# Romney Drops Out



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Or at least suspends his campaign. Does Huck toss in the towel too? Does this give the Repubs an edge with an early unification attempt in the partty while Hill and Barry continue to fight it out?


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> Or at least suspends his campaign. Does Huck toss in the towel too? Does this give the Repubs an edge with an early unification attempt in the partty while Hill and Barry continue to fight it out?


Wise move on Romney's part. He's a smart businessman and realized, that to prolong his bid, would prove fruitless at this point. Huck may toss in the towel in hopes of being a running mate.

If McCain taps Huck, the GOP will lose the Independents and the election. If McCain taps a moderate, one plausible scenario might be that Romney would reenter the race as a White Knight for the social conservatives...and essentially play spoiler, thus costing the GOP the election anyway. It would be a good strategy if Romney decides to run against a Democratic POTUS in four years...basically because he increased his street cred with the social conservatives by defending their position.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

And then there were three.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Or at least suspends his campaign. Does Huck toss in the towel too? Does this give the Repubs an edge with an early unification attempt in the partty while Hill and Barry continue to fight it out?


Problem is many Republicans simply will not support McCain.

I predict Obama in a landslide.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

When their taxes go up sharply and a lot of the more radical liberal stuff gets passed, they will regret it.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Beresford said:


> Problem is many Republicans simply will not support McCain.
> 
> I predict Obama in a landslide.


I certainly agree Barry is harder for McCain to beat. I think with a good VP choice though, McCain actually stands a 60/40 chance against Hillary. This is a change from my thoughts some months ago, as up until the last few months, I thought Hillary as POTUS was a given. I am not so sure now.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

All I can say at this point is that I am one Republican who will never ever ever vote for John McCain.

If a Democrat wants my vote, he ought to at least be honest enough to call himself a Democrat.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Jolly Roger,

So John McCain is a Democrat now? I think that you might be in the running for most dubious post of 2008 with that gem.

But there is no reasoning with those who think like you other to say you and your ilk don't deserve to be allowed to vote for McCain.

Karl

P.S. Your avatar certainly endorsed McCain.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> I think with a good VP choice though, McCain actually stands a 60/40 chance against Hillary.


If not Huck, then whom? Though I doubt Lieberman would be a good pick, there are some good choices...Lindsey Graham, Jon Huntsman, Olympia Snowe, Saxby Chambliss...

I doubt Romney's pride would allow him to accept a spot on the ticket. Besides, there was too much rancor between Romney and McCain.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I've stated my disilluion with all the candidates before. I'm still not sure if Ralph got the Green nod or not. Our public media is to busy with Britney and the one year anniversary of Anna Nicole's passing to bother.I just hope it isn't that transgendered, organic beekeeper. So we all pretty much agree our next POTUS will not be a stellar choice, quite probably a one term failure like Carter as we slip from one malaise into another. This frightens me. I look at our society and wonder where, or from where our 'leaders' are being groomed?We've survived various 'eras' before,with shipwrecks by both spectrums. The scary part is we seem to be sailing the whole fleet straight into the rocks this time, using some mythos of belief not unlike maps that said 'here lie dragons, unknown or THE EDGE.'


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Kav,

I thought you were at least sympathetic to McCain. What changed?

Karl


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Romney's withdrawal demonstrates his real Republican credentials and his superior intellect, taking one for the team, and was a brilliant political move. I repeat, in an effort to recapture from Jolly Roger my standing as the front runner for Karl89's "most dubious" post of 2008, Romney/Keyes in 2012!


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Jolly Roger,
> 
> So John McCain is a Democrat now? I think that you might be in the running for most dubious post of 2008 with that gem.
> 
> ...


I agree completely with Jolly Roger. McCain is a phony of the first water, and has done incredible damage to the GOP already. Just research his record. He's backstabbed the Republicans and sided with the Dems every chance he could. I certainly hope he gets an icy reception today at the Conservative conference.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

TMMKC said:


> If McCain taps Huck, the GOP will lose the Independents and the election. If McCain taps a moderate, one plausible scenario might be that Romney would reenter the race as a White Knight for the social conservatives...and essentially play spoiler, thus costing the GOP the election anyway.


Given that I keep hearing that a large segment of the Republican base hates McCain, isn't it riskier for McCain to choose a moderate as a running mate? Wouldn't the smart move be to shore up his base support by selecting someone more conservative than he is? Could he do that and defuse the woman/minority issue by picking Condoleeza Rice? Sure, she was worse than inept as National Security Advisor, and almost invisible as Secretary of State, but since her main foreign policy position is that we must defeat the Soviet Union in the cold war, maybe that will appeal to the geopolitical views of the conservative Republicans.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

whomewhat,

Don't worry you still have time. Its not so much that I find Romney implausible as the 2012 nominee (he could very well be and I would vote for him) but there is absolutely no chance that Keyes will ever serve in a Republican adm. again let alone be on the ticket.

Karl


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Given that I keep hearing that a large segment of the Republican base hates McCain, isn't it riskier for McCain to choose a moderate as a running mate? Wouldn't the smart move be to shore up his base support by selecting someone more conservative than he is? Could he do that and defuse the woman/minority issue by picking Condoleeza Rice? Sure, she was worse than inept as National Security Advisor, and almost invisible as Secretary of State, but since her main foreign policy position is that we must defeat the Soviet Union in the cold war, maybe that will appeal to the geopolitical views of the conservative Republicans.


Condi Rice? No, Jesus wants women to stay in the kitchen and be obedient to their husbands. She will not appeal to the base, think about what you just said Jack - :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Jolly Roger said:


> All I can say at this point is that I am one Republican who will never ever ever vote for John McCain.
> 
> If a Democrat wants my vote, he ought to at least be honest enough to call himself a Democrat.


I've heard this a lot lately from conservatives...calling McCain a Democrat and such. I think the details get lost in the debate...exactly why does McCain give conservatives the willies? The bulk of his voting record would indicate that it shouldn't (unlike Romney).

Do conservatives doubt McCain's conviction or sincerity? Was it his vote on campaign reform? His stance on immigration? Or, was it his vote against the tax cuts? What?

Jolly Roger, I am not baiting you or anything, I would just like to know exactly why conservatives despise McCain so much.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

Karl89 said:


> Jolly Roger,
> 
> So John McCain is a Democrat now?


Essentially, yes. Unless one mistakenly believes that open borders, restrictions of free speech, perpetuation of entitlement programs, and billions of dollars wasted on overseas ventures are conservative positions, one cannot also think that McCain subscribes to a traditional Republican platform.



> I think that you might be in the running for most dubious post of 2008 with that gem.


Do you say that almost every time someone posts something you don't agree with?



> But there is no reasoning with those who think like you other to say you and your ilk don't deserve to be allowed to vote for McCain.


So now you want to disenfranchise traditional conservatives and take away our right to vote? Spoken like a true McCain supporter. I bet you think McCain-Feingold was a swell idea, don't you?



> P.S. Your avatar certainly endorsed McCain.


By saying twenty years ago, before McCain ever darkened the Senate chambers and showed his true colors, that he'd be a better choice than Democrat Rich Kimble? Hardly a ringing endorsement.

Let's look at who endorses him now. Let's see... We have the New York Times, Joe Lieberman, and the open-borders gun-grabber Rudolph Giuliani.

Hmmm...


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

My VP for McCain:

https://www.gov.state.ak.us/

Palin brings executive experience, she understands energy policy and given the fact Alaska has a state fund, she would be well equiped to deal with issues regarding sovereign wealth funds. Plus she's reliable on conservative issues.

Plus her son recently enlisted in the US Army. Between McCain's two youngest sons (one at Annapolis, the other in Iraq with the USMC) and Palin's son in the Army this would be one adm. that would be sharing the burden.

Karl


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> whomewhat,
> 
> Don't worry you still have time. Its not so much that I find Romney implausible as the 2012 nominee (he could very well be and I would vote for him) but there is absolutely no chance that Keyes will ever serve in a Republican adm. again let alone be on the ticket.
> 
> Karl


And while I agree that you are probably right about Alan Keyes, to quote Laura Ingraham, who introduced Romney today: "[Alan Keyes] is the conservative's conservative." He is a superb public speaker and is very knowledgable about the issues. As a conservative, how can I not like the man?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I keep hearing a buzz lately about women following the biblical prescription for social demaner and roles. Can somebody tell me the source? As my priest points out, Jesus was denied by everyone EXCEPT the women who stayed with him in his agony, saw to his proper burial and first witnessed his resurrection. The Bible, a work of Man and God isn't the final word alone, but with tradition based on their actions is. Karl, I remain sympathetic to McCain. If nothing else, he is a military man who I believe can sort out the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

whomewhat,

Well Keyes is a bit of a nut (though I admire his commitment to the pro-life cause) and he was very shabby to his daughter when it emerged that she was a lesbian.

Karl


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Do conservatives doubt McCain's conviction or sincerity? Was it his vote on campaign reform? His stance on immigration? Or, was it his vote against the tax cuts?


Yes, it was.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Phinn,

McCain has NEVER voted to raise taxes. Even Reagan raised taxes. 

Karl


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

McCain's VP:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Portman


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=504991&postcount=2


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

This is nothing if not an interesting process. Burak is the first serious black candidate. Yet my many black friends, and I hate even having to make such a distinction, all agree he is about as much a part of the black american experience as Pee Wee Herman. Yet he of fresh ideas is crying in desperation that Hillary has dirt on her the republicans will use while sidestepping his own cocaine use and question of religosity ( the Jefferson koran.) And Hillary, the first female contender ? We've seen the wives of deceased politicians take on their duties from Sonny Bono to Katherine the Great. But will Bill be poisoned or put into an iron mask (and condom.) and finally Mitt Romney. It was Theordore Roosevelt who first nominated a LDS to national office with a long hue and cry.I think he was crying like Obama a little unsportsmanlike over Huckabee remaining in the race. All these candidates have certainly widened the perspective of who can run for POTUS. What they fail to grasp is it is still an 'old boys' network and if you want in the club leave the bluejeans and Oprah at home and read the club rules to join. Then try to change them.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

Kav said:


> and finally Mitt Romney. It was Theordore Roosevelt who first nominated a LDS to national office with a long hue and cry.I think he was crying like Obama a little unsportsmanlike over Huckabee remaining in the race.


It was funny hearing Romney shed crocodile tears over the "back room deals" that cost him WV, since his people came to us and offered us an even sweeter deal than Huckabee did.

Romney's people promised Paul five delegates if we'd vote for him in the second round of voting, but we had a long-standing agreement with the Huckabee camp that if either of us got knocked out in the first round of voting, we'd vote for the other guy in the second round in exchange for three of the delegates.

Whatever Huckabee's shortcomings, his supporters have always treated us with respect, and we had no reason to trust Romney enough to renege on our agreement with the Huckabeans and throw our votes to Romney instead.

Three of Huck's 18 WV delegates have already resigned and appointed Paul delegates in their places. Now we move forward to securing the remaining 9 delegates in the May primary.


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

Kav said:


> ....and question of religosity .


You sure you got the right guy?

I think Keith Ellison of Minnesota used that (Jefferson Koran) in his swearing in as the first Moslim Member of Congress. Fox News got it.

Obama is a Christian. If it matters to you.

-zen


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

tabasco said:


> Obama is a Christian. If it matters to you.
> 
> -zen


Nah, being a politician is incompatible with being a Christian. Or, a member in good standing of any religion. Or, being an aetheist of good conscience.
:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Phinn, McCain has NEVER voted to raise taxes. Even Reagan raised taxes.


I believe the question related to McCain's refusal to vote for tax _cuts_, not whether he ever voted for tax _increases_.

In any event, I am only reporting what I believe to be one of the reasons that conservatives despise McCain. I, however, am not a conservative. I am a free-market libertarian.

There is a contingent within the conservative movement that is in favor of limited, decentralized government and free markets. But beyond that area of common ground (and my _cultural_ affinity for conservatives, given my affinity for neckties, ironing my clothes, and my distaste for hippies), I have no substantial agreement with conservatives.

Unfortunately, today's free-market contingent within the Republican Party is small, shrinking, and out of favor. They have been forced to the back of the proverbial bus in the Republican Party.

Bush is not a free-market proponent. Even Reagan, the supposed heir to Goldwater himself, managed to reign over a period of such immense growth in the federal budget that I start to choke whenever I think about it.

I should also mention that, largely due to having lived through the Reagan years and seen pretty much everything in Reagan's pro-free-market rhetoric be betrayed over and over again, I don't much care for tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts are not a mark in Bush's favor when counting up his free-market credentials.

The only thing that really matters is government spending. *All government spending IS a tax.* Government spending can _only_ come from:

(a) overt taxes, 
(b) borrowing (which is only a deferred tax because bonds must be repaid through later tax revenues) and 
(c) inflation, through the use of a central bank or other currency regulation.

Reagan and Bush II engaged in (b) and (c) on a disgusting scale. McCain has given me no reason whatsoever to believe he will not be as bad or worse.


----------



## cdcro (Jan 23, 2008)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> When their taxes go up sharply and a lot of the more radical liberal stuff gets passed, they will regret it.


like 750 billion in defense spending, the greatest amount spent, adjusted for inflation, since the end of wwII. or were you referencing other radical programs


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

cdcro said:


> like 750 billion in defense spending, the greatest amount spent, adjusted for inflation, since the end of wwII. or were you referencing other radical programs


A fairer comparison would be as a percentage of GDP. In 1943-1945 military spending was at or above 37% of the total GDP for each year. Including all supplemental spending bills, miilitary spending today is around 18% of GDP.


----------



## cdcro (Jan 23, 2008)

agnash said:


> A fairer comparison would be as a percentage of GDP. In 1943-1945 military spending was at or above 37% of the total GDP for each year. Including all supplemental spending bills, miilitary spending today is around 18% of GDP.


i'll concede on that point, my father in law is an engineer for lockheed, so i guess you guys are paying for my inheritence:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Agnash,



agnash said:


> A fairer comparison would be as a percentage of GDP. In 1943-1945 military spending was at or above 37% of the total GDP for each year. Including all supplemental spending bills, miilitary spending today is around 18% of GDP.


Stunningly wrong, but don't take my word for it, to wit;

https://www.slate.com/id/2183592

"Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said recently that, quite apart from the wars, the nation should get used to spending 4 percent of its gross domestic product on defense. This isn't an unreasonable sum in terms of what the nation can afford. But the same could be said of many other functions of government. It has very little to do with what the nation needs. The $515.4 billion in the base line Defense Department budget amounts to 3.4 percent of GNP. Is that not enough? Should we throw in another $85 billion to boost it to 4 percent? The relevant question, in any case, should be not how much we spend, but what we buy."


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

*"suspended" "country at war"*

Sounds to me Romney's going to keep his powder dry and re-group. I didn't hear "abandon", delegate release, support for "fellow republicans".

Here is a man younger than McClain, & probably has another shot at it the presidency. I cannot see him holding out for VP. We'll see him again.

Now, does have "have" delegates that he can "control" ? I don't follow it that close. What will THEY do?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

TMMKC said:


> I've heard this a lot lately from conservatives...calling McCain a Democrat and such. I think the details get lost in the debate...exactly why does McCain give conservatives the willies? The bulk of his voting record would indicate that it shouldn't (unlike Romney).
> 
> Do conservatives doubt McCain's conviction or sincerity? Was it his vote on campaign reform? His stance on immigration? Or, was it his vote against the tax cuts? What?
> 
> Jolly Roger, I am not baiting you or anything, I would just like to know exactly why conservatives despise McCain so much.


I'm as conservative as they come I think and I love Romney. I have given money to him. He's a little weak on guns, but he's a Yankee. Most of them are. I don't really care because it won't affect me one way or the other.

He's not a flip-flopper in my view because he has not changed back and forth. He did make a fundamental change on being pro-life as public policy before he had any governing record and as a governor he did not change and was consistent and vocal.

I personally wrote him a bunch of letters over the last year some specifically about the gun issue even responding to one of his sons. I also have had personal conversations with his people in Florida who were mostly Jeb's organization. He has come around on that. I think he was just out of touch with reality being in Mass. Most mormons are VERY pro-RKBA. Think about it. They are highly likely to be persecuted for their faith, even by government and/or not protected. Most mormons around here are hardcore militia types and they own alot of the cattle country here. He's strong on defense, strong on WOT, strong on fiscal policy, and strong on families.

McCain's ACU rating is currently 65 for 2006. 2007's are not out yet. He moved sharply left, falling from 80 in 2005 to 60. That's pretty big. Yes, when Reagan was alive McCain was a 90+ which gives him an 82 average which he has been touting. However, he is now well below his average and has been moving consistently left since 2000. That isn't a good thing. As a point of reference the three Orlando area congressman (Mica, Keller, and Feeney) were 92, 88, and 96 in 2006. Keller has the 88. He's mine. I came within a whisker of voting for the Democrat in 2006 because he was more conservative than Keller. If I'm pissy with my Congressman for falling to 88, how does a 65 grab me?

I don't know that we doubt his conviction and his sincerity. I am not able to judge internal things like that. He's just a liar.
Yes, one thing is C-F reform where he gave away the shoes. A lot of it goes back to the Keating 5 scandal. My opinion and others is he's trying to punish others for what he did wrong. He says he didn't knowingly do anything wrong, but he sure acts like he has a guilty conscience.
Yes, he is for amnesty. He said so basically again today. He will secure the borders FIRST then he's back to fight for his Amnesty bill. He has lied repeatedly and said securing the borders first is not a change in his position. It is.
It was not just his vote against the tax cuts, but his repeating liberal rhetoric at the time (tax cuts for the rich) and lying about it again and again in the campaign saying he only voted against them because they didn't have offset spending cuts.
There's a bunch of other issues. I personally do not like the way he bashes Rumsfeld. I'm sorry, but Rumsfeld tried to resign like three times and W wouldn't let him until he blamed him for the 2006 election. With whom does the fault belong?
There is Guantanamo and water-boarding. 
He has also bashed conservatives quite a bit when he's not claiming to be one.
He has made a lot of personal enemies in the Senate.

I believe those who know not only know, but know who else knows. I'm a Conservative. McCain makes my skin crawl. He can call himself a Conservative all he wants. He can try to invoke Reagan's name all he wants. It doesn't make him a Conservative. I'm a Conservative and I feel nothing in common with McCain. I think he is a Republican and I think he followed Reagan. How can you be a Principled Conservative like a Fiscal Conservative and not know anything about economics? What then is the intellectual basis you're building on? He's just repeating stuff he heard that he never understood and that polled well.

When Reagan ran he wasn't trying to be the NEXT anybody. He wasn't trying to pick up another's mantle. He ran on principles and ideas he believed in. McCain is running on the ideas and principles Reagan ran on which McCain can't quite remember, but he was for them damnit! He was a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution! yeah ok.

AFAIK, not many principled conservatives can stand him and he certainly can't stand us in private.

Voting for McCain is just not gonna happen. He's going to have to move further left and challenge the Dems for strong national security democrats. I personally believe there are a lot of them particularly veterans. He will not have the base, just as the 2006 congress did not.

Romney is your 2012 GOP lock. Today he fell on his sword to show his loyalty to the party establishment which previously was suspicious of him. I'm disappointed by it. Tuesday night he was talking about an insurgent grass-roots campaign. Yes, he would have had to burn the GOP tent down. It needs to be burnt down. Washington is broken and 50% of the a$$hats that broke it are supportin McCain. The other 25% Hillary and the other 25% Obama.

McCain is not destroying the GOP, W and the Republican Congress destroyed the GOP.

It, like the South, may never rise again, but we have to keep hoping and praying.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

There's other things like his divorce and re-marriage that the specifics of bother a lot of social Conservatives that believe a vow before God is important. The specifics make a person question his loyalty, his judgement, and his callousness. I am one of those people. 

His cracks about primaries being tough, but then we all have to come together is the wrong tactic to take with people that have principled opposition to him. We didn't start disliking McCain on Saturday when he started lying about Romney. We disliked McCain in 2000. That's why he lost to W. W had a list of reasons McCain was "unfit to be Commander-in-Chief." We listened to them and agreed. Now the GOP is trying to push the unfit down our throats.
His "calm down" speech yesterday morning didn't help either. He doesn't realize that in many people's opinions he's not dealing from a superior moral position. His style is more "get in line". 

Thank you, No, Senator. Since McCain thinks we need another Ronald Reagan in 2008, I'm going to write-in "Ronald Reagan" and support Romney in 2012. I wasn't able to vote in 1984 yet and I have always wanted to cast a vote for Ronaldus Maximus.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

tabasco said:


> Sounds to me Romney's going to keep his powder dry and re-group. I didn't hear "abandon", delegate release, support for "fellow republicans".
> 
> Here is a man younger than McClain, & probably has another shot at it the presidency. I cannot see him holding out for VP. We'll see him again.
> 
> Now, does have "have" delegates that he can "control" ? I don't follow it that close. What will THEY do?


I think Romney would be nuts not to go back to the private sector and make a bunch of money. He could easily make a few $100M a year now IMHO. Maybe he'll go to Halliburton? 

I think the delegates are mostly party activists and will fall in line like they are told behind the nominee. Romney probably just wants to be at the table at the Convention, place some of his key people at the RNC, and have a prime-time speech slot.

Romney will do what he has to do to support McCain this year so he has the GOP establishment with him next time. I'd give anything to be a fly on the wall when he meets with McCain to cut a deal.


----------



## CCabot (Oct 4, 2006)

It is pretty tragic that Huckabee, in my mind, split the Conservative vote and gave McCain the nomination. I applaud Romney for putting the interests of the party ahead of further fruitless struggle.

I have no love for McCain, but in the end I am a pragmatist and will vote for whichever candidate will do the least amount of damage to this country. I find it amusing however, that through all his talk of integrity, McCain ran such an incredibly low and negative campaign. I hope Romney returns in 2012.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

I thought Romney's move today was brilliant, strategically. The biggest loser of all today? 'Huckster' Huckabee. It is clear he conspired with McCain to insure defeat for Romney. Okay, now he must put up or shut up. It is a two-man race now, him and McCain. He has what he insisted he wanted. If he drops out now, well, the teeth of the wolf will have been revealed from beneath the sheeps clothing. If he stays in, which he must, he will be soundly trounced and go out a LOSER! Romney went out a WINNER! Huckabee was used by McCain and was outmaneuvered by Romney. GOOD! He was nothing more than an anti-Mormon bigot anyway so I am glad he had his political career ruined today.

Now, Romney being out of the race and I having no one to vote for I will do what we should all do anyway; focus on recent clothing purchases! I went online and tracked a recent purchase and I should have it by tomorrow or Saturday. Monday for certain. I cannot wait to see my circa 1920 John Lobb button brown calf leather/cream suede dress boots, with Lobb boot trees. Then I contacted our friend Tom at Leather Soul to begin work on a pair of Edward Green Shannons in black calf leather/black suede. Between the Lobbs and the Edward Greens I should be able to put this election stuff behind me. I recommend all do the same. Get some shoes!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I have to agree.

I think Huckabee is destroying any GOP goodwill by staying in while #2 yielded. To beat Huckabee to the punch was probably part of the deal Romney made. It makes Huckabee look like the derranged, hypocritical, religious bigot that he is. The GOP establishment seemed to always want Rudy, now they are stuck with McCain and Huckabee. Romney can't spare them McCain, but he can spare them Huckabee in the long run perhaps. I think McCain used Huckabe, but I think McCain despises him like most evangelical social conservative types that criticize him for his divorce.

Be careful what you ask for 

A guy called in on Rush yesterday from Missouri I think. He said something like," Rush the people here will vote for a backslidden baptist and non-practicing presbyterian before they will consider a faithful mormon." Sad, but probably true. 

It just shows how screwed up this carpet-bagger party is.


----------



## Bob Loblaw (Mar 9, 2006)

Farewell, clip-art candidate.



> The Romney we once knew could have made a credible case for the presidency: a smart, data-driven, can-do executive who wouldn't let ideology get in the way of pragmatic solutions. This pitch could have appealed to voters weary of destructive politics and hungry for progress.
> 
> It also would have had the benefit of being true.
> 
> Instead, Romney decided that he first needed to get past the doctrinaire conservatives he thought held a chokehold on the Republican primaries. He shed his pinstripes and donned a Tarzan suit, thumping his chest about immigration, gun control, morality, and religion. The new suit never quite fit, and the voters knew it.


https://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/07/romney_squandered_a_quality_brand/


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

JRR said:


> McCain's VP:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Portman


My ideal choice would be JC Watts. I wonder why his name doesn't come up more often.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

AMVanquish said:


> My ideal choice would be JC Watts. I wonder why his name doesn't come up more often.


Wouldn't he go with Michael Steele over Watts?

I think one thing that seems clear is McCain can't wait until the convention to decide. He has a short opportunity to pull the base together or it's a foregone conclusion. Huckabee staying in might be part of a stall strategy to keep Bloomberg on the sidelines. McCain has to walk a tightrope here to stay attractive to independents and not looking like easy pickings for Bloomberg. If he picks Huckabee and there is a lot of time left Bloomberg wade in. With the money Obama is going to have and the money Bloomberg already has, McCain will be toast. I think McCain's campaign is just about broke anyway isn't it?


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

I see your point, Steele is from a blue state and has more recent and more executive experience.

But McCain himself has blue state appeal, so I think it's more important for the running mate to appeal to rank and file conservatives(whom have already made it clear since Iowa they detest Huckabee.) Besides, Maryland just isn't that big or influential in the grand scheme of the electoral map.

But while Huckabee may placate a very narrow portion of the social conservatives, the rank and file whom are primarily concerned with taxes will certainly stay home with a McCain/Huckabee ticket. While I have no names off the top of my head, I would say the perfect candidate would be a red state governor(former or current) who has both the conservative credentials and a solid grasp of economic issues. Telegenic looks and great speaking skills are almost as important.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

AMVanquish said:


> I see your point, Steele is from a blue state and has more recent and more executive experience.
> 
> But McCain himself has blue state appeal, so I think it's more important for the running mate to appeal to rank and file conservatives(whom have already made it clear since Iowa they detest Huckabee.) Besides, Maryland just isn't that big or influential in the grand scheme of the electoral map.
> 
> But while Huckabee may placate a very narrow portion of the social conservatives, the rank and file whom are primarily concerned with taxes will certainly stay home with a McCain/Huckabee ticket. While I have no names off the top of my head, I would say the perfect candidate would be a red state governor(former or current) who has both the conservative credentials and a solid grasp of economic issues. Telegenic looks and great speaking skills are almost as important.


I've been trying to think who McCain could pick that would force me to vote for him.

Huckabee certainly would just be worse.

I think I could go with someone like Amb. John Bolton, but I would have to investigate some of his other positions. He seems "conservative enough" on the face of it and he has some issues with the neo-cons (or the other neo-cons LOL).


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,

I suggest you research Bolton a bit more - he has a rather seedy past.

Karl


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> On taxes, McCain's votes against President Bush's 2003 tax cuts and his explanation for them are likely to become major talking points. "I just thought it was too tilted to the wealthy and I still do," he said of those tax cuts. "I want to cut the taxes on the middle class."





> In 2000, many independent voters -- and even some Democrats - admired McCain when he took on the Rev. Jerry Falwell and conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson by calling them "agents of intolerance" within the party.


https://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8397.html


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,

Do you think Pat Robertson and his ilk are agents of tolerance?

Karl


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

Here is agent of tolerance Pat Robertson in his own words:

https://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,238501,00.html

'You're supposed to be nice to Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Methodists ... Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist.'

God only knows what he really think of Papists, ummm I mean Roman Catholics, like myself.

Karl


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

McCain's divorce follows a tradition of personal lives being either questioned or ignored. I would remind people Reagan was divorced. Betty Ford was a divorced showgirl when married to Gerald Ford. Attacks on people for being human goes back to Andrew Jackson's marriage and even to rumours of an affair involving George Washington with a married woman. Let he who is without sin cast the first ballot.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Gents,
> 
> Here is agent of tolerance Pat Robertson in his own words:
> 
> ...


Good to see that Lutherans were not included in his list. :icon_smile:


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Kav,

And who could forget the attacks against Cleveland and the witty retort of his supporters?

"Ma, Ma, where's my Pa? Gone to the White House, Ha, Ha, Ha!"

Karl


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Being listed by robertson is an a honour, indication you'r doing something right at least.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Gents,
> 
> Here is agent of tolerance Pat Robertson in his own words:
> 
> ...


Some Presbyterians are okay.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

The worst enemies of the conservative movement in the USA are religious conservatives.

Once they drop politically untenable positions like pro-life and creationism, I might actually regard myself as conservative without feeling a bit embarrassed about it. The fact that we actually have people who can position themselves to run for the presidency who are so deeply ignorant that they can actually take creationism seriously is embarrassing and even frightening - imagine a president so lacking in scientific acumen weighing policy decisions in this modern age? Such a President might even do something harebrained like supporting a ban on cultivation of stem cell lines!!!... oh, wait...

My hope is that the surprise ascendancy of McCain as the Republican front-runner indicates a reduction in religious conservative influence on the Republican Party (actually if it signaled the actual death knell of religious conservatism I'd be perfectly content), and maybe a return to the practical, sensible party the Republican should be.

...

Reagan unified religious conservatives under the Republican aegis in what was at that time a brilliant political move, and it's momentum carried into the 90s and gave us the Contract with America. Brilliant stuff. Sadly, since that time the Contract has been squandered and conservatism has eroded into a brand of intellectual corruption which threatens the social and technological supremacy of the USA. Time to add it to the fossil record.

...

As for Romney - for someone who never quite had an actual fixed position on anything, it's quite rich that he "suspended" his campaign, rather than manning-up and withdrawing. Will he ever make an actual decision? Only time will tell.

DCH


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Kav said:


> McCain's divorce follows a tradition of personal lives being either questioned or ignored. I would remind people Reagan was divorced. Betty Ford was a divorced showgirl when married to Gerald Ford. Attacks on people for being human goes back to Andrew Jackson's marriage and even to rumours of an affair involving George Washington with a married woman. Let he who is without sin cast the first ballot.


When McCain returned to the United States in 1973 after more than five years as a prisoner of war, he found his wife was a different person. Carol McCain, once a model, had been badly injured in a car wreck in 1969. The accident "left her 4 inches shorter and on crutches, and she gained a good deal of weight."

Despite her injures, she had refused to allow her POW husband to be notified about her condition, fearing that such news would not be good for him while he was being held prisoner.

But, just a couple years later, McCain, while pondering a future in politics, met Cindy Hensley, an attractive 25-year-old woman from a very wealthy politically-connected Arizona family( 17 years his junior, a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona who was the daughter of James Willis Hensley, a wealthy Anheuser-Busch distributor). While still married to Carol, McCain began an adulterous relationship with Cindy. He married Cindy in May 1980 just a month after dumping his crippled wife and securing a divorce.

McCain followed his young, millionairess wife back to Arizona. He was from Virginia, btw. It was through his Wife that he developed a friendship with Keating.

Living in Phoenix, McCain went to work for his new father-in-law Jim Hensley's large Anheuser-Busch beer distributorship as Vice President of Public Relations,[61] where he gained political support among the local business community,[62] meeting powerful figures such as banker Charles Keating, Jr.

---
I've been married 10 years and am without sin in my marriage.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,

What is your point? Trying to make McCain look bad? If McCain's ex-wife is on good terms with him now, why is it your business to judge his personal life?

Part of your agent of tolerance act?

https://www.azcentral.com/news/specials/mccain/articles/0301mccainbio-chapter5.html

"Carol, who remains on good terms with her former husband, generally has avoided reporters interested in hearing her side of the story.

She did briefly address her divorce to Timberg: "The breakup of our marriage was not caused by my accident or Vietnam or any of those things. I don't know that it might not have happened if John had never been gone. I attribute it more to John turning 40 and wanting to be 25 again than I do to anything else."

In the divorce settlement, McCain was generous with Carol, the mother of their daughter Sidney and two sons, whom McCain had adopted. Among other things, McCain gave Carol the rights to houses in Florida and Virginia and agreed to provide insurance or pay for additional treatment she was expected to require."


----------



## Preu Pummel (Feb 5, 2008)

Freedom of choice : Hillary, or Hillary with a bald spot.

I'm so glad this country is coming together under one party.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Dhaller said:


> The worst enemies of the conservative movement in the USA are religious conservatives.
> 
> Once they drop politically untenable positions like pro-life and creationism, I might actually regard myself as conservative without feeling a bit embarrassed about it.
> 
> As for Romney - for someone who never quite had an actual fixed position on anything, it's quite rich that he "suspended" his campaign, rather than manning-up and withdrawing. Will he ever make an actual decision? Only time will tell.


Why on earth should anyone be embarassed by defending the right to life of the unborn? This is liberlism at its worst. Liberals are permitted to be pro-abortion (that IS what Pro-Choice means, so get over it), for gay marriage, and on and on, and have nothing to be embarassed about, right, but let someone defend an innocent baby from being killed, well, what an embarassing position to take!

As to Romney suspending his campaign, their are so many practical reasons for doing so, which have been discussed thoroughly in the press, that to suggest failing to withdraw is somehow refusing to make a decision is just ludicrous on its face. Can he do anything that you would approve of? He has loaned the campaign millions upon millions of dollars. If he withdraws completely those loans become a gift to his campaign and he cannot recover any of it. By suspending his campaign he is able to continue to raise money to repay at least a portion of the loans he made. In addition, it gives him some delegate control and some leverage at the convention. These are not nuianced points, rather, they are widely known facts, so to dismiss them shows, IMHO, a severely biased and/or bigoted personal agenda. But I could be wrong and you might just be that ignorant.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Preu Pummel said:


> Freedom of choice : Hillary, or Hillary with a bald spot.
> 
> I'm so glad this country is coming together under one party.


This kind of brazenly uninformed post just makes you look silly.

You can begin an actual comparison of McCain and Clinton by having a look at McCain's voting record (he has voted with the Republicans on 88% of issues, btw... probably not *quite* in line with Clinton):

Moreover, the American Conservative Union rates John McCain at 82 versus Hilary Clinton at 9... not exactly identical, is it?

https://www.conservative.org/

DCH


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Dhaller said:


> This kind of brazenly uninformed post just makes you look silly.
> 
> Moreover, the American Conservative Union rates John McCain at 82 versus Hilary Clinton at 9... not exactly identical, is it?


If you McCain-ites are going to continually misrepresent his voting record then I am going to continue to point it out. His 82 rating is an average rating based on his entire service in the US Senate. For instance, his rating during the Reagan years reached its peak at 92. His current rating, most recent full year rating? 67! So quit pretending he is a conservative when his rating is scewed by Reagan being able to bring him along where he would have shown his true liberal colors. That is what made Reagan great.

Another McCain lie? He continually says that the reason he did not vote for the Bush tax cuts was because they did not cut spending. The only problem is that at the time he actually stated as his reason that they were tax cuts for the rich. Sound familiar? Yeah, that is a Democrat held position!

McCain likes to claim mastery of "straight talk," but he is the true master of double speak. I do agree with you on one thing, however: "This kind of brazenly uninformed post just makes you look silly."


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

> Why on earth should anyone be embarassed by defending the right to life of the unborn? This is liberlism at its worst. Liberals are permitted to be pro-abortion (that IS what Pro-Choice means, so get over it), for gay marriage, and on and on, and have nothing to be embarassed about, right, but let someone defend an innocent baby from being killed, well, what an embarassing position to take!


I'd rather a woman who doesn't want a child abort it than have it, absolutely. There is actually a high correlation in the USA between the advent of legal abortion and reduction in crime rates, and, interestingly, a mirrored correlation in Romania between it's illegalization of abortion and *rising* crime rates. Nice discussion of this in _Freakonomics_. So yes, I'm absolutely pro-abortion (I, too, prefer direct terminology). I certainly think reduced crime rates and a reduced burden on the welfare system makes legal abortion an excellent policy.

DCH


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

whomewhat said:


> If you McCain-ites are goijng to continually misrepresent his voting record then I am going to continue to point it out. His 82 rating is an average rating based on his entire service in the US Senate. For instance, his rating during the Reagan years reached its peak at 92. His current rating, most recent full year rating? 67! So quit pretending he is a conservative when his rating is scewed by Reagan being able to bring him along where he would have shown is true colors. That is what made Reagan great.
> 
> Another McCain lie? He continually says that the reason he did not vote for the Bush tax cuts was because they did not cut spending. The only problem is that at the time he actually stated as his reason that they were tax cuts for the rich. Sound familiar? Yeah, that is a Democrat held position!
> 
> McCain likes to claim mastery of "straight talk," but he is the true master of double speak. I do agree with you on one thing, however: "This kind of brazenly uninformed post just makes you look silly."


First, I'm not a McCain-ite. I feel he would be a ho-hum President at best. I do not, however, think he would be especially damaging. I'm convinced both Clinton and Obama would have damaging Presidencies. My voting aim is to go for damage control. The USA has not had a bona fide "presidential" President since Reagan and, frankly, it doesn't appear there will be one in the foreseeable future.

As for conservatism, I'm actually quite pleased that McCain isn't particularly conservative. Conservatives were given total control of this nation from 2001-2006 and squandered it. Time for some fresh ideas, and maybe disenfranchisement of the conservative movement will allow them some breathing space.

DCH


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Dhaller said:


> I'd rather a woman who doesn't want a child abort it than have it, absolutely. There is actually a high correlation in the USA between the advent of legal abortion and reduction in crime rates, and, interestingly, a mirrored correlation in Romania between it's illegalization of abortion and *rising* crime rates. Nice discussion of this in _Freakonomics_. So yes, I'm absolutely pro-abortion (I, too, prefer direct terminology). I certainly think reduced crime rates and a reduced burden on the welfare system makes legal abortion an excellent policy.


That might be the first time I have ever seen anyone try and justify their position, whatever it might be, by utilizing ROMANIA as an example! ROFLOL!

If you like abortion as a crime fighting tool then you must be a real strong supporter of executions, right? Afterall, keeping someone in prison, for life, costs millions of dollars. Yes, I know, executing someone costs a lot too because of all the appeals they file, etc. I have heard it all before. The flaw in that argument is the assumption that giving someone life in prison rules out an ability to appeal, which they still do, so that is a wash. But I digressed. Back to crime rates. You would agree that a dead criminal will never be able to commit a crime again? Forget whether or not capital punishment actually works as a deterrant, as I know liberlas don't believe it does, but you cannot deny that once dead a criminal is no longer free to commit crime?

For what its worth, reducing crime rates and dependancy on the welfare system have got to be the most unique, if not utterly pathetic, excuses I have ever heard for justifying the wanton, immorality of killing innocent unborn children. You take the prize!


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

whomewhat said:


> That might be the first time I have ever seen anyone try and justify their position, whatever it might be, by utilizing ROMANIA as an example! ROFLOL!
> 
> If you like abortion as a crime fighting tool then you must be a real strong supporter of executions, right? Afterall, keeping someone in prision, for life, costs millions of dollars. Yes, I know, executing someopne costs a lot too because of all the appeals they file, etc. I have heard it all before. The flaw in that argument is the ssumption that giving someone life in prison rules out an ability to appeal, which they still do, so that is a wash. But I idgressed. Back to crime rates. You would agree that a dead criminal willnever be able to commit a crime again? Forget whether or not capitalpunishment actually works as a deterrant, as I know liberlas don't believe it does, but you cannot deny that once dead a criminal is no longer free to commit crime?
> 
> For what its worth, reducing crime rates and dependancy on the welfare system have got to be the most unique, if not utterly pathetic, excuses I have ever heard for justifying the wanton, immorality of killing innocent unborn children. You take the prize!


When you're about to post, those little red lines under words are misspellings - please take a moment to fix them. Your "thoughts" will be easier to follow.

As to executions - in principle, if a capital crime can be conclusively proved, I'm certainly in favor of the death penalty.

However, as you point out capital cases are VERY expensive to try and, worse, take quite a long time to prosecute. Life imprisonment is, actually, far more cost effective, even factoring in non-death penalty appeals.

My biggest concern regarding the death penalty, however, is the alarming number of inmates being freed after reexamination of their cases using DNA evidence. In Georgia we've had quite a number of such cases, some inmates having been erroneously confined for decades (27 years in one recent case). If this can happen with lifers, it can happen with capital penalties as well, and I shudder to imagine the gross injustice of a man incorrectly convicted of a crime and actually being executed for it.

The problem in most of these cases lies with errors in witness testimony, and in fact there is some question in legal quarters lately whether witness testimony needs to be reexamined as a basis for "reasonable doubt" in criminal cases. Until this is fixed, I'd certainly argue for a suspension of the death penalty.

To summarize, I'd say I agree with the death penalty morally, but have to recommend it's not being used on a policy basis - it's expensive and possibly inaccurate.

In the future, as forensic science develops tools for more certain conviction of capital crimes, I'd argue to reinstate it and _accelerate_ it... I suspect the reason the death penalty has be shown to be ineffective as a deterrent is because after conviction it can take 15 years to execute someone - longer than they might even have lasted on the street. If the execution took place days or weeks after a conviction, THEN we might see a deterrent effect.

DCH


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> What is your point? Trying to make McCain look bad? If McCain's ex-wife is on good terms with him now, why is it your business to judge his personal life?
> 
> ...


My point is he betrayed his wife and he claims to be a conservative including a social conservative. Who cares if he was generous to her after? 
In addition, he sounds like he has self-esteem problems if turning 40 makes him chase something 17 years younger. And frankly, I had enough of that with Clinton was it 55 & 21? It's only my business because he's asking my vote on the basis of his conservative claim. He brought it up.
The fact that you overlook it doesn't mean I should. I've kept my vows. That matters to me. It's my right to include that in my voting decision. I can tell you one reason I like Romney is he was not only not divorced, but said to be faithful. I've heard he is the only one that was (grain of salt there). Supposedly, that's why Huckabee is being called a backslidden Baptist Preacher. I have no idea if that is true. My decision was based more on Romney's integrity than rumors of Huckabee's lack of on the issue. But the evidence on Rudy and McCain is clear. If I and McCain were liberal democrats then I wouldn't care if he humped goats.

It's the same standard that religious right are held to like Robertson or Sen. Craig. They bring it on themselves. It's a double standard, they ask for so they get it. Inspite of your implied and accusatory tone with me, I don't think you have seen me defend Robertson, or align myself with him. FWIW I know more about Robertson than will ever be known publicly. You're being predictable by finding one example to try to defend a career of contradiction in McCain yet *not disputing the facts.* Robertson doesn't matter and I have nothing to do with him. If McCain wanted to say "Robertson is an agent of intolerance." and didn't limit or keep his comment in context that just shows his bad judgement and temperament. If Robertson was McCain's only issue he'd have my vote. But McCain has been making comments about Christian Right for years according to reports by other Senators and Congressman. If that was his only question mark I would give him the benefit of the doubt, but it isn't. He has clearly lied repeatedly about his immigration reform and Romney in the last month.

It's the same pattern you followed on the Vietnam Reconciliation issue. 
I asked another poster what he meant by & what intl experience McCain had and you brought up the Viet-Rec. You called me daft and ignorant. You also said I played fast and loose with the facts. When I told you he was broadly criticized for his Viet-Rec, you responded with he is not criticized for being a POW and that takes chutzpah. The fact is I never criticized him at all and I never said they criticized him for being a POW, I said his Viet-Rec was broadly criticized by POWs. And it is. Eventually you began arguing over the definition of "broadly". It's over the issue of POW/MIA presumed dead. However, once faced with facts and evidence you just stick your head in the sand and ignore the fact that you were wrong. And; you have not listed one example of Intl Experience by McCain. I didn't even say he had none. I just asked "what is his?"
That should be a simple question to find an answer to. I have looked. As far as I can tell it is limited to the Viet-Rec which is broadly criticized and sitting on committees discussing foreign policy. That is not the same as leading an international effort. I'm a little concerned that the one qualification McCain supposedly has (he is not socially or fiscally conservative) is his national security bones and his international experience. I personally think McCain would make a wonderful Sec. of Defense. And; I wouldn't care at all about his social and fiscal bonafides if that was the post he seeks. I'm not anti-McCain. I'm anti-President-McCain. I think leading a squadron and refusing release proves he's more than tough enough. I'm 100% confident he'd punch anyone in the nose that got in his face. Unlike you, I like that and it is what I want in a SoD. I liked that about Rummy too. They are old, cranky, and onery dudes that paid their dues. I do not feel it is my place to criticize McCain's bill, but I'm also not going to tell other POWs and other men who served that they can't or aren't entitled or it takes "chutzpah". I think it goes without saying they all have way more than "chutzpah".

You did the same thing on the tax cut issue. You throw out McCain's lie that he was against the tax cuts because they didn't have spending offsets and then when you are proven wrong you just start slinging mud. As Romney said to McCain, "Facts are stubborn things." Get as mad as you want. It doesn't change them.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Dhaller said:


> When you're about to post, those little red lines under words are misspellings - please take a moment to fix them. Your "thoughts" will be easier to follow.


Directing attention to typos is the last refuge of the desperate. For the record, my daughter spilled something sticky onto my keyboard, which I have not yet replaced, and now it is virtually impossible to type without constant typos. I try to find them, but I do not always catch them the first time through. The feature you discuss about the little red lines is not a part of my AAAC experience. But back to my point, it is a rather pathetic ploy to imply intellectual supremacy simply because your spell-check works better than mine. Try having intelligent ideas instead.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

whomewhat said:


> Directing attention to typos is the last refuge of the desperate. For the record, my daughter spilled something sticky onto my keyboard, which I have not yet replaced, and now it is virtually impossible to type without constant typos. I try to find them, but I do not always catch them the first time through. The feature you discuss about the little red lines is not a part of my AAAC experience. But back to my point, it is a rather pathetic ploy to imply intellectual supremacy simply because your spell-check works better than mine. Try having intelligent ideas instead.


My post on the death penalty was one big intelligent idea.

How do you suggest fortifying it against the possibility of erroneous convictions?

DCH

FYI: May sound crazy, but you can wash a keyboard in your dishwasher; you can google recommended procedures, but basically make sure it's thoroughly dried before using it again.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Dhaller said:


> FYI: May sound crazy, but you can wash a keyboard in your dishwasher; you can google recommended procedures, but basically make sure it's thoroughly dried before using it again.


Now you see, that was actually helpful. And if it does not work, well, I needed a new keyboard anyway. Thanks.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Dhaller said:


> When you're about to post, those little red lines under words are misspellings - please take a moment to fix them. Your "thoughts" will be easier to follow.
> 
> DCH


How are you getting that? I am not getting spellcheck and it drives me nuts.
Is there a setting somewhere?

TIA.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

ksinc said:


> How are you getting that? I am not getting spellcheck and it drives me nuts.
> Is there a setting somewhere?
> 
> TIA.


I use Mozilla Firefox, which has dynamic spell check.

If you have it, go Tools -> Options -> Advanced -> enable "check spelling as I type" under "Browsing".

DCH


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Dhaller said:


> I use Mozilla Firefox, which has dynamic spell check.
> 
> If you have it, go Tools -> Options -> Advanced -> enable "check spelling as I type" under "Browsing".
> 
> DCH


Oh. I'm an IE on XP holdout. THX anyway.

FWIW, I don't think you can assume everyone uses Firefox. I only have it on my linux box.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Oh. I'm an IE on XP holdout. THX anyway.
> 
> FWIW, I don't think you can assume everyone uses Firefox. I only have it on my linux box.


Everyone _should_ use Firefox.

It's like... matching socks with trousers. Shoes with belts. It's just _right._

:icon_smile_big:

Seriously, though, it is a very user-friendly browser, lots of nice plug-ins too. And no pop-ups!

DCH


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,

McCain's a sinner. So are you. So am I. Get over yourself.

Karl


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Conservatives were given total control of this nation from 2001-2006 and squandered it.


To whom are you referring? George W. Bush?

One often over-looked easy test for identifying a conservative is his position on federal funding of education. "For the children" is the incessant rallying cry for Leftists and other big-government types, usually indicating their preference for increased taxation and centralization of power (i.e., money). Conservatives, to their credit, resist this propaganda.

Bush expanded the role of Jimmy Carter's Department of Education with his monstrous NCLB. McCain wants to increase the supply of federal money, and extend the federal government's involvement by making private schools dependent on federal subsidies.

They are not conservative.



> How do you suggest fortifying it against the possibility of erroneous convictions?


With something called "due process."


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> McCain's a sinner. So are you. So am I. Get over yourself.
> 
> Karl


Yep. Predictable. Take part of what I said, distort it into a false accusation, totally ignore accountibility for your previous lies, and close with an insult.

You're getting more efficient. I will give you that. I guess practice does make perfect!


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Karl89 said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> McCain's a sinner. So are you. So am I. Get over yourself.
> 
> Karl


+1

...and Romney, and Huckabee, and Obama, and Clinton (does she get "extra sinner points" because of Whitewater and Vince Foster?)

Wow, John McCain's divorced. Big deal! What year are we living in people? 1960?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

TMMKC said:


> +1
> 
> ...and Romney, and Huckabee, and Obama, and Clinton (does she get "extra sinner points" because of Whitewater and Vince Foster?)
> 
> Wow, John McCain's divorced. Big deal! What year are we living in people? 1960?


Oh, I forgot and have one of your little friends come by and try to help you save face by repeating the distortion and diverting some more.

I must be slipping.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,

Wow, not only are you an agent of tolerance you are also paranoid! 

Someday you should really review your posts and see how badly you embarass yourself sometimes. But I forgive you.

Karl


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Phinn said:


> With something called "due process."


Yes, in theory that's fine. In practice more and more people have been turning up lately who have been convicted for crimes they didn't commit, as DNA evidence exonerates them.

While it's terrible for an innocent man to have been incarcerated 20 years, at least he can be released to enjoy the rest of his life - however abbreviated - in peace.

An innocent man, executed a decade ago, can't very well be dug up and freed, can he?

Until procedural justice is error-free, we can't, in good conscience, allow irreversible punishments.

DCH


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> Wow, not only are you an agent of tolerance you are also paranoid!
> 
> ...


I don't know how paranoid comes up.

Since someone has to have a concience to be embarrassed, I guess we know why you are never embarrassed by your lies even when you get caught.

Forgive me for what, telling the truth? Now who needs to get over themself?

John McCain claims to share my values and he's running his campaign on his reputation for integrity and ethics. Somehow pointing out why I don't like him and showing how he does not share my values is embarrassing?

Romney also claims to share my values and is not divorced and by all accounts has been faithful.
Hillary makes no claim to share my values, but is not divorced. 
McCain claims to share my values, but divorced his crippled wife after cheating on her with a 25 yr old and I have to ignore that and vote for him because he was a POW or I'm an agent of intolerance?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,



ksinc said:


> I'm an agent of intolerance?


Bingo!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> Bingo!


Big words for a Catholic.

By what authority do you forgive anyway? I don't recognize P-words.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,

Now you have added anti-Catholicism to your repetoire of bigotry. Nice. John McCain is lucky you dont number among his supporters.

Karl


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

I always enjoyed playing bingo at the parish hall in college. My friends and I would go sometimes on Thursday nights to have a few beers and maybe win some money. I'm a Lutheran and thankfully we have far more in common with Catholics and the other mainliners than we do the Fundies (or lack of Fun-dies).


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

The posting personal emnity thing is real personal on both sides and ugly to read no matter who started it.

That said, I'm fully capable of ignoring it. Others may not be.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Laxplayer said:


> I always enjoyed playing bingo at the parish hall in college. My friends and I would go sometimes on Thursday nights to have a few beers and maybe win some money. I'm a Lutheran and thankfully we have far more in common with Catholics and the other mainliners than we do the Fundies (or lack of Fun-dies).


Plus us Lutherans are really good at making casseroles. We regularly attend many of the charity functions at the local parish (many friends and a couple family members belong there), always feel welcome and have a great time.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

TMMKC said:


> Plus us Lutherans are really good at making casseroles. We regularly attend many of the charity functions at the local parish (many friends and a couple family members belong there), always feel welcome and have a great time.


We do too. We just had a fish dinner at the Catholic church on Wednesday.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Laxplayer said:


> I always enjoyed playing bingo at the parish hall in college. My friends and I would go sometimes on Thursday nights to have a few beers and maybe win some money. I'm a Lutheran and thankfully we have far more in common with Catholics and the other mainliners than we do the Fundies (or lack of Fun-dies).


Years of listening to Garrison Keillor's show has given me a great affection for (and, very likely, total misconception of) Lutherans. I assume they all bake, for example, and are mainly Norwegians, even though I know that's not _quite_ true.

Me, I'm a "lapsed Catholic", which is probably almost an entire religion in and of itself.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Dhaller said:


> Years of listening to Garrison Keillor's show has given me a great affection for (and, very likely, total misconception of) Lutherans. I assume they all bake, for example, and are mainly Norwegians, even though I know that's not _quite_ true.
> 
> Me, I'm a "lapsed Catholic", which is probably almost an entire religion in and of itself.


Around here they are German, but you would be right about Minnesota. My family is Irish...I married into Lutheranism (former Catholic).


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> Now you have added anti-Catholicism to your repetoire of bigotry. Nice. John McCain is lucky you dont number among his supporters.
> 
> Karl


You have repeatedly demonstrated your duplicitious relationship with the truth is borderline skitzophrenic.

Rather than confront and dispute the facts my opinion is based on (and do so with any level of sincerity or manners) you feel entitled to maliciously characterize them while refusing to account for your lies.

You have no class and no honor. I've given you ample opportunity to refute this and you have refused and perpetuated your baseless and faceless attacks. These are the acts of a coward.

Enough. The only embarrassment I feel is that I have continued to respond with facts and explanations knowing it is pointless.

The only intolerance I am an agent for, is intolerance for proven and perpetual liars, like yourself.

If you have a problem with that, you know how to reach me. Otherwise, have a good life.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,

You know what Sgt. Hulka said, right?

"Lighten up, Francis."

So lighten up, thou who shall not be refered to by his Christian name.

Karl


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> You know what Sgt. Hulka said, right?
> 
> ...


I actually thought that by editing and adding "These are the acts of a coward." I might be overstating.

Good to see I wasn't.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Laxplayer said:


> Around here they are German, but you would be right about Minnesota. My family is Irish...I married into Lutheranism (former Catholic).


I'm a German Lutheran too, as is my wife...though we belong to a Swedish Lutheran church. I've known a lot of people who have converted to Lutheranism from Catholicism. They all appreciate the fact the liturgy is very simlar...but there are fewer sacrements to keep track of, and you don't have to kneel as much! The food and liquor is generally better in Catholic churches, though. It's a trade-off.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

TMMKC said:


> I'm a German Lutheran too, as is my wife...though we belong to a Swedish Lutheran church. I've known a lot of people who have converted to Lutheranism from Catholicism. They all appreciate the fact the liturgy is very simlar...but there are fewer sacrements to keep track of, and you don't have to kneel as much! The food and liquor is generally better in Catholic churches, though. It's a trade-off.:icon_smile_big:


LOL

What's that old joke about the Preacher getting caught with his water bottle full of wine and respsonding, "Praise the Lord! He did it again!"

I'm surprised the Swedish Lutherans don't have the best food.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> LOL
> 
> What's that old joke about the Preacher getting caught with his water bottle full of wine and respsonding, "Praise the Lord! He did it again!"
> 
> I'm surprised the Swedish Lutherans don't have the best food.


Ever hear of lutefisk?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> Ever hear of lutefisk?


If I had I didn't remember. I just looked it up. I don't know how I went to Finland and missed that, but TG I did!

I guess Catholics would include a lot better cuisines: French, Italian, etc. That does seem like an obvious mistake.

As children, we weren't allowed to hang out with Catholics it's hard for me to picture them. 

LOL

If my GrandFather was still alive I can only imagine how much I would hear about voting for a Mormon.

Most of my family is Church of Christ. One side of my family is related to Homer Hailey one of the so-called 'pioneer preachers' by marriage. I never met him, but as far as I can tell he made Jerry Falwell seem like Elton John. Even more confusing is Homer was divorced and there is a whole "debate" and even some books written about it.

We eat a lot of fried chicken and biscuits at my church


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Laxplayer said:


> Ever hear of lutefisk?


I think my one of my uncles (by marriage), who is a Norwegian Lutheran, once described lutefisk as "buttered rubber bands." For obvious reasons, he usually avoided thier church's annual Christmas lutefisk feed.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

ksinc said:


> As children, we weren't allowed to hang out with Catholics it's hard for me to picture them.


Who woulda thunk?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

TMMKC said:


> I think my one of my uncles (by marriage), who is a Norwegian Lutheran, once described lutefisk as "buttered rubber bands." For obvious reasons, he usually avoided thier church's annual Christmas lutefisk feed.:icon_smile_big:


Smelly, buttered rubber bands would be more like it.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

TMMKC said:


> I think my one of my uncles (by marriage), who is a Norwegian Lutheran, once described lutefisk as "buttered rubber bands." For obvious reasons, he usually avoided thier church's annual Christmas lutefisk feed.:icon_smile_big:


I've always thought there must be a bunch of dishes like swedish meatballs that I've never heard about. I like spicey beefy food like that. Wolfgang Puck's Austrian steak recipe is one of my favorites too. For all I know swedish meatballs could have been invented in NYC. Except for Russia, I've always like the food when I have gone somewhere and although I've had cod it was never like that. I think there is portugese dish sort of like that too. Emeril makes it. I've never tried it. The rest of his food is sooo good.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

ksinc said:


> I've always thought there must be a bunch of dishes like swedish meatballs that I've never heard about. I like spicey beefy food like that. Wolfgang Puck's Austrian steak recipe is one of my favorites too. For all I know swedish meatballs could have been invented in NYC. Except for Russia, I've always like the food when I have gone somewhere and although I've had cod it was never like that. I think there is portugese dish sort of like that too. Emeril makes it. I've never tried it. The rest of his food is sooo good.


Funny thing about Emeril...I hate to cook his recipes, but love to eat in his restaurants. NOLA is my favorite. I too am suspicious of the history of Swedish meatballs...and with many other dishes that claim some ethic lineage (e.g. "Swiss" steak). I do like the Swedish version of borscht...but I think it goes by another name. Maybe one of the Swedes in our midst could enlighten us.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

TMMKC said:


> Funny thing about Emeril...I hate to cook his recipes, but love to eat in his restaurants. NOLA is my favorite. I too am suspicious of the history of Swedish meatballs...and with many other dishes that claim some ethic lineage (e.g. "Swiss" steak). I do like the Swedish version of borscht...but I think it goes by another name. Maybe one of the Swedes in our midst could enlighten us.


Yes, one never knows. My Dad goes to Geneva (Swiss) a lot and he says he mostly eats Thai food when he is there. He thinks the freshest food is in the Thai restaurants there.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I've always thought there must be a bunch of dishes like swedish meatballs that I've never heard about. I like spicey beefy food like that. Wolfgang Puck's Austrian steak recipe is one of my favorites too. For all I know swedish meatballs could have been invented in NYC. Except for Russia, I've always like the food when I have gone somewhere and although I've had cod it was never like that. I think there is portugese dish sort of like that too. Emeril makes it. I've never tried it. The rest of his food is sooo good.


Swedish meatballs do originate in Sweden as far as I know. I also like poached salmon, pickled herring and pike and boiled cabbage rolls. I also make aebleskivers and though they are Danish, I eat them with Swedish lingonberries.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,

Thai food in Geneva? Your dad should partake in traditional Vaudoise fare like raclette and fondue.

Karl


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Kav said:


> This is nothing if not an interesting process. Burak is the first serious black candidate. Yet my many black friends, and I hate even having to make such a distinction, all agree he is about as much a part of the black american experience as Pee Wee Herman. Yet he of fresh ideas is crying in desperation that Hillary has dirt on her the republicans will use while sidestepping his own cocaine use and question of religosity ( the Jefferson koran.)


Jefferson's Qur'an was used by Rep. Keith Ellison


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

ksinc said:


> My Dad goes to Geneva (Swiss) a lot and he says he mostly eats Thai food when he is there. He thinks the freshest food is in the Thai restaurants there.


Poached salmon, Thai food, ableskivers...this is making me very, very hungry. One of my big "weakness" foods is Pad Thai. You're right...their food is always very fresh.

We're trying out a new Dim Sum dumpling restaurant tonight.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

TMMKC said:


> Poached salmon, Thai food, ableskivers...this is making me very, very hungry. One of my big "weakness" foods is Pad Thai. You're right...their food is always very fresh.
> 
> We're trying out a new Dim Sum dumpling restaurant tonight.


Sounds great, TMMKC. Enjoy! We're going to a Vietnamese place.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Comments withdrawn to promote forum harmony and better understanding.-Chris


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Kav said:


> Romanians were denied both abortion and often simple contraception by the late communist dictator Cesescue. A country already suffering food shortages from excess exports saw a population rise with many poor parents or single mothers forced to leave babies and young children in huge orphanages. These state run institutions, understaffed and underfunded could barely feed, let alone give even a simple hug or any emotional nourishment to the children. As a result many grew up with emotional and developmental problems. Many americans who adopted these children have realised this painfull problem.The majority romanian orthodox church was playing a very delicate balancing act with the regime merely to survive and often saw church properties seized and destroyed and priests arrested for even a hint of social conscious. The 'romanian spring' saw dictator and wife summarily executed after trial and a brief battle between the state police and the romanian army. The succeeding governments have legalised abortion and contraception, still a painifull choice in a country of Orthodox, Catholic, Greek Rite and a small population of aging jews,Baptists and Mormons. Into this situation LDS and evangelical missionaries have arrived with food donations in the honourable bribe of souls for bread. My fiancee' is about to graduate with a masters degree in Psychiatry. She will work with these children. Thankfully, her two little boys are blossoming with vitamens, 3 meals a day and actual Christmas and birthday presents instead of 'chips' or wheat crackers and instant coffee at the YWCA they were living on when we reconnected. I figure more pocketsquares can wait. Romania is indeed a VERY real example we should heed. I do.


I am extremely hesitant to comment based on the previous detente we had achieved, but I cannot simply allow this to go unchallenged, peace or not.

The suggestion that abortion rights had anything to do with the inhumane conditions created by, quite possibly, the most dispicable communist despot the world has seen is simply ludicrous. Romania was a beacon upon the highest mountain for everything that was wrong with communism!

Second, if you are suggesting a quid pro quo exists relating to Mormon humanitarian missionary efforts, then you are simply wrong. The LDS church has two types of missionaries: proselyting and humanitarian. Humantarian efforts around the world, to include Romania, do not involve proselyting. I have served in both capacities and know of what I speak, having anecdotal experience. I am extremely proud of my church's efforts in this regard.

Finally, I also have very PERSONAL experience relating to the adoption of Romanian children. I know, firsthand, what they were put through. But then I have already commented more than my marriage will permit.

To suggest Romania is an example of Christian fundamentalism gone wrong is to ignore what decades of rule under that monster was like. He, along with his Soviet facilatators, are SOLELY to blame--no one else and certainly not the unborn!


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Deleted as above.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Not to hijack this thread back to the original topic, but there is a good post-mortem in the Times today:

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/opinion/09collins.html?ref=opinion


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I hate to add more controversy to this thread, but I actually liked lutefisk when I tried it.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I caught Ann Coulter on TEEVEE yesterday at some speaking engagement. I've managed to avoid actually watching or listening to the woman before. I'm sorry, but if this bleach blond, patrician accented erotic sex fantasy ( Oh mistress, purr fiscal conservative again, puleese) of every sophomore Young Republican with her Dominatrix bedside manner is the best social conservativism can offer The Dems are well entitled to Oprah and Barbra Striesand. And a note to all who are disaffected by our selection. The Green party chose a woman candidate over Ralph who is being a gadfly. She isn't the transgendered organic beekeeper! We do have options!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Concordia said:


> Not to hijack this thread back to the original topic, but there is a good post-mortem in the Times today:
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/opinion/09collins.html?ref=opinion


Even though I disagree with that article, I understand why they are writing that sort of stuff. It's their right to try to preemp Mitt in 2012.

What really bugs me is all the so-called convservatives saying that the last two speeches Mitt gave were great and if only he had said that stuff before.

Well, he has been saying it. And while the discussion of Mitt was smartly relegated by his opponents in both parties to Mormonism and is he a flip-flopper he kept saying it.

If you bother to go to his website they have video of most of his events and speeches. In the issues section they have issues broken down with plans and videos of him making speeches about them. As far as I can tell only one of the videos was made solely for the website.

I wish so-called conservatives had pulled their heads out of you-know-where and listened to Mitt instead of what others said about him until it was too late.

Even the post-mordems on NRO are ridiculously "guilt free". Hannity, Rush, et all didn't endorse Mitt until he lost Florida. There was no conservative pressure on Crist & Martinez to endorse Mitt instead of McCain after Guiliani was known to be a bust in the polling before Jan 29th. Crist made a career move and Martinez made a racist move to McCain. And; somehow that is all Mitt's fault. The dude had powerpoints of his plans. No other candidate except Fred Thompson has real plans that spell out exactly what he would do.

Now all the conservative talking-heads are saying "we have to get McCain on record." McCain would be the dumbest person in the world to go on record now that he has the nomination locked up. I can't stand him, but even I don't think he's stupid. I saw one ACU comment that said "That was a great speech McCain gave. It was nice of him to come be a conservative for a day." Hello, Republicans he's going to move to the "CENTER"  

On issue after issue Mitt was called a big government moderate. Such as his health insurance plan. But the conservative position is that universal healthcare is wrong and federal programs are wrong. Mitt did what he did as a governor of a State where it belongs. He said he loves mandates (meaning at the state level). Yet, when asked if he would mandate the plan Federally he said "no" states should decide. Somehow, this is turned into a flip-flop that contradicts itself. So-said 'Mitt mandated healthinsurance in Mass, but now he's running from his plan. He said he loves mandates, but now he's promising not to make mandates.' If people are so ignorant they can't see the federal-state jurisdiction here that conservatives are supposed to believe in; it's not Mitt's fault. Fred Thompson said the same things and he didn't catch fire either. States mandate car insurance, homeowner's insurance and all kinds of other things. I haven't seen the religious right railing against those state mandates.



> Use A Free Market, Federalist Approach To Make Quality, Affordable Health Insurance Available To Every American


McCain is now going to do ... wait for it ... NOTHING! McCain is going to leave fixing health insurance to the private sector like it is today! Well great, but that is not a plan that gets Americans INSURED. We can lie and say 47 million Americans don't have healthcare or we can be honest and say 47 million don't have health INSURANCE and that is STILL a big problem. How can we solve it without socializing it is the question. Mitt is the only Republican offering a conservative solution 'that works'. Sure one can find a way to criticize it. A person determined to can criticize anything. But it doesn't violate conservative principles and it's not sticking its head in the sand pretending people don't have and don't need affordable, portable health insurance. For a detached rich guy I'd say he nailed the insecurity most Americans feel on the issue when he said it's not just the 45 million that don't have health insurance today, it's the other 45million who have insurance, but are afraid they will lose their job and a pre-existing condition will mean they lose their insurance too. Here's just an example of Mitt. This has been up for ages. Watch the video of his announcement speech here https://mittromney.com/Issues/healthcare

I have no problem with honest debate, or showing real contradictions, but when people in his own party can't keep up with the plot that's a big problem. When those people claim they are conservatives that's even worse. I'd be very interested in hearing 'the real problems with Mitt's plan'.

I think Obama is the most honest candidate left in the race on either side. He has no specific plans, but at least he's saying what he wants to do. It's rather scary, but at least he's not hiding and saying his wants a private sector healthcare plan like Hillary is with this "you can choose to keep your employer's plan" nonsense. The issue isn't what I choose, it's what other's choose that I have to pay for. 
Post-mordem that NY Times!

Quitting is Mitt's fault; and I'm not happy about it. If he endorses McCain I'm going to demand my contributions back.

America's military and foreign policy needs a strong Commander-in-Chief no doubt, but America's domestic front needs a CEO. Mitt was the only person even trying to do both.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Kav said:


> I caught Ann Coulter on TEEVEE yesterday at some speaking engagement. I've managed to avoid actually watching or listening to the woman before. I'm sorry, but if this bleach blond, patrician accented erotic sex fantasy ( Oh mistress, purr fiscal conservative again, puleese) of every sophomore Young Republican with her Dominatrix bedside manner is the best social conservativism can offer The Dems are well entitled to Oprah and Barbra Striesand. And a note to all who are disaffected by our selection. The Green party chose a woman candidate over Ralph who is being a gadfly. She isn't the transgendered organic beekeeper! We do have options!


Hey! What's wrong with erotic Dominatrix sex fantasies? It makes the x's and o's of fiscal conservatism less boring! 

Didn't Ann date Bill Maher? I'd hardly call her socially conservative.

Think of her as a literate Angelina Jolie. 

Who is the transgendered organic bee keeper? Nader?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

https://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGQ4MGM5MGVmZDE3Y2Q0MzA4Y2E0ZjE5ZTIyMTQ0OGM=

https://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjdlZjc5NWJjZTg4MTQwY2U2OWQxY2NhZWRhM2E2YWU=


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Gents,
> 
> Here is agent of tolerance Pat Robertson in his own words:
> 
> ...


Hmmm, I thought I heard the sound of a P-bomb going off.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Romney won the CPAC straw poll.

https://www.cpac.org/strawpoll_08/2-08_CPAC_Straw_Poll.ppt#325,1,CPAC Straw Poll Results

He was winning 44-27 until he pulled out then he only lost 37-32 ending with a 35-34 victory. Huckabee tied Paul with 12. Paul had 10 before Romney dropped and grew to 12 while Huck stayed at 12 after the Romney drop.

31 and 36 percent respectively said they will NOT vote for McCain or Huckabee if they are the nominee.


----------

