Could you give me a list of "crazies" the R's have nominated for president?
...hobbyist should vote for their fellow hobbyist Neil Bush.
A couple of years after Bill Clinton committed the impeachable sin of lying under oath about sex, Neil Bush was testifying under oath in his divorce proceedings abut a deposition, also given under oath. "He admitted in the deposition that he previously had sex with several other women while on trips to Thailand and Hong Kong at least five years ago. The women, he said, simply knocked on the door of his hotel room, entered and had sex with him. He said he did not know if they were prostitutes because they never asked for money and he did not pay them. "Mr. Bush, you have to admit it's a pretty remarkable thing for a man just to go to a hotel room door and open it and have a woman standing there and have sex with her," Brown (his wife's lawyer) said." "It was very unusual," Bush said. Dems who said it was no big deal to lie about sex should support Neil Bush. Righties who have sex with prostitutes should also support Neil Bush, unless they're "do as I say, not as I do" righties...which all of them areLets see Jimmy Carter had brother Billy, Hillary is getting tens of millions from all over the world
I "sort of" believe him when he claimed not to be paying for sex, as it appears that someone else was paying for influence.
I am always surprised how hypocritical "Hobbyists" are where it comes to famous people getting caught doing EXACTLY what they do. Remember how quickly Tiger Woods was thrown under the bus on TER of all fucking places? What a tough fucking crowd of hypocrites. Yes, lets run Neil for POTUS, he can't possibly be worse than the current crop of candidates from both sides of the aisle. You of all people know just how much I dislike the "Hildabeast". For me to go on record stating that I will most likely end up voting for her should make it obvious just how bad a slate of candidates we have to choose from.
Posted By: Laffy
which I admit is not a lot, I don't think he's one of the crazies. Of course, that means he has zero chance like Huntsman had, who I think would have beaten Obama and who I would have voted for.
Bush, Bush the father, Dole, McCain, Reagan, Rommey...isn't that the same list you have? Lol.
Which were of those were one of the "crazies"? Republicans almost always nominate someone from the establishment, mainstream part of the party. Huntsman has minimal name recognition, had the charisma of a dead plant and kissed Barry's ass every chance he had. That's why he had no shot.Then Hillary is clearly mentally unstable and shouldn't be president for her "being under snipe fire" crock of shit when she deplaned in Bosnia, correct?
I mean that was certifiably crazy for no one else present confirms her delusion and in fact, they ALL say it did NOT happen. We agree Laff?That's how she remembered that "incident." Why can't delusion be the cause of her statement?
And while it's true most politicians lie, most of them certainly don't lie to that ridiculous degree where they know others that were present would call her out as they did. Isn't it true when most people lie they think they won't be caught? Hills had to know she would be caught, making her a total nut case. And to rip Mitt for his beliefs while giving Hills a pass is absurd. She believes in a God that always was and will always be and his Son, who died and came back to life. If his is a fairy tale, how is hers not??????? Your logic is faulty.Give me a fucking break, no religion is the slightest bit dumber than another, they are all equally ridiculous. To give mainstream Christianity a pass over any other fairy tale is just being intellectually dishonest. You could have come to the same conclusion about GW "just saying it to get votes" he was a coke head in his youth after all.
Sorry Laffy, but you are being every bit as dishonest and hypocritical as those you claim to despise....so he feels cheated out of the glory. He's trying to re-live those days vicariously by getting today's young men and women killed all over the world.
You'd think that all that time spent being tortured in the Hanoi Hilton would dissuade him from being such a war monger but it hasn't...because he's insane!Posted By: Laffy
He thinks the answer to EVERY foreign problem is BOMB THEM. If he had been elected, we'd either have used nukes by now or re-instated the draft because of all the countries he thinks we should have invaded. And then picking Palin. Not only that he picked her, but how. He met her for about 15 minutes and his staff admitted they really didn't vet her.
Anyone that picks their VP that way, especially when you're as old as he was, is an idiot. And it turned out she's the biggest moron in the country.
I'd also add Bush Jr to that list. Anyone that thinks we could invade Iraq.....freaking Iraq.....get rid of the military and be out in 5 months is certified insane. And that's not even counting hiring a bunch of Pat Robertson clones to work in the White House.
Not only that, the biggest reason he got re-elected was by pandering to all the homophobes and getting anti-gay laws on so many ballots across the country. They RAN to vote for them....and while there, voted for him too.
Oh, and RayGun is the one that kicked off the whole "Moral Majority" crap by pandering to those fruit cakes.
http://archives.politicususa.com/2011/08/20/the-rise-of-american-fundamentalism-the-reagan-decade.html
..to blur the lines between movies and reality by referring to himself as The Gipper.
George Gipp was Notre Dame's first All-American. Reagan was a two-bit football player at Eureka, a two-bit college. Can you explain how Reagan resembled Gipp in any way, shape or form? The only way Gipp and Reagan are similar is that Gipp died at age 25 due to strep throat because antibiotics hadn't been invented yet. Reagan and the reactionary Republicans yearn for the olden, golden days when life was simpler and better...and where people died of strep throat because there were no antibiotics. In 1988, Reagan gave his farewell speech at the Republican National Convention. This is what he said to George H.W. Bush: "But, George, just one personal request: Go out there and win one for the Gipper." http://www.ff.org/ronald-reagans-farewell-address-to-the-88-republican-national-convention/ He called himself The Gipper because he thought he was The Gipper -- he was insane!I know you'll place high.
Reagan played George Gipp in the 1940 Knute Rockne film and was given the nickname thereafter. What do you have against Eureka College? Did they reject your application way back when?-- Modified on 6/15/2015 2:10:11 AM
...best film role and the best movie he was in. "King's Row" was nominated for four Academy Awards, including Best Film and Best Director. Reagan acknowledged that the film made him a star. His nickname should have been "Drake" for Drake McHugh, his character's name in "King's Row."
"Kings Row" is famous for Reagan's line: "Where's the REST of me?!?! Indeed, the line was so famous that Reagan used it for the title of his 1965 biography. Why didn't he use the line: "Win one for the Gipper" for the title of his autobiography if "Knute Rockne, All American" was his most popular movie? Also, "Knute Rockne..." was nominated for ZERO awards. Reagan's FIRST nickname was "Dutch" which his father gave him shortly after birth because his father said he looked like a "fat little Dutchman." The nickname was later reinforced by his Dutchboy haircut. "Dutch" was the nickname he had for most of his life and the nickname that his friends called him. "The Gipper" was a PR nickname to make him seem heroic and to appeal to hero-worshiping Republican morons like you. Who's lying? YOU! Or else you're just talking out of your uninformed ass.Posted By: ed2000
I know you'll place high. Reagan played George Gipp in the 1940 Knute Rockne film and was given the nickname thereafter.
What do you have against Eureka College? Did they reject your application way back when?
is every bit as dumb as believing in Magic Underwear. Once you reach a certain threshold of believing "anything" no matter how ridiculous, degrees of dumb after that are meaningless.
and please tell me why it is dumber to believe a fairy tale written in "modern times" than it is to believe in a fairy tale written thousands of years ago? Dumb is dumb, regardless of when it was written."Can you explain how Reagan resembled Gipp in any way, shape or form?"
ThanksThis coming from the guy who has said repeatedly that 70% of Americans believe the world is only 6,000 years old.
You can't have it both ways, Stupid is stupid. Claiming that someone with an IQ of 40 is dumber than a person with an IQ of 41 is hardly worth quibbling over. and since when does a quote from a fairy tale count as evidence that the fairy tale is any less dumb. Claiming there were witnesses thousands of years ago means nothing. Except maybe that they were even bigger liars than John Smith or L Ron Hubbard.Here is Mormonism explained plainly. lol
Related Link: Dumb Dumb Dumb
Are we going to have a nation of Blue hairs, Cougars, and MILFS sporting DOT approved helmet hair with high-lites that defies wind up to 50mph? Reagan had such hair. Obama went the route of the "Ceaser" cut.
It is disturbingly sobering how ultimately pervasive "handlers" PR, product placement and playing to a flag draped, jingle loving, uninformed, over worked, fear mongering media fed voter is. Jeb Bush is by all comparison a mediocre Moderate Republican and former Governor. But he has the nod because of dynasty and subsequent financial backing never before seen in American politics. Hillary; an ambitious, politically gifted former First Lady, Secretary of State, and arguably carpetbagging Senator is poised at becoming our first woman President.She will also enjoy equal if not more "financial backing never before seen in American politics" from MANY of the same LARGE doners supporting JEB and much of his brother GW's Administration. So far I'm NOT impressed, and I'd like to see the primary process continue. If these two candidates are presumed at this early in the process the MESSAGE that is associated with the 'also-ran' is serendipitously, as well as insidiously silenced
At this point in the '08 race, Hillary was already being anointed the Democratic nominee.
It is way too soon to be calling the race for even the nominees, much less the overall victor. Remember that moron Priapussy? At least we don't have him giving us the hourly polling results well over a year out. It really is a bit depressing though to think that those two are the very best this country has to offer.Every irony meter I have is off the fucking chart. lma
Believing in an invisible man in the sky is beyond stupid, why should I give two fucks if stupid people think I am stupid?
Any one who lives their entire life based upon either a modern day fairy tale or an ancient fairy tale is so far beyond stupid that the varying degrees of stupidity are completely irrelevant to me, as is their opinion of me. I would think that you of all people would get that concept instead of trying to rate the degrees of dumbness between all of the thousands of idiotic religions in this world.The less they get done, the less they fuck up is my motto.
I haven't paid much attention to Bernie yet, I'll have to get back to you after I know enough to actually have an opinion about the man. I know it's not common practice around here, but I like to actually know what candidate stands for before either supporting or bashing him. I guess it would be easier to be like Hadji or NuGuy where they can just look at the R or D in front of a name and know all they need to about the person. That's why I consider their opinions equally worthless. They don't even have opinions of their own, they just let their respective party leaders tell them who to support and who to hate.The short answer is "I don't have enough information to come up with a BELIEF" Quite frankly, not only do I not know "the meaning of life" but neither does anyone else. So, if you need to shoehorn my beliefs or lack thereof, the most accurate label would be "agnostic".
and I CLEARLY said, at least the first ten times, until I got tired of saying the same thing over and over, "Once you get past a certain threshold" Dumb is just dumb. Is there a discernable difference between a 120 IQ and 100? Of course there is. Is there a noticeable difference between a score of 100 and 80? Once again, of course there is, but is there any real difference between an IQ of 50 and 40? NO, there is not, If that doesn't illustrate my point, I am going to simply give up trying, and I might as well just give up on this conversation as I can't make my position on the subject any more clear
Posted By: Laffy
You may not agree with his politics, but at least the dude tells you what he really believes. And he wouldn't be able to do 75% of what he wanted anyway with the GOP controlling Congress.
But if the entire field of possibilities are impugned and discounted before they have a chance to voice their message where are we as a democracy?