GOP'ish candidates

[transjen]

I feel the GOP should save time and just have each canadate give a speech and which ever one mentions Ronald Reagan the most time wins
Jerseygirl Jen

[paladin68]

Originally Posted by ila

Then do you also agree that it's also ridiculous to blame George W. Bush for job losses that occured during his terms?

Only if they are rational, my friend.

[smc]

There's a great Letter to the Editor in today's issue of The Boston Globe:

I have seen Mitt Romney?s former company, Bain Capital, referred to as "vulture capitalists.?" I don?t think that?s accurate.

Vultures, at least, wait until something is dead before profiting from it by killing, eviscertaing, and consuming it. This comparison is unfair to vultures.

Hey, Jen, I thought you might get a particular kick out of it!

[transjen]

Originally Posted by smc

There's a great Letter to the Editor in today's issue of The Boston Globe:

I have seen Mitt Romney’s former company, Bain Capital, referred to as "vulture capitalists.’" I don’t think that’s accurate.

Vultures, at least, wait until something is dead before profiting from it by killing, eviscertaing, and consuming it. This comparison is unfair to vultures.

Hey, Jen, I thought you might get a particular kick out of it!

While i'm not surpised to hear that Mitt profitted from doing away with jobs what i do find surpising is to hear these charges from his own party

After all this is what the GOP fight and stand for the rich getting richer and the midclass becoming the new poor
Mitt is so full of it when he claims Bain was in business to make jobs
WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP Bain was in busness for Mitt and his partners to make money by gutting companies and taking the profits and run
and now the GOP is blasting Newt and Perry for attacking Mitt on his suscess
Mitt's and the rest of the GOP agenda is for a race to the bottom
low pay jobs no workers rights no rules turn the clock back to the days of the robber barons
Jerseygirl Jen

[transjen]

Stuff the GOP and Mitt want you to not know
http://youtu.be/Ay0UAeUmrWQ

Jerseygirl Jen

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by transjen

Stuff the GOP and Mitt want you to not know
http://youtu.be/Ay0UAeUmrWQ

Jerseygirl Jen

Now that is one of the ironies of this corporate personhood nonsense I never noticed. Thanks for the video Jen.

[smc]

Originally Posted by transjen

Stuff the GOP and Mitt want you to not know
http://youtu.be/Ay0UAeUmrWQ

Jerseygirl Jen

I love that John Lithgow agreed to narrate.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by smc

I love that John Lithgow agreed to narrate.

For a while there I thought it was Dan Aykroyd narrating.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by parr

TRACY, ANY ONE OF THE GOP'S EXEPT RON PAUL, WOULD SURELY BE THE
LESSER OF THE EVILS, DON'T YOU THINK.

I think Ron Paul would be a much better choice against Obama. He wouldn't be my first pick against Obama. Sure he'd slash government, but he'd also make us an isolationist country. We should pull back in some parts of the world, but not all. And I couldn't picture the leader of our country with a whiney voice like his. He's another religious nutjob, but who on the GOP side isn't? But yeah, I'd take him over BO.

[randolph]

When all of these idiots crash in flames, my bet is that waiting in the wings is Jeb Bush. He is an intelligent experienced politician with a Hispanic wife and of course he is a member of the bush dynasty.
Also, he is the one who could beat Obama.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

When all of these idiots crash in flames, my bet is that waiting in the wings is Jeb Bush. He is an intelligent experienced politician with a Hispanic wife and of course he is a member of the bush dynasty.
Also, he is the one who could beat Obama.

After the 2010 routing of the democrats as a result of BO's, Pelosi's & Reid's agenda you'd have to wonder how BO has any chance in 2012. But on the other hand, I know it will be difficult... not sure why. I guess because BO somehow got elected in the first place.

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

After the 2010 routing of the democrats as a result of BO's, Pelosi's & Reid's agenda you'd have to wonder how BO has any chance in 2012. But on the other hand, I know it will be difficult... not sure why. I guess because BO somehow got elected in the first place.

An we all see how well that worked out

they are the least productive house of reps of all time and cost us out top credit rating by almost shutting down the goverment and refusing to make any kind of deal what so even
BO has an excellent chance of a second term and the chances improve when the remaining for bozos only answer is trickle down cut taxes and bring out the Reagan playbook in other words lets go back to the same policies that started this mess to start with
Face the cold hard facts the whole GOP strongly believe in closing your eyes and hoping things fix themselves
Jerseygirl Jen

[transjen]

Originally Posted by randolph

When all of these idiots crash in flames, my bet is that waiting in the wings is Jeb Bush. He is an intelligent experienced politician with a Hispanic wife and of course he is a member of the bush dynasty.
Also, he is the one who could beat Obama.

Buddy Holly said it a long time ago
THAT'LL BE THE DAY
jERSEYGIRL jEN

[randolph]

I am beginning to think the unthinkable. What if Jeb Bush (a moderate Republican) was elected President and Congress was controlled by the Republicans. What would happen?
Would they pull together and do things for the country? Or--would they turn the country into a full fledged plutocracy.
Continuing the way things are is very bad for the country with endless logjams bickering and stalemates, we have no effective government. For more years of this and we could see a real depression with violence in the streets.
We should be taking a close look at the Wiemar Republic.

[transjen]

take a GOP president add a GOP controled house then add a GOP controled senate and add the lop sided GOP controled unsurpme court that equals the USA being a thrid world country
plus look at the top three remaining canadates and we'll be reliving the holy crusades
Jerseygirl Jen

[randolph]

Originally Posted by transjen

take a GOP president add a GOP controled house then add a GOP controled senate and add the lop sided GOP controled unsurpme court that equals the USA being a thrid world country
plus look at the top three remaining canadates and we'll be reliving the holy crusades
Jerseygirl Jen

Yeah, one of the top three could put us into the stone age with Islamists paddling over here in rowboats.

[transjen]

Originally Posted by randolph

Yeah, one of the top three could put us into the stone age with Islamists paddling over here in rowboats.

A president Mitt or president Newt or president Rick will have us refighting the holy crusades and will unleash a nucler hellacaust sending who ever is left in to the stoneages
Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

An we all see how well that worked out

they are the least productive house of reps of all time and cost us out top credit rating by almost shutting down the goverment and refusing to make any kind of deal what so even

Jen, it's time to wake up. What I'm about to show you may come as a shock, but it's from the real world.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7746VF20110806

The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics.

The article goes on to say:

On August 2, President Barack Obama signed legislation designed to reduce the fiscal deficit by $2.1 trillion over 10 years. But that was well short of the $4 trillion in savings S&P had called for as a good "down payment" on fixing America's finances.

That's why we lost our AAA credit rating - because we didn't cut enough. So ask yourself, why has the House been ineffective? Because Obama - the guy who's $2.1 trillion plan falls short of the $4 trillion requirement - has veto power. If any part of this isn't clear please speak up now, otherwise I know I'll have to drudge up facts again.

Originally Posted by transjen

BO has an excellent chance of a second term ...

As long as people ignore the facts...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM8Srpu8es8

[randolph]

Re: Obama's speech.
Where has this guy been?

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Jen, it's time to wake up. What I'm about to show you may come as a shock, but it's from the real world.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7746VF20110806

The article goes on to say:

That's why we lost our AAA credit rating - because we didn't cut enough. So ask yourself, why has the House been ineffective? Because Obama - the guy who's $2.1 trillion plan falls short of the $4 trillion requirement - has veto power. If any part of this isn't clear please speak up now, otherwise I know I'll have to drudge up facts again.


As long as people ignore the facts...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM8Srpu8es8

And who's fault is that they didn't give him a bill with the 4 trillion cut?

Have you forgotton the BS from the Tea party wing of the GOP who refused to make or agree to anything unless social security was ended while the rich have there taxes lowered even more
THE BIGGEST PART OF THE ENTIRE DEFICT IS FROM w'S TAX CUTS AND HIS UNFONDED WARS
and the teaparty refuses to make the rich start paying there share
Nice to see you still live in the land of make believe the land that holds W and the GOP blameless for everything
and once people fully listen to the GOP plans to fix everything is going back to the same old failed polices of Reagan Bush and Bush just cut taxes for the rich and everyone will live happy ever after
welcome to the world of make believe folks our god is Ronald Reagan and our patron saint is any one named Bush
and our gods number one rule is the rich shall never be taxed after all thats what the poor are for
Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

And who's fault is that they didn't give him a bill with the 4 trillion cut?

BO's. He would veto anything with cuts that big.

Originally Posted by transjen

Have you forgotton the BS from the Tea party wing of the GOP who refused to make or agree to anything unless social security was ended while the rich have there taxes lowered even more

I believe their demands were no new taxes

blame bush crap snipped

Originally Posted by transjen

and the teaparty refuses to make the rich start paying there share

The rich do pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. We went over this.

Originally Posted by transjen

Nice to see you still live in the land of make believe the land that holds W and the GOP blameless for everything
and once people fully listen to the GOP plans to fix everything is going back to the same old failed polices of Reagan Bush and Bush just cut taxes for the rich and everyone will live happy ever after

Was W pushing for higher cuts? No. Was W pushing for lower cuts? No. New taxes? No. Anything? No. HE WASN'T IN OFFICE LAST SUMMER! Stick to the subject. You were talking about how the house of reps cost us our credit rating. They were pushing for larger cuts last summer but BO would veto anything higher than $2.1 trillion in cuts. That's why we lost our credit rating.

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

BO's. He would veto anything with cuts that big.

I believe their demands were no new taxes

blame bush crap snipped
The rich do pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. We went over this.

Was W pushing for higher cuts? No. Was W pushing for lower cuts? No. New taxes? No. Anything? No. HE WASN'T IN OFFICE LAST SUMMER! Stick to the subject. You were talking about how the house of reps cost us our credit rating. They were pushing for larger cuts last summer but BO would veto anything higher than $2.1 trillion in cuts. That's why we lost our credit rating.

That was all the teaparty wanted to do was cut cut and put all the burden on the poor, everyone but the GOP said point blank that cuts plus raising taxes were need but the teaparty was all cuts and wouldn't give they wanted the goverment to shot down they said we can then pick and choose what bills get paid BO didn't say those things the teaparty did news flash the GOP are at fault
It was W's taxcuts the teaparty didn't want to touch so in away he was involved
So your with Mitt and Newt crying boo hoo hoo the rich pay to much and the poor don't pay enought
Jerseygirl Jen

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

The rich do pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. We went over this.

This is bullshit, and you know it. The rich -- e.g., Romney -- are in a position to "earn" their "income" via non-work (capital gains) and pay armies of accountants to find every possible loophole (created for them).

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit ... and more bullshit.

[transjen]

Of course you do know that if the teaparty would have been willing to work with the president instead of demanding our way or nothing a deal for the 4 trillion could have been reached in a fair way consisting of the 2 trillion in cuts and ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich consisting of 2 trillion that would have gave us the 4 trillion needed
But the teaparty wanted nothing to do with makeing rich people going from a base rate of 30% up to 33% base rate and as Mitt has shown he already pays nowhere near 30% and yet the GOP cry his taxes are to to high
Jerseygirl Jen

[transjen]

So Newt wants to have a fully up and running moonbase on the moon by the end of his second term
Now all the GOP bozos are screaming about the trillons of debit and want to cut everything and yet here's Newt wanting to waste trillions on a dream
didn't we learn a lesson after showing a brain dead move actor Star Wars Reagan came up with his Star War defence system that cost us billions of wasted funds for a mini deathstar that was surposed to orbit the earth and be able to fire a deatray anywhere on the planet
So i guess someone showed Newt an old sci-fi tv show and like Reagan he comes up with a huge money wasting idea
http://youtu.be/vt8Nb2SbKog
who ever showed Newt this show needs a foot up his ass
Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

That was all the teaparty wanted to do was cut cut and put all the burden on the poor

It was Obama who put the burden on the poor when he spent trillions on useless stimulus packages without raising taxes. Because it's going to have to be paid off sometime, and even if the rich paid all their money into taxes it wouldn't be enough, so the poor MUST help pay off the debt as well eventually. And yes, that was Obama's decision not to raise taxes.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

So Newt wants to have a fully up and running moonbase on the moon by the end of his second term
Now all the GOP bozos are screaming about the trillons of debit and want to cut everything and yet here's Newt wanting to waste trillions on a dream
didn't we learn a lesson after showing a brain dead move actor Star Wars Reagan came up with his Star War defence system that cost us billions of wasted funds for a mini deathstar that was surposed to orbit the earth and be able to fire a deatray anywhere on the planet
So i guess someone showed Newt an old sci-fi tv show and like Reagan he comes up with a huge money wasting idea
http://youtu.be/vt8Nb2SbKog
who ever showed Newt this show needs a foot up his ass
Jerseygirl Jen

A mini deathstar? I never heard about that one lol. Reagan knew the starwars defense system wasn't feasible but we acted like we were developing it anyway. It was a scam. The russians spent billions trying to counter it and spent themselves into a hole. The Soviet Union collapsed trying to keep up with 1) what we actually had, and 2) what they thought we had. Brilliant move.

A moon colony has nothing to do with a real or imagined missile defense system. I'm in the business and while I'd love to see it happen I doubt it will at least not in 8 years, because yes, it will be expensive. What Newt is trying to do is create incentives for private industry to spend mostly their own money to develop the technologies that will eventually become profitable (like our aviation industry did in the 30s & 40s) for them with space tourism and access to literally worlds of resources beyond earth orbit. If it works even half as well as he hopes it will be profitable.

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

It was Obama who put the burden on the poor when he spent trillions on useless stimulus packages without raising taxes. Because it's going to have to be paid off sometime, and even if the rich paid all their money into taxes it wouldn't be enough, so the poor MUST help pay off the debt as well eventually. And yes, that was Obama's decision not to raise taxes.

OH i forgot that W had nothing to do with most of the debit like his two unfonded wars and his tax cuts for the rich

You and the rest of the GOP are so quick to shove the debit that W ran up over to the current president
W was given a balanced budget and a surplus and he flush both away with his first round of tax cuts then he started two unfonded wars followed by another round of tax cuts for the rich
Obama was unable to raise taxs because the GOP scream if the rich have to pay taxs the world would end
If the taxs on the poor go up the GOP don't give a shit they only care about the rich not paying taxs
Taxs going up is a delayed FU from W
Jerseygirl Jen

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

A mini deathstar? I never heard about that one lol. Reagan knew the starwars defense system wasn't feasible but we acted like we were developing it anyway. It was a scam. The russians spent billions trying to counter it and spent themselves into a hole. The Soviet Union collapsed trying to keep up with 1) what we actually had, and 2) what they thought we had. Brilliant move.

WOW that's a major spin on Reagans stars wars defence system
But if that was just a big plot to get Russia to waste money trying to come up with an anti star wars defence system then why was it put in the budget for most of the 80s what did brain dead Reagan waste the money on?
oh wait i guess that paid for the weapons sent to Iran that Oliver North was the patsy for
by the by Russia didn't go bankrupt because of trying to make an anti star wars system it was the war in Afgan that bankrupted em
Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

But if that was just a big plot to get Russia to waste money trying to come up with an anti star wars defence system then why was it put in the budget for most of the 80s what did brain dead Reagan waste the money on?

SDI research. But it wasn't the mass infusion of money that you imply. It was just $5 billion/year. That's $2 billion more than cash for clunkers. A drop in the bucket. Nothing like the hundreds of billions it would take to actually implement it.

[GRH]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

What Newt is trying to do is create incentives for private industry to spend mostly their own money to develop the technologies that will eventually become profitable (like our aviation industry did in the 30s & 40s) for them with space tourism and access to literally worlds of resources beyond earth orbit. If it works even half as well as he hopes it will be profitable.

Wow, you're more delusional than I thought. I could have sworn that what Newt was trying to do was merely pander for votes in Florida. He's been a very "chicken in every pot" at each campaign stop he makes. If New Hampshire needs a bridge, let's promise a bridge! Florida lost jobs in the space industry, so let's promise more space industry jobs!

He talks about "incentivizing" the private industry to do most of the spending, but with promises of a "reward" for the winners. Who's going to pay for the "reward?" The taxpayers you can be certain. Pretty odd talk coming from a politician who alleges to be for cutting the size of government and government spending.

Further, comparing the $5 billion/year on Star Wars spending to the $2 billion spent on cash for clunkers is really an apples to oranges comparison because you're not adjusting 1980's dollars for inflation. $5 billion was worth a LOT more back then than it'd be worth today.

[ila]

Originally Posted by GRH

...I could have sworn that what Newt was trying to do was merely pander for votes in Florida. He's been a very "chicken in every pot" at each campaign stop he makes...

You're right that he is pandering for votes, but that's what the majority of policticians do.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by GRH

Wow, you're more delusional than I thought. I could have sworn that what Newt was trying to do was merely pander for votes in Florida.

Not sure what the attitude is all about but whatever. Newt has been known to have a higher than average interest in space, and many if the ideas he's proposed in Florida has been mentioned by him repeatedly long before he even started campaigning.

Originally Posted by GRH

He talks about "incentivizing" the private industry to do most of the spending, but with promises of a "reward" for the winners. Who's going to pay for the "reward?"

Who pays airlines after the aviation infrastructure had finally been put in place? Customers. Yes, it does take seed money from the government to get it started. Unfortunately the way it's been running is very inefficient with each new president wanting to play rocket scientist. But this time it's going to require a president with some interest in space to undo the damage Obama has done to our manned space program.

[TracyCoxx]

p.s. I am rather surprised by a move that Romney made. He's always struck me as someone who couldn't give a crap about space. In response to Newt's speeches on space he's said he's going to put together a team and study it. And I'm thinking, oh no, here we go again with another think tank to tell us what we all know, that Nasa should be X Y & Z but that Nasa is underfunded, but this time we're going to fund it, but then it never really gets funded and we're back to square one again.

You don't need another space commission to figure it out. The Aldridge Commission got it exactly right. They put together a plan for a space program that wasn't just about putting foot prints on the moon, or attempting to inspire kids with visions of astronauts floating around in the space station slurping up floating balls of tang. They saw the solar system as a place full of resources that could be tapped and put together a plan to build up our capabilities in space to live off the land and get it done. Obama had another commission, which concluded the Aldridge commission was right, but that it would cost more money. Unfortunately at that time Obama was done giving out trillion dollar bills, and the extra 3 billion was just too much. And I wasn't interested in Romney's commission doing the same thing over again and coming up with the same answer again while wasting another few years and more money.

Then I heard who his advisers are: Robert Crippen, Gene Cernan, and Michael Griffin. Three people... well maybe two (Robert Crippen's a great guy who was in the right place at the right time, but I'm talking about the elites) of probably around 10 who really could do this right. The best of the best. And Romney has them? He couldn't possibly know what to do with them.

[transjen]

So Mitt admits he can care less about poor people no surpise there after all he's GOP
then comes the lie he quickly states the poor have safetynets so they are fine
Excuss me but the GOP have for decades wanted and do everything they can to ripe to shreds any safenets that help the poor after all safenets that help the poor is socialism
So the poor have safetynets which he and the rest of the GOP have stated time and time agian there goal is to do away with all safety nets
Just a anoter from the GOP
Jerseygirl Jen

ps remember that an aborted baby can't grow up to become a died solider

[randolph]

The GOPers know the poor don't vote.

[randolph]

Watching the campaign rhetoric and behavior of the candidates, it's not hard to agree with some of the following.


From Huffpost,

Are racists dumb? Do conservatives tend to be less intelligent than liberals? A provocative new study from Brock University in Ontario suggests the answer to both questions may be a qualified yes.
The study, published in Psychological Science, showed that people who score low on I.Q. tests in childhood are more likely to develop prejudiced beliefs and socially conservative politics in adulthood.
I.Q., or intelligence quotient, is a score determined by standardized tests, but whether the tests truly reveal intelligence remains a topic of hot debate among psychologists.
Dr. Gordon Hodson, a professor of psychology at the university and the study's lead author, said the finding represented evidence of a vicious cycle: People of low intelligence gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, which stress resistance to change and, in turn, prejudice, he told LiveScience.
Why might less intelligent people be drawn to conservative ideologies? Because such ideologies feature "structure and order" that make it easier to comprehend a complicated world, Dodson said. "Unfortunately, many of these features can also contribute to prejudice," he added.
Dr. Brian Nosek, a University of Virginia psychologist, echoed those sentiments.
"Reality is complicated and messy," he told The Huffington Post in an email. "Ideologies get rid of the messiness and impose a simpler solution. So, it may not be surprising that people with less cognitive capacity will be attracted to simplifying ideologies."

But Nosek said less intelligent types might be attracted to liberal "simplifying ideologies" as well as conservative ones.
In any case, the study has taken the Internet by storm, with some outspoken liberals saying that it validates their suspicions about conservatives and conservatives arguing that the research has been misinterpreted.
What do you think? Do conservatives tend to be less intelligent? Or is this just political opinion masquerading as science?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Watching the campaign rhetoric and behavior of the candidates, it's not hard to agree with some of the following.


From Huffpost,

]]

I would agree with that about social conservatives. They're typified by right wing religious anti science conservatives such as those who have hijacked the tea party. I would also say that coming up with a balanced budget is a pretty easy IQ test. One which both parties fail at and Obama, Pelosi and other progressives spectacularly so.

[ila]

Originally Posted by randolph

Watching the campaign rhetoric and behavior of the candidates, it's not hard to agree with some of the following.


From Huffpost,

Junk science masquerading as legitimate fact.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

]]

I would agree with that about social conservatives. They're typified by right wing religious anti science conservatives such as those who have hijacked the tea party. I would also say that coming up with a balanced budget is a pretty easy IQ test. One which both parties fail at and Obama, Pelosi and other progressives spectacularly so.

Please tell me who has come up with a balanced budget in the past thirty years? It seems just about all politicians are stupid.

[randolph]

Some more food for thought.

Why Are Conservatives Happier Than Liberals?

1. Jaime L. Napier and
2. John T. Jost

+ Author Affiliations

1. New York University

1. Jaime L. Napier, Department of Psychology, New York University, 6 Washington Place, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10003?6634, e-mail: jnapier@nyu.edu.

Abstract

In this research, we drew on system-justification theory and the notion that conservative ideology serves a palliative function to explain why conservatives are happier than liberals. Specifically, in three studies using nationally representative data from the United States and nine additional countries, we found that right-wing (vs. left-wing) orientation is indeed associated with greater subjective well-being and that the relation between political orientation and subjective well-being is mediated by the rationalization of inequality. In our third study, we found that increasing economic inequality (as measured by the Gini index) from 1974 to 2004 has exacerbated the happiness gap between liberals and conservatives, apparently because conservatives (more than liberals) possess an ideological buffer against the negative hedonic effects of economic inequality.

Personally, I think this is BS. All the conservatives I know are pissed off all the time. LOL

[ila]

Originally Posted by randolph

...Personally, I think this is BS. All the conservatives I know are pissed off all the time. LOL

And liberals are happy all the time. Oops sorry, they aren't. They're usually too pissed off and railing at the conservatives to have any happiness in their lives.

But on second thought liberals are happiest when they're pissed off and ranting about conservatives. It's the whole purpose of their being.

[smc]

One of my students shared this with me this evening. I post it without comment.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Some more food for thought.

Why Are Conservatives Happier Than Liberals?

That one's easy...

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

That one's easy...

Sure is just look at the conseratives you have pictured

Take a good look and ask yourself what do they all have in common?
Answer they are all total whackjobs
And no one is happier then a total nut
Jerseygirl Jen

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

That one's easy...

It would be interesting to compare the IQs of those two groups of females.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

It would be interesting to compare the IQs of those two groups of females.

I'd take Miss Crowley's body & brains any time ... I'd keep my cock though

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I'd take Miss Crowley's body & brains any time ... I'd keep my cock though

Oh! I thought you were into Ann Coulter.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by ila

And liberals are happy all the time. Oops sorry, they aren't. They're usually too pissed off and railing at the conservatives to have any happiness in their lives.

But on second thought liberals are happiest when they're pissed off and ranting about conservatives. It's the whole purpose of their being.

The Republicans need to reincarnate Ronald Reagen and
The Democrats need to reincarnate Franklin Roosevelt then
everybody would be happy.
In the meantime

[ila]

Originally Posted by randolph

The Republicans need to reincarnate Ronald Reagen and
The Democrats need to reincarnate Franklin Roosevelt then
everybody would be happy...

Good one, Randolph.