Author Topic: Republican Candidates for 2008? (Read 2201 times)

midnight Target · « **Reply #30 on:** January 22, 2007, 12:42:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skuzzy
Truthiness? No clue what that means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness

Quote

It was named word of the year for 2005 by the American Dialect Society and for 2006 by Merriam-Webster.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #31 on:** January 22, 2007, 12:52:48 PM »

You dispute those two phrases as being truisms? Ok,. hehe...that is rather funny.

Or am I taking it out of context? Or would you better believe some link on the Internet? I can gin one of those up pretty quickly that has as much basis in reality as many links quoted on this board.

rpm · « **Reply #32 on:** January 22, 2007, 12:56:27 PM »

Red Tail 444 · « **Reply #33 on:** January 22, 2007, 01:22:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skuzzy
You dispute those two phrases as being truisms? Ok,. hehe...that is rather funny.

Or am I taking it out of context? Or would you better believe some link on the Internet? I can gin one of those up pretty quickly that has as much basis in reality as many links quoted on this board.

I haven't seen Skuzzy on the hook like this for quite some time.

MT, you have the Catch of the Day

Mr No Name · « **Reply #34 on:** January 22, 2007, 01:36:00 PM »

Unfortunately the last 3 elections the Republican party made the primary process a moot point and had GWB and Dole "the ordained ones" while other really good candidates were trashed horribly in the interest of party "unity". I really liked and respected Bob Dole although he was not my favorite. I believe the only thing that I like about GWB has been the global war on terror, especially since was has been delared and has been waged on us since 1979. One person to be horribly trashed by his own party was Pat Buchanan who warned about trade imbalances with China and the other countries and about illegal immigration.

I will vote for the candidate that will seal the border and start mass "express lane" deportations for all illegals - including "anchor babies".

oboe · « **Reply #35 on:** January 22, 2007, 01:39:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
Let's not forget the more recent president who did nothing to deter terrorism for 8 years which is arguably responsible for the 9/11 attack.

This is a completely untrue statement. I am no fan of Clinton, but he did not just sit on his hands regarding terrorism as you suggest.

soda72 · « **Reply #36 on:** January 22, 2007, 01:58:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by oboe
This is a completely untrue statement. I am no fan of Clinton, but he did not just sit on his hands regarding terrorism as you suggest.

If Monica was a terrorist, then 'yes', Bill did have his hands all over it, and then some...

I feel safer already....

lazs2 · « **Reply #37 on:** January 22, 2007, 02:13:21 PM »

in the lifetimes of both mt and skuzzy there have been two worse presidents...

lbj and carter. they rival only fdr and lincoln as the worst of all time.

lazs

Denholm · « **Reply #38 on:** January 22, 2007, 02:15:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by oboe
This is a completely untrue statement. I am no fan of Clinton, but he did not just sit on his hands regarding terrorism as you suggest.

Yet he did nothing when he was offered Usama Bin Ladin.

bsdaddict · « **Reply #39 on:** January 22, 2007, 02:16:15 PM »

noone else excited about Ron Paul in '08?

Mustaine · « **Reply #40 on:** January 22, 2007, 02:16:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
in the lifetimes of both mt and skuzzy there have been two worse presidents...

lbj and carter. they rival only fdr and lincoln as the worst of all time.

lazs

so Ford was a good president?

Denholm · « **Reply #41 on:** January 22, 2007, 02:17:45 PM »

All presidents make a few bad decisions in their terms.

republic · « **Reply #42 on:** January 22, 2007, 02:51:23 PM »

Things work best when one party is in the legislative, and the other party in executive. Checks and balances are what it's all about.

On the subject of Clinton...I still find it odd to this day how Clinton was nearly impeached for adultery, but yet Bush has yet to face anything but media criticism for the war in Iraq.

I just hope the next president is able to mend the polarization the current administration has fostered.

lukster · « **Reply #43 on:** January 22, 2007, 02:53:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by republic
Things work best when one party is in the legislative, and the other party in executive. Checks and balances are what it's all about.

On the subject of Clinton...I still find it odd to this day how Clinton was nearly impeached for adultery, but yet Bush has yet to face anything but media criticism for the war in Iraq.

I just hope the next president is able to mend the polarization the current administration has fostered.

Clinton was impeached (acquitted) for lying under oath. The investigation was never about adultry but rather about sexual abuse and/or harrassment.

soda72 · « **Reply #44 on:** January 22, 2007, 02:55:33 PM »

two things republican fathers don't want to hear...

1.)Hillary wins the presidency..

2.)Shortly after Hillary wins the presidency have their daughter come home happy becuase she won an internship at the white house...

Of course Democrat fathers wouldn't care becuase what a man does in the oval office is his own buisness...