topics for Presidential candidates to address in America? National Debt? Federal Deficit? Runaway spending? Broken Healthcare? Murdering babies across America? Funding Iran's Nuclear Profileration and ICBM importation? The crimes committed by Loretta Lynch?
Nope, none of those.
Top 5 are "Immigrants" and "Mexico" maybe aka "illegal aliens" plus Caitlyn, racism, and Ecomony.

How did they forget Cosby? Cecil? Deflategate? NFL's Silver Season? Poor cell reception inhibiting texting while driving?

The very same Mensa candidates have made their most popular:

10 Bieber
9 Bob Marley
8 Fresh Prince of Cinema
7 Wacko Jacko
6 Lionel Messi (Argentina)
5 Rihanna
4 M&M
3 Vin Diesel
2 Shakira
1 Cristiano Ronaldo (Portugal)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 4, 2015 9:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Some might be wondering: how is it that Obama is able to keep lying about his fake unemployment figures?

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/how-the-department-of-labor-lies
-about-unemployment/question-3680921/

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-participatio
n-rate

You did see the numbers I provided above, from the Bush Administration and your beloved Elaine Chao, who was in charge of the BLS from 2001-2009.

It did go up from 4.2% in 2000, when she was in charge, to 7.3% in 2009, did it not?

You can't even get halfway through a sentence without resorting to lies, can you?
NO!!! Nobody from the Bush administration was in charge of Labor in 2000. I would agree that the disasterous Panetta was around, but I have long considered him to be Bush's greatest mistake.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 4, 2015 9:51 PM

Fox is going to have THREE debate moderators. That's even more ridiculous than having these absurd meaningless debates in the first place.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2015 6:49 PM

Dr. Carson will be included in the panel of 10. The RINOs are Krispy Kreme and John Ellis Bush.

However, before that Fox is apparently also going to broadcast the debate among the next 7 most popular candidates. That could also be interesting. Unless Lindsey jabbers too much. Looks like 2 or 3 hours before the top 10 debate.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 6, 2015 3:18 AM