T1B

Why the hell not? We're fucked anyway...might as well amuse ourselves by supporting the most batshit brain-eating crazy bastard out there.

"He'd be going to DC, right?"

Sincerely,
Screw_Michigan

It will never happen. A fiscal conservative who does nothing but create jobs in the private sector is a terrible idea for this country to buy into.

PSUFAN wrote:might as well amuse ourselves by supporting the most batshit brain-eating crazy bastard out there.

Go ahead and vote for the stupid niggger again, you fudge-striped fuckwit.

I mean what has Perry ever accomplished other than preside over the most successful economy in the nation over the last ten years? In the last two years, Texas alone has created more jobs than the rest of the country combined.

Yeah...he's "crazy."

Idiot.

Yeah, because the last time we elected an evangelical right wing governor of Texas worked out so well.

I hate to burst your bubble there, kiddy diddler, but trying to paint Perry as Bush only works when your guy is less fucked up than Chimpy. 5% unemployment and a triple A credit rating sounds pretty good right about now so all you're doing is creating a sense of nostalgia for the good old days.

Unfortunately for you, Bluegums Odowngrade is going to have to run on excuses rather than accomplishments. Somehow I don't think that's going to get him very far.

I seriously question whether this will work out well for Rick Perry.

He speaks slower than George Bush, often struggles to find words, and sounds a lot like GW.
Plus the obvious - he's a Texas republican.

I just don't know that he's going to strike Mr. American as being TEH answer.

Perry lacks charisma, and like it or not, that quality plays large in this 24 hour instant hyper-media age we live in.
He honestly comes across as a slighly advanced Fred Thompson.

Yes, he can point to the merits of his record as Texas Governor.
And maybe a bigger YES, is if he is 'the chosen' GOP guy, that can count for a lot.


I'm not sure Perry's gonna go over all that well with the Overlord, Donald Trump.

Btw, any prediction on who the first announced GOPer to pack it in will be?

Gingrich
Pawlenty
Huntsman
Bachmann
Paul
Santorum
Romney
Cain
Perry
Johnson - is he still in?


What a pathetic, group.


I laffed when I heard Dennis Miller say that Rick Santorum sounds like Charlie Brown's parents in the background.




I'd look for Cain and Huntsman to drop first - in that order.

The only ones I could support are Gary Johnson and maybe Huntsman. The rest of the field doesn't interest me much.

I have a miserable life and wish I were dead!

mvscal wrote:5% unemployment and a triple A credit rating sounds pretty good right about now so all you're doing is creating a sense of nostalgia for the good old days.

So you want Clinton back?

poptart wrote:Btw, any prediction on who the first announced GOPer to pack it in will be?

Gingrich
Pawlenty
Huntsman
Bachmann
Paul
Santorum
Romney
Cain
Perry
Johnson - is he still in?


What a pathetic, group.


I laffed when I heard Dennis Miller say that Rick Santorum sounds like Charlie Brown's parents in the background.




I'd look for Cain and Huntsman to drop first - in that order.

It's Pawlenty, despite coming in third yesterday.

Must be outta money already.

BSmack wrote:So you want Clinton back?

Clinton was in the right place at the right time. The technology boom was a HUGE part of his success.

poptart wrote:He speaks slower than George Bush, often struggles to find words, and sounds a lot like GW.

I don't know where people are getting this from. He does not speak slower than Bush and doesn't have a glazed look on his face as if his head is about to explode. Perry is no Clinton or Obama when it comes to speaking, but he's a lot better than Bush.

Go Coogs' wrote:

BSmack wrote:So you want Clinton back?

Clinton was in the right place at the right time. The technology boom was a HUGE part of his success.

A successful economy under a Republican's watch: He rolled up his sleeves, got to work, and implemented brilliant policy.

A successful economy under a Democrat's watch: Right place at the right time.

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote:5% unemployment and a triple A credit rating sounds pretty good right about now so all you're doing is creating a sense of nostalgia for the good old days.

So you want Clinton back?

if he comes with solid GOP majorities in both houses of congress, like bubba had, yes.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:A successful economy under a Republican's watch: He rolled up his sleeves, got to work, and implemented brilliant policy.

A successful economy under a Democrat's watch: Right place at the right time.

I'm just pointing out the facts with regard to Clinton's time in office. If Perot didn't run and Bush Sr. was re-elected, then he would've been the beneficiary of Windows '94 and everything else that followed computer hardware and software jobs.

Jsc810 wrote:

PSUFAN wrote:the most batshit brain-eating crazy bastard out there.

Granted, he's close.

But he's not #1.

THAT IS patently UNFAIR and you know it, HOW bout posting some hot pics of her, cause, for my money, she is one seriously hot M I L F, ive rubbed out a few to her on fox news nightly, can u imagine a 3 way with her and sarah palin? fuck, Im gonna bust a nut just thinkin about it.

poptart wrote:I seriously question whether this will work out well for Rick Perry.

He speaks slower than George Bush, often struggles to find words, and sounds a lot like GW.
Plus the obvious - he's a Texas republican.

I just don't know that he's going to strike Mr. American as being TEH answer.

Perry lacks charisma, and like it or not, that quality plays large in this 24 hour instant hyper-media age we live in.
He honestly comes across as a slighly advanced Fred Thompson.

Yes, he can point to the merits of his record as Texas Governor.
And maybe a bigger YES, is if he is 'the chosen' GOP guy, that can count for a lot.


I'm not sure Perry's gonna go over all that well with the Overlord, Donald Trump.

Ain't it the truth. Votes going to the candidate based on looks and how well they speak...not on what is best for the country....

Go Coogs' wrote:

BSmack wrote:So you want Clinton back?

Clinton was in the right place at the right time. The technology boom was a HUGE part of his success.

88 wrote:What were the Clinton economic policies that led to boom times? And why isn't Obama trumpeting the exact same policies to bring the country out of the current malaise?

doesn't matter what Obama trumpets. Gop will only vote for what GOP wants.

PSUFAN wrote:Why the hell not? We're fucked anyway...might as well amuse ourselves by supporting the most batshit brain-eating crazy bastard out there.

Can you resurrect that montage you posted years ago?

bradhusker wrote:...HOW bout posting some hot pics of her, cause, for my money, she is one seriously hot M I L F, ive rubbed out a few to her on fox news nightly, can u imagine a 3 way with her and sarah palin? fuck, Im gonna bust a nut just thinkin about it.

How do you feel about this one, Bradley?

Truman wrote:

bradhusker wrote:...HOW bout posting some hot pics of her, cause, for my money, she is one seriously hot M I L F, ive rubbed out a few to her on fox news nightly, can u imagine a 3 way with her and sarah palin? fuck, Im gonna bust a nut just thinkin about it.

How do you feel about this one, Bradley?

thankj

Thanks for that man, Only problem is I fuckin came so hard and fast, I ruined my lap top, its completely gone, goin to best buy today to get a new one.

damm, she is so fuckin hot, that wasnt photo shopped was it?

It's the Interwebs, Bradley... Of course it's real.

Just like you.

88 wrote:What were the Clinton economic policies that led to boom times? And why isn't Obama trumpeting the exact same policies to bring the country out of the current malaise?

Who knows or cares what policies Obama is trumpeting? We've all moved on, right? The support that put him into the office has abandoned him, and the opposition surely hasn't shrunk.

If Obama's policies actually are sound, it won't make a whit of difference.

That's why I'm supporting Perry...at least we can laugh together at a dude who is fucking the spine of a bible and making a complete mockery of the public offices he holds and aspires to.

I think Bachman is not going to be a great pick to get Obama out of office seeing as she used to be a IRS lawyer even though she is all about no taxes. Made a lot of her earnings on taking people to court so that they pay their taxes.

With the field so weak I would not be shocked if someone like Ron Paul snuck in.

The media is trumpeting anything that sells. Even though the republicant's have shown incredible stupidity with their strategies in the past, the nominee will be Romney; who will then pick a nice conservative to round out the ticket...someone like a Rubio out of Florida.

Todd wrote:Obama is unelectable

He is.

The democratic masters know it very well.

One way or another, Barry will not be the democratic nominee, imo.


Wait and see.

Jeff wrote:I would not be shocked if someone like Ron Paul snuck in

I would be.

I would be VERY shocked.

Go Coogs' wrote:

BSmack wrote:So you want Clinton back?

Clinton was in the right place at the right time. The technology boom was a HUGE part of his success.

WELL said, ive been saying that for years now, Bill Clinton was very lucky to have been president during the computer and internet BOOM. All those jobs? The internet bubble would burst by the time GW got in.

In strong contrast, the 16 million jobs during the reagan administration were real, no internet yet, Reagan presided over the biggest economic boom of all time, due to his sound principles and beliefs.

Obama has no sound principles and surely no sound beliefs. Obama believes in the teachings of Marx, and those teachings are worthless tripe. Karl marx was a worthless fool, and a president who embraces that kind of thinking, is also worthless.

Ben Franklin and thomas Jefferson and the rest of our founding fathers ALREADY learned from the past, they created the perfect constitutional republic, they also knew, that the dumbing down of the masses would one day put our republic in great peril.

If Obama were allowed a second term, this country would indeed be headed down the path of great peril and danger to our republic, there is no doubt in my mind.

His wife, Michelle? she has nothing but dis-respect for our founding fathers, she views them as slave owners, and nothing more, ANYONE who dis-respects Ben Franklin and the constitutional republic he gave us, is a fool. And I have nothing but contempt and Ill will torward them, Most liberals fall under this way of thinking, THUS, I wish them all to burn in hell.

Its that simple, Liberals hate the founding fathers, and therefore I hate them, and, consider them to have a severe mental dis-order.

bradhusker wrote:
Its that simple, Liberals hate the founding fathers...

The founding fathers were liberals, you dolt.

poptart wrote:

Todd wrote:Obama is unelectable

He is.

The democratic masters know it very well.

One way or another, Barry will not be the democratic nominee, imo.


Wait and see.

If Obama was going to get a challenge from within his party, there would be another Democrat in the race by now. It's a little late in the game to start an exploratory committee, fundraising, etc.

And besides, if Obama were unelectable, Jeb would be in the race, because you know that's who the powers that be in the Republican Party really want in the White House.

It's pretty hard to win a Presidential election when your party's frontrunner is this guy:



Not to mention that Obama will have a field day painting him as a flipflopper on health care.

On the plus side, at least he has a built-in campaign song.

Martyred wrote:

bradhusker wrote:
Its that simple, Liberals hate the founding fathers...

The founding fathers were liberals, you dolt.

hey moron number one? the founding fathers were NOT liberals, they may have gone against the conservatives of the time, ie.. the KING of england and his ruthless tyrrannical monarchy, but, if you think thats what makes them LIBERAL, you are sadly mistaken.

I love how you think that "LIBERAL" means going against the establishment, IT DOES NOT. If by going up against the KING of england, and starting a revolution for freedom and liberty, makes your stupid mind call them liberals, then you are indeed an idiot.

LET ME EXPLAIN it to your narrow mind. TODAY, left wing liberals dont like our freedom or liberty. These LIBERALS want the government to control our lives from the cradle to the grave. THE VERY THING our founding fathers fought against you IDIOT!!!

CAN YOU BE THAT DUMB AS TO NOT GET THIS???

Thats like saying that william wallace was a liberal, cause he too was fighting for freedom and liberty for his homeland of scotland.

NO SIR, when you fight for freedom and liberty for yourself and your countrymen, you are a conservative.

LEARN the facts moron. TODAY, a lunatic left wing liberal like Bill Mahr, wants the government to control you from birth to death, and, EVEN IN DEATH, this liberal nutjob wants the government to take half your entire life savings from you!!!

SO, get your facts straight nutty boy, its LIBERALS who dont want you to have personal liberty and freedom. and its always been that way throughout time, especially KARL MARX, he is the idiot that liberals look up to.

Liberals hate ben franklin, cause he gave us liberty and freedom with our constitutional republic.

get ur facts straight dummy.

scumbag,

bradhusker wrote:

Martyred wrote:

bradhusker wrote:
Its that simple, Liberals hate the founding fathers...

The founding fathers were liberals, you dolt.

hey moron number one? the founding fathers were NOT liberals, they may have gone against the conservatives of the time, ie.. the KING of england and his ruthless tyrrannical monarchy, but, if you think thats what makes them LIBERAL, you are sadly mistaken.

I love how you think that "LIBERAL" means going against the establishment, IT DOES NOT. If by going up against the KING of england, and starting a revolution for freedom and liberty, makes your stupid mind call them liberals, then you are indeed an idiot.

LET ME EXPLAIN it to your narrow mind. TODAY, left wing liberals dont like our freedom or liberty. These LIBERALS want the government to control our lives from the cradle to the grave. THE VERY THING our founding fathers fought against you IDIOT!!!

CAN YOU BE THAT DUMB AS TO NOT GET THIS???

Thats like saying that william wallace was a liberal, cause he too was fighting for freedom and liberty for his homeland of scotland.

NO SIR, when you fight for freedom and liberty for yourself and your countrymen, you are a conservative.

LEARN the facts moron. TODAY, a lunatic left wing liberal like Bill Mahr, wants the government to control you from birth to death, and, EVEN IN DEATH, this liberal nutjob wants the government to take half your entire life savings from you!!!

SO, get your facts straight nutty boy, its LIBERALS who dont want you to have personal liberty and freedom. and its always been that way throughout time, especially KARL MARX, he is the idiot that liberals look up to.

Liberals hate ben franklin, cause he gave us liberty and freedom with our constitutional republic.

get ur facts straight dummy.

Now excuse me I have to go relieve some stress by blowing a bunch of dicks. DON'T JUDGE ME AND DON'T KNOCK IT UNTIL YOU TRY IT, YOU HOMO

Still struggling to stay in character I see.

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote:5% unemployment and a triple A credit rating sounds pretty good right about now so all you're doing is creating a sense of nostalgia for the good old days.

So you want Clinton back?

I'll pass on the illegal wars, illegal campaign contributions, and insane transfers of missile technology to China, thanks. The economy performed well under the guidance of a Republican controlled Congress and Billigula, to his credit, was intelligent enough to go with the program.

You can't deny that some of the key pieces of our current economic woes bear his signature namely NAFTA and the repeal of Glass-Steagall, though.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:And besides, if Obama were unelectable, Jeb would be in the race, because you know that's who the powers that be in the Republican Party really want in the White House.

Fuck off, moron.

the foundnig fathers were true liberals. the problem is, today's liberals are anything but liberal. they are liberal about having the freedom to stick your dick where ever and not be concerned with the consequences. everything else, they want gubmint to control.

smackaholic wrote:the (sic) foundnig (sic) fathers were true classical liberals. the (sic) problem is, (sic) that today's liberals are anything but liberal socialists. they are liberal about having the freedom to stick your dick where ever and not be concerned with the consequences. everything else, they want gubmint to control.

I'm here to help.

Papa Willie wrote:He fucked a fat pig...

Stop lying, OK? He didn't fuck her. Get the story straight.

She was a young intern. Obviously, she was the daughter of a generous campaign contributer with all the right connections. I'm sure it must have been very exciting for her to be there at the seat of power. "Oh, goody! Sure! Would I ever love to bring some pizza and some paper to sign to the President!"

~knock, knock~ "Oh...uh, Mr. P-ppresident? Here's the pizza you asked for and some papers to sign."

OK, let's freeze the action right there for second and pose a question. You are the President of the United States, leader of the Free World. A young intern from a well-connected family brings you some pizza and some papers to sign.

Do you?

A. Thank her for the pizza, place the papers in your in box then ask her name and perhaps make some brief, polite chat before sending her on her way?

B. Jam a cigar in her twat, stuff your cock in her gobbler then pull out and shoot your load all over her face and dress?