T1B

Posted: **Fri Feb 01, 2008 4:53 am**

So the next GOP nominee is such a rock ribbed Republican that he was ready to flip parties back in 2001?

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dem ... 03-28.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

LMAO at the GOP.

Posted: **Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:04 am**

McCain is a liberal.

This is not news.

The GOP has nobody to vote for.

McCain is a lib.
Romney is a cultist.
Huckabee is a joke.

Ron Paul?

Oh ....

Posted: **Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:35 am**

poptart wrote:McCain is a liberal.

This is not news.

The GOP has nobody to vote for.

McCain is a lib.
Romney is a cultist.
Huckabee is a joke.

Ron Paul ....

...is a nutjob.

And actually, The Huckster isn't a joke, his supporters are the joke. Not as idiotic as the Paulistas, mind you...

McCain was't planning to switch, just to go 'independent' and vote Dem. Old news. He obviously figured his only chance at power was staying in the GOP (at least after Jeffords beat him to it). He's all about the ego.

Romney is the only candidate in either party with the character, temperment, experience and leadership qualities to do the job.

Period.

Posted: **Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:38 am**

Form the same site...

Romney memo says media ‘ready to anoint’ McCain
By Sam Youngman
Posted: 01/31/08 04:39 PM [ET]
A memo from a senior strategist for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney says that the media are ready to give the Republican nomination to Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), but if Romney can attract more conservatives, he will win the nomination.

“We still have an uphill battle in front of us,” Romney strategist Alex Gage wrote in the memo. “The mainstream media is (sic) ready to anoint John McCain and he will have advantages in many states running for president for the past eight years – but Gov. Romney has a clear path to victory on February 5th and beyond.”

The memo, obtained by The Hill, outlines how McCain has failed to win over conservative voters in the states that have voted so far, and it details how Romney could have won if only a few more percentage points of that bloc had come over.

“The coalitions that John McCain assembled in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida have been strikingly similar – and are strikingly tenuous,” Gage wrote.

The Romney campaign confirmed the authenticity of the memo Thursday afternoon.

The memo goes on to say that Romney and McCain “are now in a two-man race and a few points’ movement among conservatives is all that’s needed to tip the scales in favor of Gov. Romney.”

Gage writes that in the early three states McCain won, his margin of victory was the result of the support of moderates, independents and voters that disapprove of the Bush administration.

“None of these groups is a majority of the Republican electorate,” Gage wrote, adding that this is the reason “McCain has failed to win more than 36 percent of the vote in any of them.”

The memo zeroes in on McCain’s recent win in Florida, where Gage said exit poll data showed that “if Gov. Romney had won conservatives in Florida 41 percent to 25 percent over McCain, rather than 37 percent to 29 percent – just a four-point shift – he would have won the state.”

“Former Giuliani and Thompson supporters in February 5th states will be looking for a new candidate over the next week, and it will not take very many conservatives moving to Romney to disrupt McCain’s victory formula,” Gage wrote.
Gage also says that it is “easy to see how we defeat McCain in a two-main(sic) race by focusing on traditional Republican primary voters.”

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/romney ... 01-31.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:44 am**

Diogenes wrote:Romney is the only candidate in either party with the character, temperment, experience and leadership qualities to do the job.

That's irrelevant now. Your party has abandoned you.

Posted: **Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:10 pm**

Diogenes wrote:
poptart wrote: Ron Paul?
...is a nutjob.

Coming from you, that makes Ron Paul sound better all the time

Posted: **Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:49 pm**

The one guy who wants to follow the Constitution and keep the federal government from micromanaging your life is labelled a "nutjob."

What a sad commentary on the mentality of the people of this country.

Posted: **Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:08 pm**

mvscal wrote:Instead he spent his time lying his ass off by larding spending bills with earmarks for his district and then voting against the bill knowing full well that the bill would pass.

When he was sworn in to Congress, he took oaths.

The two big ones were:

-Uphold the US Constitution. He wasn't just paying lip service, he actually believes in the 10th Amendment, unlike just about anyone else in the federal government

-Represent the people of his district to the best of his abilities while not violating the first oath

Whith the earmark-trick, he's accomplished both. Hedging his bets doesn't make him dishonest, but rather the opposite.

Not sure how anyone could even have trouble understanding that very basic move.

If his people ever get tired of him in Texas, he can move right on up here and take a Seat.

You're talking about a guy who is vehemently anti-abortion, yet wants to overturn Roe vs Wade on the grounds that the fed has no business passing morality laws, which are CLEARLY a states' rights issue.... kind of like it says in the Bill Of Rights.

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2008 6:36 pm**

Actually, this is the first budget in which earmarks are attributed to specific people. Previously, they've been technically anonymous even though it was commonly understood who earmarked what projects.

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2008 8:01 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:When he was sworn in to Congress, he took oaths.

The two big ones were:

-Uphold the US Constitution. He wasn't just paying lip service, he actually believes in the 10th Amendment, unlike just about anyone else in the federal government

-Represent the people of his district to the best of his abilities while not violating the first oath

No, he took ONE oath. It is as follows.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Whith the earmark-trick, he's accomplished both. Hedging his bets doesn't make him dishonest, but rather the opposite. Not sure how anyone could even have trouble understanding that very basic move.

I thought the folks in his district were voting for a strict constructionist, not a sugar daddy. Apparently they want to have it both ways?

If his people ever get tired of him in Texas, he can move right on up here and take a Seat.

You're talking about a guy who is vehemently anti-abortion, yet wants to overturn Roe vs Wade on the grounds that the fed has no business passing morality laws, which are CLEARLY a states' rights issue.... kind of like it says in the Bill Of Rights.

Lemme guess, if Paul were to win, you would party like it was 1859? Because you do realize that the 14th Amendment renders your point moot?

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:09 pm**

BSmack wrote:
You're talking about a guy who is vehemently anti-abortion, yet wants to overturn Roe vs Wade on the grounds that the fed has no business passing morality laws, which are CLEARLY a states' rights issue.... kind of like it says in the Bill Of Rights.
Lemme guess, if Paul were to win, you would party like it was 1859? Because you do realize that the 14th Amendment renders your point moot?

You do realize that you are talking to a tool who thinks that the Prez can overturn Supreme Court decisions? And is opposed to the only candidate with a track record of appointing originalist judges to the bench?

Good luck with Clinton/Osama's three activist SC Justices in the next four years. And even if McRINO actually won in November, he's spent his whole Senate career appeasing the left on judical appointments.

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2008 11:46 pm**

Speaking of that wingnut, Ron Paul:

From a Reason Online article (January 16, 2008), entitled; 'Who Wrote Ron Paul's Newsletters?"

The answer, apparently, was his old, dear friend, Lew Rockwell, who "ghostwrote". some incredibly inflammatory, racist crap for Paul's newsletter.

In the article's last paragraph, the author points out:

Julian Sanchez, in the Reason article wrote:Ron Paul may not be a racist, but he became complicit in a strategy of pandering to racists—and taking "moral responsibility" for that now means more than just uttering the phrase. It means openly grappling with his own past—acknowledging who said what, and why. Otherwise he risks damaging not only his own reputation, but that of the philosophy to which he has committed his life.

Yep.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2008 12:31 am**

I tried to warn Dins about Lew Rockwell
last month. But would he listen? Nooooooo.....

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:15 am**

Ron Paul is still a nutjob. And Dimsdale is still a dipshit.

In case you forgot.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2008 4:13 pm**

RACK! Lew Rockwell.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:22 pm**

Diogenes wrote: And Dimsdale is still a dipshit.

In case you forgot.

Trust me. Nobody's forgotten that.

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2008 12:58 am**

Dr. James Dobson on McRINO...

"I'm deeply disappointed the Republican Party seems poised to select a nominee who did not support a Constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, who voted for embryonic stem cell research to kill nascent human beings, who opposed tax cuts that ended the marriage penalty, and who has little regard for freedom of speech, who organized the Gang of 14 to preserve filibusters, and has a legendary temper and often uses foul and obscene language.

"I am convinced Sen. McCain is not a conservative, and in fact, has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are. He has at times sounded more like a member of the other party. McCain actually considered leaving the GOP in 2001, and approached John Kerry about being Kerry's running mate in 2004. McCain also said publicly that Hillary Clinton would make a good president. Given these and many other concerns, a spoonful of sugar does not make the medicine go down. I cannot, and I will not vote for Sen. John McCain, as a matter of conscience.

"But what a sad and melancholy decision this is for me and many other conservatives. Should John McCain capture the nomination as many assume, I believe this general election will offer the worst choices for president in my lifetime. I certainly can't vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama based on their virulently anti-family policy positions. If these are the nominees in November, I simply will not cast a ballot for president for the first time in my life. These decisions are my personal views and do not represent the organization with which I'm affiliated. They do reflect, however, my deeply held convictions about the institution of the family, about moral and spiritual beliefs, and about the welfare of our country."

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2008 6:53 am**

Diogenes wrote:Dr. James Dobson

Talk about nutjobs.

Nothing personal, Dio, but that idiot trying to force his "moral" crusades down everyone's throat can go fuck himself. Dude makes Pat Robertson seem reasonable.

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm**

RadioFan wrote:
Diogenes wrote:Dr. James Dobson
Talk about nutjobs.

Nothing personal, Dio, but that idiot trying to force his "moral" crusades down everyone's throat can go fuck himself. Dude makes Pat Robertson seem reasonable.

No. Dobson isn't trying to 'force' anything on anyone. And he is someone who mainstream Christians actually pay attention to, unlike Robertson or Falwell.

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:41 pm**

Diogenes wrote:No. Dobson isn't trying to 'force' anything on anyone. And he is someone who mainstream Christians actually pay attention to, unlike Robertson or Falwell.

Bullshit he isn't. If Dobson had his way, America would be a theocracy.

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:05 pm**

BSmack wrote:
Diogenes wrote:No. Dobson isn't trying to 'force' anything on anyone. And he is someone who mainstream Christians actually pay attention to, unlike Robertson or Falwell.
Bullshit he isn't. If Dobson had his way, America would be a theocracy.

Link?

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:08 pm**

Diogenes wrote:
BSmack wrote:
Diogenes wrote:No. Dobson isn't trying to 'force' anything on anyone. And he is someone who mainstream Christians actually pay attention to, unlike Robertson or Falwell.
Bullshit he isn't. If Dobson had his way, America would be a theocracy.
Link?

http://www.google.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:20 pm**

Diogenes wrote: No. Dobson isn't trying to 'force' anything on anyone. And he is someone who mainstream Christians actually pay attention to, unlike Robertson or Falwell.

A mullah by any other name...

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:26 pm**

BSmack wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
BSmack wrote:Bullshit he isn't. If Dobson had his way, America would be a theocracy.
Link?

Interesting how you anti-religious wingnots have no problem with a tool like Jerimiah Wright, though.

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:28 pm**

Martyred wrote:
Diogenes wrote: No. Dobson isn't trying to 'force' anything on anyone. And he is someone who mainstream Christians actually pay attention to, unlike Robertson or Falwell.
A mullah by any other name...

...would be Wright.

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:32 pm**

Diogenes wrote:Interesting how you anti-religious wingnots have no problem with a tool like Jerimiah Wright, though.

When Democratic candidates start allowing folks like Wright to influence their policies, then I'll have a problem.

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:45 pm**

BSmack wrote:
Diogenes wrote:Interesting how you anti-religious wingnots have no problem with a tool like Jerimiah Wright, though.
When Democratic candidates start allowing folks like Wright to influence their policies, then I'll have a problem.

You mean when they admit to it? Do you really think Obama's 'spiritual advisor' has no effect on his decisions?

Answer-as long as it's a Dem, you won't give a shit. Any more than you let the truth keep you from vilifying anyone who espouses traditional values.

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:51 pm**

Diogenes wrote:You mean when they admit to it? Do you really think Obama's 'spiritual advisor' has no effect on his decisions?

How about you tell me what Wright has said that you find objectionable and then tell me where Obama's policies merge with those objectionable statements?

It's fairly easy to rip of a list of policy positions the evangelical wingnuts have foisted on the GOP. Things like school prayer, opposition to stem cell research, overturning Roe v Wade, subsidizing private schools, opposition to same sex marriage...

Surely you can do the same with Rev. Wright?

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:59 pm**

BSmack wrote:
Diogenes wrote:You mean when they admit to it? Do you really think Obama's 'spiritual advisor' has no effect on his decisions?
...school prayer, opposition to stem cell research, overturning Roe v Wade, subsidizing private schools, opposition to same sex marriage...

Surely you can do the same with Rev. Wright?

Nice list. All of which are good policy whether for religios or secular reasons. The difference is Obama will never admit to sharing his guru's admiration for Louis Farrahkahn. And if he did, you wouldn't care.

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2008 4:15 pm**

Diogenes wrote:
BSmack wrote:
Diogenes wrote:Interesting how you anti-religious wingnots have no problem with a tool like Jerimiah Wright, though.
When Democratic candidates start allowing folks like Wright to influence their policies, then I'll have a problem.
You mean when they admit to it? Do you really think Obama's 'spiritual advisor' has no effect on his decisions?

Do you attend church regularly? If so, do you agree with everything your pastor says?

Unless you can prove that Obama does, you've done little more than throw out a strawman here. But I'll give you credit for one thing -- that's probably a smarter strategy than addressing the merits of the contentions on Dobson.

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2008 4:40 pm**

RadioFan wrote:
Diaphanous wrote:Dr. James Dobson
Talk about nutjobs.

Diaphanous? Oh yeah, Certified Nutjob.

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2008 4:53 pm**

Diogenes wrote:I believe this general election will offer the worst choices for president in my lifetime.

Did this guy NAP thru the entire Bush / Kerry Campaign?

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2008 5:00 pm**

Diogenes wrote:
BSmack wrote:
Diogenes wrote:You mean when they admit to it? Do you really think Obama's 'spiritual advisor' has no effect on his decisions?
...school prayer, opposition to stem cell research, overturning Roe v Wade, subsidizing private schools, opposition to same sex marriage...

Surely you can do the same with Rev. Wright?
Nice list. All of which are good policy whether for religios or secular reasons. The difference is Obama will never admit to sharing his guru's admiration for Louis Farrahkahn. And if he did, you wouldn't care.

So what you're saying is that Obama's policy statements have NOT been affected by Wright.

Thanks for playing.

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2008 5:30 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Diogenes wrote:You mean when they admit to it? Do you really think Obama's 'spiritual advisor' has no effect on his decisions?
Do you attend church regularly? If so, do you agree with everything your pastor says?

Unless you can prove that Obama does, you've done little more than throw out a strawman here.

No, I'm just giving a comparison to show how insipid your hatred of Dobson is. Which candidate over the last 20 years has embraced everything he says?

And BTW, the quote above is Dobson's, not mine. But if it ends up being McRINO vs. Whichever, I'll probably tend to agree with it.

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2008 5:34 pm**

BSmack wrote:So what you're saying is that Obama's policy statements have NOT been affected by Wright.

No. Just that you are a hypocrite.

But being a Dem, that isn't exactly news.

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2008 5:41 pm**

Diogenes wrote:
BSmack wrote:So what you're saying is that Obama's policy statements have NOT been affected by Wright.
No.

Then you won't mind showing some proof?

[crickets]

Posted: **Thu Feb 07, 2008 10:36 pm**

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:So what you're saying is that Obama's policy statements have NOT been affected by Wright.

Thanks for playing.
Odumbass doesn't have policies. He has cultists.

If the best the Mainstream Media can sling at Obama is that his supporters are overzealous, then his trip to the White House ought to be a cakewalk.

Posted: **Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:32 pm**

mvscal wrote: He's done.

Yep. From here on, it's my boy Johnnie Mac vs. the wife of an unindicted war criminal.

Posted: **Fri Feb 08, 2008 12:18 am**

What will be the colour coding for this regime change?

Whatever it is, I'm sure it'll be Soros-tastic!

Posted: **Fri Feb 08, 2008 12:34 am**

C'mon, tell me you're not looking forward to those Clinton "humanitarian relief wars"...

The sheer number of unimportant African shitholes your boys could be dying in is staggering. All at the resentment of a
backwards, belligerent local population.

Not even the pretense of "sweets and flowers" at this point.

T1B

McRINO could have been a Dem???

McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???