Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 1/1/2012 4:28:00 AM EDT
I had a feeling that Santorum would make a good showing in Iowa.
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 4:34:00 AM EDT
Does it really matter? Iowa has lost all predictive credibility at this point.
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 8:01:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By VelveteenMole:
Does it really matter? Iowa has lost all predictive credibility at this point.


This, and EVERYONE is ahead of Newt at the moment.
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 8:07:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By VelveteenMole:
Does it really matter? Iowa has lost all predictive credibility at this point.

Yes it matters because we need someone who can beat obama––-now. Santorum––-while not flashy or charismatic––––can do that and, unlike romney, gingrich, or even paul, he's not a RINO and he does try to live what he believes. I may not have always agreed with him on every issue but I'd rather have him at the helm in the White House than I would obama, gingrich, romney or paul.
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 8:18:47 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ElevenO:

Originally Posted By VelveteenMole:
Does it really matter? Iowa has lost all predictive credibility at this point.

Yes it matters because we need someone who can beat obama––-now. Santorum––-while not flashy or charismatic––––can do that and, unlike romney, gingrich, or even paul, he's not a RINO and he does try to live what he believes. I may not have always agreed with him on every issue but I'd rather have him at the helm in the White House than I would obama, gingrich, romney or paul.


I can vote for Santorum. Not Romney or Gingrich though
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 9:34:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Nightfalcon007:
Originally Posted By ElevenO:

Originally Posted By VelveteenMole:
Does it really matter? Iowa has lost all predictive credibility at this point.

Yes it matters because we need someone who can beat obama––-now. Santorum––-while not flashy or charismatic––––can do that and, unlike romney, gingrich, or even paul, he's not a RINO and he does try to live what he believes. I may not have always agreed with him on every issue but I'd rather have him at the helm in the White House than I would obama, gingrich, romney or paul.


I can vote for Santorum. Not Romney or Gingrich though



Ditto. I can vote for santorum, bachman, perry and paul. However, I will have to bite my tongue and hold my nose in order to pull the lever for either perry or paul. If it comes down to either romney or gingrich I might just have to vote for a third party candidate, consequences be damned.
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 9:37:26 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ElevenO:

Originally Posted By Nightfalcon007:
Originally Posted By ElevenO:

Originally Posted By VelveteenMole:
Does it really matter? Iowa has lost all predictive credibility at this point.

Yes it matters because we need someone who can beat obama––-now. Santorum––-while not flashy or charismatic––––can do that and, unlike romney, gingrich, or even paul, he's not a RINO and he does try to live what he believes. I may not have always agreed with him on every issue but I'd rather have him at the helm in the White House than I would obama, gingrich, romney or paul.


I can vote for Santorum. Not Romney or Gingrich though



Ditto. I can vote for santorum, bachman, perry and paul. However, I will have to bite my tongue and hold my nose in order to pull the lever for either perry or paul. If it comes down to either romney or gingrich I might just have to vote for a third party candidate, consequences be damned.



__________________________________________________________________
Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).
«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 9:41:25 AM EDT
santorum won't win because there are too many people afraid of putting another outspoken Christian into office. That this is a fact should help explain why the commies over the past few decades were so intent on destroying religion, inventing "freedom from religion" etc. Their domination of the education system and media is paying off now.



Link Posted: 1/1/2012 9:44:26 AM EDT
Originally Posted By VelveteenMole:
Does it really matter? Iowa has lost all predictive credibility at this point.


Why do you say this?
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 9:47:06 AM EDT
You are about to be molested by Paulistanians....
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 10:04:32 AM EDT
I pray to the Good Lord above that he finishes 2nd in Iowa, and surges enough to get 1st or second in the next couple. Iowa hasn't picked a winner in a while, so I'm fine with that scenario. If he gets through these first few strong, he can win S.C., and a lot of states in the Super Tuesday polls. All we need is a good candidate that has little to no skeletons, has a good record, and doesn't shoot himself in the foot. We have that in Santorum. Newt is toast now I think primary wise, Paul isn't going anywhere, and Romney for the life of him can't add to his stats because he's a Democrat and can't get out the base. Perry just makes too many mistakes right now. Maybe in the next election cycle he'll have learned and will be more polished.

I don't think Santorum can be touched with negative adds by Romney, and I think Romney already looks like an asshole to many people on the right for the millions he spent on negatives already. I wouldn't doubt that Romney was behind the Cain accusers. He just looks and acts like a spoiled rich kid grade a asshole that will destroy anybody that gets in his way right or wrong. That's sleazeball and I don't like it, but I'd take the sleazeball over the Marxist.

You can bet on Old Joe making a few more big gaffs in the coming weeks and months like the Taliban one too. He's setting himself up to take the fall to open up the ticket for Hillary. He almost said as much last election if you remember.He said Hillary would make a better Vice President then when it looked like trouble.

I hope Santorum can pull it off.
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 11:02:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/1/2012 11:05:50 AM EDT by ElevenO]

Originally Posted By tc2k11:
Originally Posted By ElevenO:

Originally Posted By Nightfalcon007:
Originally Posted By ElevenO:

Originally Posted By VelveteenMole:
Does it really matter? Iowa has lost all predictive credibility at this point.

Yes it matters because we need someone who can beat obama––-now. Santorum––-while not flashy or charismatic––––can do that and, unlike romney, gingrich, or even paul, he's not a RINO and he does try to live what he believes. I may not have always agreed with him on every issue but I'd rather have him at the helm in the White House than I would obama, gingrich, romney or paul.


I can vote for Santorum. Not Romney or Gingrich though



Ditto. I can vote for santorum, bachman, perry and paul. However, I will have to bite my tongue and hold my nose in order to pull the lever for either perry or paul. If it comes down to either romney or gingrich I might just have to vote for a third party candidate, consequences be damned.

http://www.wunjopress.com/images/Soft%20Words/cut%20your%20nose%20off%20to%20spite%20your%2­0face.jpg

__________________________________________________________________
Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).
«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»

I honestly cannot see any practical difference between obama, gingrich and romney. All three would take this country over a proverbial cliff (because, don't forget, romney––-in particular––-has gone on record that he supports a ban against "assault rifles" plus he helped make the state version of government run healthcare a reality in massachusettes). The only difference would be that romney and gingrich would do it at 60 miles per hour while obama would do it at 300 miles an hour. In any case, we would still end up in the same place. With choices like that, a third party vote (for someone with some genuine integrity and love for this country's traditional values) would be preferable to me. That way, at least my conscious would be clear.
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 11:03:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/1/2012 11:04:49 AM EDT by raven]
I like Santorum, but yes Iowa made Suckabee the winner last time only because he's a Christian and that's all that matters to them. Oh, that and corn subsidies. Iowa.
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 11:05:06 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Sixgun_Symphony:
I had a feeling that Santorum would make a good showing in Iowa.


Clearly the "vote for the most electable candidate" types will all get behind Santorum now. Right guys...
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 11:25:05 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ElevenO:

Originally Posted By tc2k11:
Originally Posted By ElevenO:

Originally Posted By Nightfalcon007:
Originally Posted By ElevenO:

Originally Posted By VelveteenMole:
Does it really matter? Iowa has lost all predictive credibility at this point.

Yes it matters because we need someone who can beat obama––-now. Santorum––-while not flashy or charismatic––––can do that and, unlike romney, gingrich, or even paul, he's not a RINO and he does try to live what he believes. I may not have always agreed with him on every issue but I'd rather have him at the helm in the White House than I would obama, gingrich, romney or paul.


I can vote for Santorum. Not Romney or Gingrich though



Ditto. I can vote for santorum, bachman, perry and paul. However, I will have to bite my tongue and hold my nose in order to pull the lever for either perry or paul. If it comes down to either romney or gingrich I might just have to vote for a third party candidate, consequences be damned.

http://www.wunjopress.com/images/Soft%20Words/cut%20your%20nose%20off%20to%20spite%20your%2­0face.jpg

__________________________________________________________________
Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).
«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»

I honestly cannot see any practical difference between obama, gingrich and romney. All three would take this country over a proverbial cliff (because, don't forget, romney––-in particular––-has gone on record that he supports a ban against "assault rifles" plus he helped make the state version of government run healthcare a reality in massachusettes). The only difference would be that romney and gingrich would do it at 60 miles per hour while obama would do it at 300 miles an hour. In any case, we would still end up in the same place. With choices like that, a third party vote (for someone with some genuine integrity and love for this country's traditional values) would be preferable to me. That way, at least my conscious would be clear.

SCOTUS... Heller... McDonald... Kennedy about to retire...



__________________________________________________________________
Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).
«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 11:30:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By tc2k11:
Originally Posted By ElevenO:

Originally Posted By tc2k11:
Originally Posted By ElevenO:

Originally Posted By Nightfalcon007:
Originally Posted By ElevenO:

Originally Posted By VelveteenMole:
Does it really matter? Iowa has lost all predictive credibility at this point.

Yes it matters because we need someone who can beat obama––-now. Santorum––-while not flashy or charismatic––––can do that and, unlike romney, gingrich, or even paul, he's not a RINO and he does try to live what he believes. I may not have always agreed with him on every issue but I'd rather have him at the helm in the White House than I would obama, gingrich, romney or paul.


I can vote for Santorum. Not Romney or Gingrich though



Ditto. I can vote for santorum, bachman, perry and paul. However, I will have to bite my tongue and hold my nose in order to pull the lever for either perry or paul. If it comes down to either romney or gingrich I might just have to vote for a third party candidate, consequences be damned.

http://www.wunjopress.com/images/Soft%20Words/cut%20your%20nose%20off%20to%20spite%20your%2­0face.jpg

__________________________________________________________________
Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).
«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»

I honestly cannot see any practical difference between obama, gingrich and romney. All three would take this country over a proverbial cliff (because, don't forget, romney––-in particular––-has gone on record that he supports a ban against "assault rifles" plus he helped make the state version of government run healthcare a reality in massachusettes). The only difference would be that romney and gingrich would do it at 60 miles per hour while obama would do it at 300 miles an hour. In any case, we would still end up in the same place. With choices like that, a third party vote (for someone with some genuine integrity and love for this country's traditional values) would be preferable to me. That way, at least my conscious would be clear.

SCOTUS... Heller... McDonald... Kennedy about to retire...



__________________________________________________________________
Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).
«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»

There are no guarantees when it comes to progressives, and that is what Gingrich and Romney are. If justices do in fact die or retire in the next four years (also not a guarantee) we are still likely to have to eat a shit sandwich. If one could say that Romney, Gingrich, and Obama were the only ones that could end up/remain in the WH after 2012 (with equal chances for each), the chances of us getting bad SCOTUS picks in the next four years would still be much higher than the opposite.
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 11:37:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/1/2012 11:37:45 AM EDT by tc2k11]
Originally Posted By bigstick61:

Originally Posted By tc2k11:
Originally Posted By ElevenO:

Originally Posted By tc2k11:
Originally Posted By ElevenO:

Originally Posted By Nightfalcon007:
Originally Posted By ElevenO:

Originally Posted By VelveteenMole:
Does it really matter? Iowa has lost all predictive credibility at this point.

Yes it matters because we need someone who can beat obama––-now. Santorum––-while not flashy or charismatic––––can do that and, unlike romney, gingrich, or even paul, he's not a RINO and he does try to live what he believes. I may not have always agreed with him on every issue but I'd rather have him at the helm in the White House than I would obama, gingrich, romney or paul.


I can vote for Santorum. Not Romney or Gingrich though



Ditto. I can vote for santorum, bachman, perry and paul. However, I will have to bite my tongue and hold my nose in order to pull the lever for either perry or paul. If it comes down to either romney or gingrich I might just have to vote for a third party candidate, consequences be damned.

http://www.wunjopress.com/images/Soft%20Words/cut%20your%20nose%20off%20to%20spite%20your%2­0face.jpg

__________________________________________________________________
Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).
«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»

I honestly cannot see any practical difference between obama, gingrich and romney. All three would take this country over a proverbial cliff (because, don't forget, romney––-in particular––-has gone on record that he supports a ban against "assault rifles" plus he helped make the state version of government run healthcare a reality in massachusettes). The only difference would be that romney and gingrich would do it at 60 miles per hour while obama would do it at 300 miles an hour. In any case, we would still end up in the same place. With choices like that, a third party vote (for someone with some genuine integrity and love for this country's traditional values) would be preferable to me. That way, at least my conscious would be clear.

SCOTUS... Heller... McDonald... Kennedy about to retire...



__________________________________________________________________
Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).
«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»

There are no guarantees when it comes to progressives, and that is what Gingrich and Romney are. If justices do in fact die or retire in the next four years (also not a guarantee) we are still likely to have to eat a shit sandwich. If one could say that Romney, Gingrich, and Obama were the only ones that could end up/remain in the WH after 2012 (with equal chances for each), the chances of us getting bad SCOTUS picks in the next four years would still be much higher than the opposite.

People said the same damn thing about Bush Jr., and look what we got! Roberts and Alito!

Obviously, a Democrat-controlled Senate screening Democrat-picked nominees will be no different than if Romney is picking the nominees.

Are you kidding me?

Oh, and, newsflash: the Senate has scrapped the "60 votes needed to block a filibuster" rule, so they can approve a nominee with a simple majority, now.



__________________________________________________________________
Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).
«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 11:37:52 AM EDT
good

now lets see what kind of skeletons come creeping out of his closet or stupid things he'll say

Link Posted: 1/1/2012 11:39:54 AM EDT
The top ten campaign contributors (mid Dec, 2011) for Mitt Romney are:

Goldman Sachs $367,200
Credit Suisse Group $203,750
Morgan Stanley $194,300
HIG Capital $186,500
Barclays $157,750
Kirkland & Ellis $132,100
Bank of America $125,500
Price Waterhouse Coopers $118,250
EMC Corp $117,300
JPMorgan Chase & Co $112,250

They've placed their bets.
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 11:50:57 AM EDT
Originally Posted By tc2k11:

People said the same damn thing about Bush Jr., and look what we got! Roberts and Alito!

Obviously, a Democrat-controlled Senate screening Democrat-picked nominees will be no different than if Romney is picking the nominees.

Are you kidding me?

Oh, and, newsflash: the Senate has scrapped the "60 votes needed to block a filibuster" rule, so they can approve a nominee with a simple majority, now.

http://s5.postimage.org/4mdrh49yd/scotus2.jpg

__________________________________________________________________
Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).
«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»



Good post. whos spiking the kool aid on the left coast? LOL!




Link Posted: 1/1/2012 1:58:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By beararms:
Originally Posted By tc2k11:

People said the same damn thing about Bush Jr., and look what we got! Roberts and Alito!

Obviously, a Democrat-controlled Senate screening Democrat-picked nominees will be no different than if Romney is picking the nominees.

Are you kidding me?

Oh, and, newsflash: the Senate has scrapped the "60 votes needed to block a filibuster" rule, so they can approve a nominee with a simple majority, now.

http://s5.postimage.org/4mdrh49yd/scotus2.jpg

__________________________________________________________________
Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).
«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»



Good post. whos spiking the kool aid on the left coast? LOL!





Who knows...

__________________________________________________________________
Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).
«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 2:03:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By nukldragr:
You are about to be molested by Paulistanians....



Like moths to a flame.

Link Posted: 1/1/2012 2:11:10 PM EDT
Santorum>Gingrich
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 2:11:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Bhart89:
Originally Posted By VelveteenMole:
Does it really matter? Iowa has lost all predictive credibility at this point.


Why do you say this?


Because it has. They vote for which ever kook is the kooky-ist.
My relatives who live Iowa told me the last two times that they were going to "Pray" about who to pick.
No, don't actually make a rational decision based actual platforms and arguments, base it on who loves the baby Jesus the most.
What a load of shit.

Right now their track record for picking the GOP nominee is at 40%. They suck at it.
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 2:13:59 PM EDT
Bachman or Santorum, the rest are RINOs, political hacks, or morons.
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 2:16:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Fender57:
Originally Posted By Bhart89:
Originally Posted By VelveteenMole:
Does it really matter? Iowa has lost all predictive credibility at this point.


Why do you say this?


Because it has. They vote for which ever kook is the kooky-ist.
My relatives who live Iowa told me the last two times that they were going to "Pray" about who to pick.
No, don't actually make a rational decision based actual platforms and arguments, base it on who loves the baby Jesus the most.
What a load of shit.

Right now their track record for picking the GOP nominee is at 40%. They suck at it.


Gee, I wonder what advice our founding fathers would have given us if they were alive today.
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 2:24:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/1/2012 2:29:20 PM EDT by althor]
Santorum will not win. It is kind of funny watching some of the people on this site jump from bandwagon to bandwagon though. First Perry, then Cain, Newt and now Santorum the theocrat.

Some people seem to think big govt is ok as long as its their kind of big govt
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 2:26:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ElevenO:

Originally Posted By VelveteenMole:
Does it really matter? Iowa has lost all predictive credibility at this point.

Yes it matters because we need someone who can beat obama––-now. Santorum––-while not flashy or charismatic––––can do that and, unlike romney, gingrich, or even paul, he's not a RINO and he does try to live what he believes. I may not have always agreed with him on every issue but I'd rather have him at the helm in the White House than I would obama, gingrich, romney or paul.

Um, Santorum is the Democrat/Media dream candidate, the one person besides Gingrich or Paul they would be sure Obama could beat. They already have hard-drives full of attack ads ready to go.

He wouldn't break more than 43% of the vote if nominated.

Link Posted: 1/1/2012 2:36:22 PM EDT
He's a good Man. However he doesn't stand a chance.
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 2:40:57 PM EDT
Would rather vote for Santorum over Paul, but hey they are both leagues better than Gingrich. Shoot even mittens is looking better than Gingrich these days.
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 2:43:50 PM EDT
I'll take any of the candidates besides Paul over Obama.
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 2:43:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/1/2012 2:47:03 PM EDT by Sugarfree]

Originally Posted By Sixgun_Symphony:
I had a feeling that Santorum would make a good showing in Iowa.

It's Bachman's turn.
It's Paul's turn.
It's Cain's turn.
It's Perry's turn.
It's Gingrich's turn.
It's Santorum's turn.



We all know it will be Romney.


ETA: The mainstream media has repeatedly fcuked all of you over with the same technique and the same result.




Link Posted: 1/1/2012 2:44:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sugarfree:

We all know it will be Romney.



I've long since accepted this truth. Doesn't mean I have to like it.
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 2:45:06 PM EDT
Anybody but obama

Please Lord let obama go away next year
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 2:50:47 PM EDT
I will actively work against Santorum.
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 2:51:30 PM EDT
Glad to see it.
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 2:54:01 PM EDT
I'd vote for Huckabee over Santorum, any day and twice on Sunday.
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 2:55:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dog-meat:
santorum won't win because there are too many people afraid of putting another outspoken Christian into office. That this is a fact should help explain why the commies over the past few decades were so intent on destroying religion, inventing "freedom from religion" etc. Their domination of the education system and media is paying off now.




this. I was amazed at the viterol in the comments on the drudge article about tebow being sued. There were many that accused him of being a right wing hatemonger, in comments full of hate.

So yeah, anyone is qualified for an office but Christians it would seem. You can be anything but that.

I don't care one whit about anyones beliefs, but it seems the only ones that think obamacare and the other atrocities need overturning are branded with the label of Christian and "unelectable" . The ones that are "electable" want to "keep the good parts".

I don't know how I will feel later but I've stopped giving a shit. What differance does it make if obama is voted out of office only to be replaced by someone to uphold his policies. Mittens can't even bring himself to call him a socialist.

So lets say a republican manages to get into office. If bills and policies are not overturned then the country does not recover. then who gets blamed? The republican in office that's who. Because as bad as it is now it's only going to get worse when obamacare kicks in.

Hell, the fact that we elected him to begin with speaks volumes about the country.
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 2:56:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Troubl3shooter:
I'd vote for Huckabee over Santorum, any day and twice on Sunday.

As would I, and I have no love for either one.

I really hate Santorum. The fact that an Atheist would willingly vote for an honest to God preacher over Santorum, should say something.
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 3:06:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Subnet:

Originally Posted By Troubl3shooter:
I'd vote for Huckabee over Santorum, any day and twice on Sunday.

As would I, and I have no love for either one.

I really hate Santorum. The fact that an Atheist would willingly vote for an honest to God preacher over Santorum, should say something.

I'm surprised anyone in the Republican Party is taking him seriously as a candidate. He has no money, no organization, no base support.

The only thing he is running on is his reputation with social conservatives, which, as the above two comments illustrate, probably alienates more voters than it gains for him.

He's the latest "Not Romney" candidate. Otherwise he would barely be moving the needle.

Running for president is difficult, expensive, and time-consuming. Romney is ahead not because of some conspiracy by the party leadership but because after he lost in 2008 he worked to set up state organizations and do the fundraising necessary to get positioned for the campaign. Ron Paul is also a more serious candidate this time around because he did much of the same things after 2008.

Gingrich, Bachmann, Santorum, Perry, and Huntsman all got started waaay too late to make any difference.
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 3:16:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bhart89:
Originally Posted By VelveteenMole:
Does it really matter? Iowa has lost all predictive credibility at this point.


Why do you say this?

because iowa winners don't win.
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 3:24:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By gitarmac:

Originally Posted By Bhart89:
Originally Posted By VelveteenMole:
Does it really matter? Iowa has lost all predictive credibility at this point.


Why do you say this?

because iowa winners don't win.



6 of the last 9 Iowa GOP winners got the eventual nomination.
6 of the last 8 Iowa Dem winners got the eventual nomination.
It has been 19 years (1992) since the eventual POTUS didn't win the Iowa Caucus (Clinton finished 3rd behind Harkin and Tsongas).


Link Posted: 1/1/2012 3:25:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BUCC_Guy:
I will actively work against Santorum.



__________________________________________________________________
Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).
«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 3:27:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tc2k11:
Originally Posted By BUCC_Guy:
I will actively work against Santorum.

http://www.wunjopress.com/images/Soft%20Words/cut%20your%20nose%20off%20to%20spite%20your%2­0face.jpg

__________________________________________________________________
Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).
«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»

Supporting Santorum, is doing exactly what your picture suggests.
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 3:30:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Subnet:

Originally Posted By tc2k11:
Originally Posted By BUCC_Guy:
I will actively work against Santorum.

http://www.wunjopress.com/images/Soft%20Words/cut%20your%20nose%20off%20to%20spite%20your%2­0face.jpg

__________________________________________________________________
Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).
«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»

Supporting Santorum, is doing exactly what your picture suggests.



__________________________________________________________________
Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).
«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 3:32:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tc2k11:
Originally Posted By Subnet:

Originally Posted By tc2k11:
Originally Posted By BUCC_Guy:
I will actively work against Santorum.

http://www.wunjopress.com/images/Soft%20Words/cut%20your%20nose%20off%20to%20spite%20your%2­0face.jpg

__________________________________________________________________
Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).
«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»

Supporting Santorum, is doing exactly what your picture suggests.



__________________________________________________________________
Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).
«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»

Sorry, man. A guy like that guarantees an Obama victory.
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 3:41:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Subnet:
Originally Posted By tc2k11:
Originally Posted By Subnet:
Originally Posted By tc2k11:
Originally Posted By BUCC_Guy:

I will actively work against Santorum.

http://www.wunjopress.com/images/Soft%20Words/cut%20your%20nose%20off%20to%20spite%20your%2­0face.jpg

__________________________________________________________________
Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).
«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»

Supporting Santorum, is doing exactly what your picture suggests.



__________________________________________________________________
Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).
«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»

Sorry, man. A guy like that guarantees an Obama victory.

It guarantees a bit more than that.
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 3:43:09 PM EDT
Hourglassed links in signatures make the baby Rick Santorum cry.
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 3:45:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By VelveteenMole:
Does it really matter? Iowa has lost all predictive credibility at this point.


Iowa means NOTHING! absolutely nothing in the scheme of things, Huckabee won it last go around, and where is that turd now??
Link Posted: 1/1/2012 4:32:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By WGPKlaus:
Originally Posted By VelveteenMole:
Does it really matter? Iowa has lost all predictive credibility at this point.


Iowa means NOTHING! absolutely nothing in the scheme of things, Huckabee won it last go around, and where is that turd now??



6 of the last 9 Iowa GOP winners got the eventual nomination.
6 of the last 8 Iowa Dem winners got the eventual nomination.
It has been 19 years (1992) since the eventual POTUS didn't win the Iowa Caucus (Clinton finished 3rd behind Harkin and Tsongas).

Link Posted: 1/1/2012 4:36:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tc2k11:
Originally Posted By bigstick61:

Originally Posted By tc2k11:
Originally Posted By ElevenO:

Originally Posted By tc2k11:
Originally Posted By ElevenO:

Originally Posted By Nightfalcon007:
Originally Posted By ElevenO:

Originally Posted By VelveteenMole:
Does it really matter? Iowa has lost all predictive credibility at this point.

Yes it matters because we need someone who can beat obama––-now. Santorum––-while not flashy or charismatic––––can do that and, unlike romney, gingrich, or even paul, he's not a RINO and he does try to live what he believes. I may not have always agreed with him on every issue but I'd rather have him at the helm in the White House than I would obama, gingrich, romney or paul.


I can vote for Santorum. Not Romney or Gingrich though



Ditto. I can vote for santorum, bachman, perry and paul. However, I will have to bite my tongue and hold my nose in order to pull the lever for either perry or paul. If it comes down to either romney or gingrich I might just have to vote for a third party candidate, consequences be damned.

http://www.wunjopress.com/images/Soft%20Words/cut%20your%20nose%20off%20to%20spite%20your%2­0face.jpg

__________________________________________________________________
Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).
«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»

I honestly cannot see any practical difference between obama, gingrich and romney. All three would take this country over a proverbial cliff (because, don't forget, romney––-in particular––-has gone on record that he supports a ban against "assault rifles" plus he helped make the state version of government run healthcare a reality in massachusettes). The only difference would be that romney and gingrich would do it at 60 miles per hour while obama would do it at 300 miles an hour. In any case, we would still end up in the same place. With choices like that, a third party vote (for someone with some genuine integrity and love for this country's traditional values) would be preferable to me. That way, at least my conscious would be clear.

SCOTUS... Heller... McDonald... Kennedy about to retire...



__________________________________________________________________
Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).
«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»

There are no guarantees when it comes to progressives, and that is what Gingrich and Romney are. If justices do in fact die or retire in the next four years (also not a guarantee) we are still likely to have to eat a shit sandwich. If one could say that Romney, Gingrich, and Obama were the only ones that could end up/remain in the WH after 2012 (with equal chances for each), the chances of us getting bad SCOTUS picks in the next four years would still be much higher than the opposite.

People said the same damn thing about Bush Jr., and look what we got! Roberts and Alito!

Obviously, a Democrat-controlled Senate screening Democrat-picked nominees will be no different than if Romney is picking the nominees.

Are you kidding me?

Oh, and, newsflash: the Senate has scrapped the "60 votes needed to block a filibuster" rule, so they can approve a nominee with a simple majority, now.

http://s5.postimage.org/4mdrh49yd/scotus2.jpg

__________________________________________________________________
Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.2) (and the original thread).
«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»

I don't put Dubya in the same category as either romney or gingrich so your analogy fails in my opinion. IMO, bush was a bit more conservative than either gingrich or romney and evidence of this can be found in the fact that he didn't push for a renewal of the assault weapons ban when he was given ample opportunity to do so.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top