About Us

Keyser SÃ¶ze

On 12/13/14 1:56 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 13:42:43 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 13:07:11 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/13/2014 12:49 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser SÃ¶ze wrote:
Whew...I was sweating whether the 2016 GOP presidential wannabes would
include a full bowl of nutcases, instead of just Cruz, Paul, et cetera...

My "prayers" have been answered:

Rick Santorum is running for president again â€” and says this time will be different

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum is running for president again,
but with a retooled message and hopes of appealing beyond his socially
conservative base. (Eric Gay/AP)
By Karen Tumulty December 9

Rick Santorum won primaries and caucuses in 11 states in 2012, coming in
a respectable second in the GOP presidential primary season. And
Republicans have a history of bestowing their nomination on the next guy
in line, usually an also-ran from the last contest.

Yet the former senator from Pennsylvania is rarely mentioned in the
already feverish pre-game 2016 chatter among the political commentariat
and the donor class.

Thatâ€™s just the way he likes it. Or so he says.

â€œAmerica loves an underdog. Weâ€™re definitely the underdog in this race,â€
he said in an interview Tuesday. Santorum added that being underestimated
â€” again â€” â€œhas given me a lot of latitude.â€

His iconic sweater vests will likely make a return appearance. But
Santorum 2.0 will be a very different presidential campaign than the one
that came from almost nowhere to win the Iowa caucuses in an overtime decision, he vows.

â€œI get the game,â€ Santorum said.

Snipped from today's Wash Post online.

You forgot the liars and nut cases from the left side.

There is an increasing movement to convince Elizabeth Warren to run.
Wouldn't it be a hoot if she received the Democratic nomination and Ted
Cruz received the Republican? Two diametrically opposed screwballs
running for POTUS.

===

The only good thing that could become of that is that it might give a
sane third party candidate a fighting chance. It's doubtful though.
Too many people have the ingrained habit of voting straight Democratic
or straight Republican without giving any real thought to the actual
candidates. Trying to get legislation through congress would also be
a nightmare for a 3rd party president unless they had tremendous
leadership ability at the grass roots level.

The people who buy themselves a president every 4 years does not want
to have any 3d parties in the mix. They control the democrats and
republicans. They go out of their way not to open up any opportunity
for competition.
After Perot, you have to be a member of the team to even get to the
debates. They don't like embarrassing questions.
Harry is a symptom of the problem, simply declaring anyone who doesn't
toe his party line as being loony or nuts.

Yet another moronic statement from you. I don't think Jeb Bush is
loony/nuts. I don't think Chris Christie is loony/nuts. I don't think
Jon Huntsman is loony/nuts. I don't think Mitt Romney is loony/nuts.
None of these Republicans are candidates for whom I would vote, but not
because I think they are insane or don't adhere to the "party line,"
whatever that is, I support.

I can't see Warren gaining traction for the Democratic nomination. I
think she's great as a U.S. Senator, though.

I don't see myself voting for loonytarians, though. They're just
Republicans with less sense of civic responsibility.

--
Letâ€™s elect a gay black woman with a latino lover president,
if only for the possibility of provoking a right-wing mass suicide.

Keyser SÃ¶ze

On 12/13/14 8:13 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 14:13:09 -0500, Keyser SÃ¶ze
wrote:

On 12/13/14 1:56 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 13:42:43 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 13:07:11 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The only good thing that could become of that is that it might give a
sane third party candidate a fighting chance. It's doubtful though.
Too many people have the ingrained habit of voting straight Democratic
or straight Republican without giving any real thought to the actual
candidates. Trying to get legislation through congress would also be
a nightmare for a 3rd party president unless they had tremendous
leadership ability at the grass roots level.

The people who buy themselves a president every 4 years does not want
to have any 3d parties in the mix. They control the democrats and
republicans. They go out of their way not to open up any opportunity
for competition.
After Perot, you have to be a member of the team to even get to the
debates. They don't like embarrassing questions.
Harry is a symptom of the problem, simply declaring anyone who doesn't
toe his party line as being loony or nuts.

Yet another moronic statement from you. I don't think Jeb Bush is
loony/nuts. I don't think Chris Christie is loony/nuts. I don't think
Jon Huntsman is loony/nuts. I don't think Mitt Romney is loony/nuts.
None of these Republicans are candidates for whom I would vote, but not
because I think they are insane or don't adhere to the "party line,"
whatever that is, I support.

I can't see Warren gaining traction for the Democratic nomination. I
think she's great as a U.S. Senator, though.

I don't see myself voting for loonytarians, though. They're just
Republicans with less sense of civic responsibility.

What part of "3d party" did you have trouble comprehending?
You really have a hard time keeping up.

I was commenting on your silly slam that I consider anyone who isn't
lined up with the Democratic party line as "loony or nuts." That's just
more of your simple-minded political bull****.

As for a "sane third party candidate," I can't think of one with any
standing who has what it takes to get anywhere in a nominating or
electoral process. Certainly no loonytarians.

--
Letâ€™s elect a gay black woman with a latino lover president,
if only for the possibility of provoking a right-wing mass suicide.

Keyser SÃ¶ze

wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 20:21:11 -0500, Keyser SÃ¶ze
wrote:

On 12/13/14 8:13 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 14:13:09 -0500, Keyser SÃ¶ze
wrote:

On 12/13/14 1:56 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 13:42:43 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 13:07:11 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The only good thing that could become of that is that it might give a
sane third party candidate a fighting chance. It's doubtful though.
Too many people have the ingrained habit of voting straight Democratic
or straight Republican without giving any real thought to the actual
candidates. Trying to get legislation through congress would also be
a nightmare for a 3rd party president unless they had tremendous
leadership ability at the grass roots level.

The people who buy themselves a president every 4 years does not want
to have any 3d parties in the mix. They control the democrats and
republicans. They go out of their way not to open up any opportunity
for competition.
After Perot, you have to be a member of the team to even get to the
debates. They don't like embarrassing questions.
Harry is a symptom of the problem, simply declaring anyone who doesn't
toe his party line as being loony or nuts.

Yet another moronic statement from you. I don't think Jeb Bush is
loony/nuts. I don't think Chris Christie is loony/nuts. I don't think
Jon Huntsman is loony/nuts. I don't think Mitt Romney is loony/nuts.
None of these Republicans are candidates for whom I would vote, but not
because I think they are insane or don't adhere to the "party line,"
whatever that is, I support.

I can't see Warren gaining traction for the Democratic nomination. I
think she's great as a U.S. Senator, though.

I don't see myself voting for loonytarians, though. They're just
Republicans with less sense of civic responsibility.

What part of "3d party" did you have trouble comprehending?
You really have a hard time keeping up.

I was commenting on your silly slam that I consider anyone who isn't
lined up with the Democratic party line as "loony or nuts." That's just
more of your simple-minded political bull****.

Read the whole note again

As for a "sane third party candidate," I can't think of one with any
standing who has what it takes to get anywhere in a nominating or
electoral process. Certainly no loonytarians.

You have drunk the Kool Ade. The world is black or white for you and
it is just democrats and republicans. Anyone who does not fit on one
box or the other is simply loony.
Perhaps if you actually looked you would see libertarians pick planks
from both sides to create a platform, that promotes true liberty
A government that is not only out of your bedroom, that you support
but also out of your wallet, that the republicans support
They also want to stop military adventurism and neither party wants to
do that.
A lot of bribes come along with that $800 Billion dollar DoD budget

Just how much loonytarian koolaid have you had?
--
Sent from my iPhone 6+

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Oh, my goodness!	X ` Man[_3_]	General	0	July 14th 12 10:27 PM
Thank goodness she had a gun to protect her family...	jps	General	22	December 11th 11 02:25 PM
Oh-My-Goodness!	Tim	General	17	December 26th 10 12:30 AM
My goodness, NBC is using the word...	JohnH[_4_]	General	2	December 4th 08 06:55 PM
Thank Goodness Job Seeking Slackers Get No Welfare	JDavis1277	General	15	September 11th 03 12:55 PM

Menu

About Us