Guliani gets prez exploratory committe going

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:47 pm

Who here will vote for a adulterer dago that was considered a failure until two buildings collapsed in his city??

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:49 pm

Quick question...how are all these guys who are allegedly making around $200K a year for many years able to fork over millions of dollars out of their personal bank acconts to do these survey-thingies?

Uhm, RED FLAG, anyone?

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:51 pm

I thought adultery was a BIG FUCKING issue to republicans?

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:55 pm

Rudy is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. It'll be kinda hard to play down those positions to the Republican base.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:01 pm

Mikey wrote:Republican base

The midterms kind of proved there's no longer any such thing as the "republican base."

The republican party FUCKED their members over, for the sake of lining the pockets of their corporate contributors.

What IS the "republican base" these days? Larger governemt and deficit spending? They have another name for that...they call it "democrats."\

But as long as you tards don't paste a candidate's voting record and all of their contributors(and how they factored into the votes), you'll continue getting what you deserve.

"Of the lobbyists, by the lobbyists, for the lobbies."

Nice fucking motto. But keep supporting it, morons.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:04 pm

mvscal wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:I thought adultery was a BIG FUCKING issue to republicans?
He's got an uphill battle in front of him, no doubt about it.

If the repubs send out an adulterer, they'll become an even bigger laughingstock than they are right now. Adultery IS an impeachable offense, you know.

But send out the Adulterer...a 99.9% popular vote would be pretty funny. What a shredding THAT would be at the debates.

Cicero · Post by **Cicero** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:05 pm

The Republicans in power did mess up, so it's time for Democrats to come thru on all the promises they made. Politics is a seesaw.

I highly doubt Rudy gets the nomination but I would vote for him over Hillary, Kerry or most any other Democratic nominee.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:08 pm

You're kidding, right?

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:12 pm

mvscal wrote:No, it isn't. Perjury is, though.

My final post about it, since it's been covered approximately 20,000 times, but you might want to brush up on the definition of "perjury." If it don't effect the case, you can testify that the moon is made of green cheese.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:17 pm

Jsc810 wrote:Rudy's actions following 9/11

Using a tragedy to flagrantly bolster your political careeer and then turning around and making a buck off it makes you a good person?

Idiot.

I cannot think of anyone else who I'd rather have as Commander-in-Chief during this war.

You're right...for "this" war.

Rudy is a known liar, and will do anything, no matter how vile, to make a buck for him and his supporters. That would certainly keep with the "stay the course" theme of "this war."

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:25 pm

Yeah, Bubba screwed up big. But, how was what he did with Cheeseburger Lewinsky relevent to the Paula Jones case?

I'll answer that for you...it wasn't. Ergo, no perjury(ok, THIS is my last on the well-worn subject...I'd much rather be duscussing W's impeachment).

Let's see...Paula Jones recorded Cheeseburger's telephone call, then....ODDLY ENOUGH...she filed a sexual harassment lawsuit.

You call it a "lawsuit," I call it a "coup attempt." To-MAY-to, to-MAH-to. Starr and co(most of the repub officials) should be in jail for their crimes...which is EXACTLY what they were.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:50 pm

mvscal wrote:Then there was the fact that he was supposed to be telling the truth. There is no "Blowjob Exemption" that would permit one to offer willfully false testimony under oath in a sexual harrassment suit.

Not sure which part of "Bubba screwed up big" you didn't catch? Was it the "Bubba," the "screwed up," or...neverfuckingmind.

But W lied to Congress about something a lot more serious, so where's the outcry? Oh, I guess wheel-greasers weren't making money off Bubba's lies.

Put the whole fucking lot of them behind bars, except publically hang the party leaders. Let that be an example to future "for the lobbyists" politicians.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:06 am

mvscal wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:But W lied to Congress about something a lot more serious, so where's the outcry?
Link?

The Seer · Post by **The Seer** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:12 am

Choice #1 - Newt Gingrich - Probably too intelligent for the job, not politically correct in personal life, good historian, common sense, but would require divine intervention to get the nod.

Choice #2 - Mitt Romney - Luther & Wolfman will remember that kid, (his father) Governor George Romney. Sounds like a good ole conservative Republican, the kind unlike Bush and his henchmen....Clean, clear personal record, looks good in front of the camera, but is a Mormon I believe....If he can let go of some of the LDS stigma, but continue to push for the multi-wife thing, he would get a serious look.....

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:17 am

The Seer wrote: Clean, clear personal record, looks good in front of the camera, but is a Mormon I believe.

Modern science has essentially proven that the Mormon religion is a crock of shit, yet people still cling to it. Therefore, the man is willing to base his entire belief system on a lie.

Is that REALLY someone we want to consider for our highest office?

How about an atheist? You know, someone who won't cowtow to some bullshit mythology(or worse yet, its followers) to make important decisions?

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:26 am

An elected atheist? That narrows it down to about a majority of them. Sure, they can go to church and make sure it's on TV, but their actions don't give them God-fearing cred.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:34 am

The Seer wrote:Choice #1 - Newt Gingrich - not politically correct in personal life

yeah, serving your wife divorce papers while she's fighting cancer isn't PC at all.

i'll make a note of it.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:42 am

Dinsdale wrote:
The Seer wrote: Clean, clear personal record, looks good in front of the camera, but is a Mormon I believe.

Modern science has essentially proven that the Mormon religion is a crock of shit, yet people still cling to it. Therefore, the man is willing to base his entire belief system on a lie.

Is that REALLY someone we want to consider for our highest office?

How about an atheist? You know, someone who won't cowtow to some bullshit mythology(or worse yet, its followers) to make important decisions?

Dins, If you wanna use science as a yardstick, you can pretty much claim every religion under the sun is a crock of shit. Perhaps you can make the statement that the mormons are 47% more full of shit than the presbyterians, but, full of shit is full of shit. Personally, I think I'd have more respect for a moron than a catholic if I was gonna use their religion solely to judgethem. But, I don't.

And about the adultery thing, WHO you are adultering makes a huge difference.

JFK was banging the number one sex symbol of the 20th century while she was thirty something.

Rack the fukkkk outta him.

Bubba did a 20 y.o. slumpbuster underling.

As that old mvscal in the red stripe commercial would say....booooo bubba.