[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Obama or Perry (Page 1 of 3)
Posted: 8/9/2010 7:07:03 PM EDT
| Barack or Rick? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Back to voting for less worse again huh.......................I refuse to play. Hey, Einstein - This is what "refusing to play" gets ya: http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/2223/algsotomayorkagan.jpg  i see 5 o'clock shadows. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Back to voting for less worse again huh.......................I refuse to play. Hey, Einstein - This is what "refusing to play" gets ya: http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/2223/algsotomayorkagan.jpg This is great. The more power the liberal socialist have, the more they reveal their true colors which repulses the American people. These two appointments are a good thing in the long term fight. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Back to voting for less worse again huh.......................I refuse to play. Hey, Einstein - This is what "refusing to play" gets ya: http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/2223/algsotomayorkagan.jpg This is great. The more power the liberal socialist have, the more they reveal their true colors which repulses the American people. These two appointments are a good thing in the long term fight. Are you fucking kidding me? Those are LIFETIME appointees. What good are they to the long term fight? Get a grip 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Back to voting for less worse again huh.......................I refuse to play. Hey, Einstein - This is what "refusing to play" gets ya: http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/2223/algsotomayorkagan.jpg This is great. The more power the liberal socialist have, the more they reveal their true colors which repulses the American people. These two appointments are a good thing in the long term fight. Are you fucking kidding me? Those are LIFETIME appointees. What good are they to the long term fight? Get a grip
I have a nice grip thank you. Both replaced like minded liberal appointees. The balance of power on the bench changed exactly zero on the court. Perhaps you need to get a grip if you think either party would let that 5/4 balance knowingly change to the other side. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Back to voting for less worse again huh.......................I refuse to play. Hey, Einstein - This is what "refusing to play" gets ya: http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/2223/algsotomayorkagan.jpg This is great. The more power the liberal socialist have, the more they reveal their true colors which repulses the American people. These two appointments are a good thing in the long term fight. Are you fucking kidding me? Those are LIFETIME appointees. What good are they to the long term fight? Get a grip
I have a nice grip thank you. Both replaced like minded liberal appointees. The balance of power on the bench changed exactly zero on the court. Perhaps you need to get a grip if you think either party would let that 5/4 balance knowingly change to the other side. Keep refusing to vote for the "lesser of two evils" and you will see that 5-4 go to 0-9. Then what? You have no grip. You sound like every other child on here who doesn't understand how real life works. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Back to voting for less worse again huh.......................I refuse to play. Hey, Einstein - This is what "refusing to play" gets ya: http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/2223/algsotomayorkagan.jpg This is great. The more power the liberal socialist have, the more they reveal their true colors which repulses the American people. These two appointments are a good thing in the long term fight. Are you fucking kidding me? Those are LIFETIME appointees. What good are they to the long term fight? Get a grip I have a nice grip thank you. Both replaced like minded liberal appointees. The balance of power on the bench changed exactly zero on the court. Perhaps you need to get a grip if you think either party would let that 5/4 balance knowingly change to the other side.  And if McCain had been elected the court would have been more on our side. There is NO doubt he would have appointed better than those two and probably appointed better than who was leaving. It would have been a net win even if McCain followed EVERY other policy that Obama has. And the judges that retire in the next 4 years will probably be from the good 5. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Back to voting for less worse again huh.......................I refuse to play. Hey, Einstein - This is what "refusing to play" gets ya: http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/2223/algsotomayorkagan.jpg This is great. The more power the liberal socialist have, the more they reveal their true colors which repulses the American people. These two appointments are a good thing in the long term fight. Are you fucking kidding me? Those are LIFETIME appointees. What good are they to the long term fight? Get a grip
I have a nice grip thank you. Both replaced like minded liberal appointees. The balance of power on the bench changed exactly zero on the court. Perhaps you need to get a grip if you think either party would let that 5/4 balance knowingly change to the other side. Keep refusing to vote for the "lesser of two evils" and you will see that 5-4 go to 0-9. Then what? You have no grip. You sound like every other child on here who doesn't understand how real life works. Why are you so afraid of a 9-0 decision? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I'm not stupid. I would even vote for Mcstain again instead of letting Obama choose 2 more SCOTUS judges. The next two will probably be from the good 5. I'm glad you have made your analysis of what principles you will sacrifices for expected results. Real world buddy. You never get 100% of what you want in politics. Never. Even if you are a Stalineque dictator you still have to compromise some. If you try to get 100% in a democratic system you get nothing. I like priniciples. But I dislike getting nothing worse. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Back to voting for less worse again huh.......................I refuse to play. Hey, Einstein - This is what "refusing to play" gets ya: http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/2223/algsotomayorkagan.jpg This is great. The more power the liberal socialist have, the more they reveal their true colors which repulses the American people. These two appointments are a good thing in the long term fight. Are you fucking kidding me? Those are LIFETIME appointees. What good are they to the long term fight? Get a grip
I have a nice grip thank you. Both replaced like minded liberal appointees. The balance of power on the bench changed exactly zero on the court. Perhaps you need to get a grip if you think either party would let that 5/4 balance knowingly change to the other side. Keep refusing to vote for the "lesser of two evils" and you will see that 5-4 go to 0-9. Then what? You have no grip. You sound like every other child on here who doesn't understand how real life works. Why are you so afraid of a 9-0 decision? I'm afraid of the 9-0 that your type of "thinking" will get us.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not stupid. I would even vote for Mcstain again instead of letting Obama choose 2 more SCOTUS judges. The next two will probably be from the good 5. I'm glad you have made your analysis of what principles you will sacrifices for expected results. Real world buddy. You never get 100% of what you want in politics. Never. Even if you are a Stalineque dictator you still have to compromise some. If you try to get 100% in a democratic system you get nothing. I like priniciples. But I dislike getting nothing worse. Who said I wanted a 100% on anything? What other assumptions do you want to make? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not stupid. I would even vote for Mcstain again instead of letting Obama choose 2 more SCOTUS judges. The next two will probably be from the good 5. I'm glad you have made your analysis of what principles you will sacrifices for expected results. Real world buddy. You never get 100% of what you want in politics. Never. Even if you are a Stalineque dictator you still have to compromise some. If you try to get 100% in a democratic system you get nothing. I like priniciples. But I dislike getting nothing worse. And this is why you are not an idiot. I wish I could say the same about 99% of the GD chest beaters but......... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Back to voting for less worse again huh.......................I refuse to play. Hey, Einstein - This is what "refusing to play" gets ya: http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/2223/algsotomayorkagan.jpg This is great. The more power the liberal socialist have, the more they reveal their true colors which repulses the American people. These two appointments are a good thing in the long term fight. Are you fucking kidding me? Those are LIFETIME appointees. What good are they to the long term fight? Get a grip
I have a nice grip thank you. Both replaced like minded liberal appointees. The balance of power on the bench changed exactly zero on the court. Perhaps you need to get a grip if you think either party would let that 5/4 balance knowingly change to the other side. Keep refusing to vote for the "lesser of two evils" and you will see that 5-4 go to 0-9. Then what? You have no grip. You sound like every other child on here who doesn't understand how real life works. Why are you so afraid of a 9-0 decision? I'm afraid of the 9-0 that your type of "thinking" will get us. What exactly are you affraid a liberal dominated court will do? Please be issue specific. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Back to voting for less worse again huh.......................I refuse to play. Hey, Einstein - This is what "refusing to play" gets ya: http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/2223/algsotomayorkagan.jpg This is great. The more power the liberal socialist have, the more they reveal their true colors which repulses the American people. These two appointments are a good thing in the long term fight. Are you fucking kidding me? Those are LIFETIME appointees. What good are they to the long term fight? Get a grip
I have a nice grip thank you. Both replaced like minded liberal appointees. The balance of power on the bench changed exactly zero on the court. Perhaps you need to get a grip if you think either party would let that 5/4 balance knowingly change to the other side. Keep refusing to vote for the "lesser of two evils" and you will see that 5-4 go to 0-9. Then what? You have no grip. You sound like every other child on here who doesn't understand how real life works. Why are you so afraid of a 9-0 decision? I'm afraid of the 9-0 that your type of "thinking" will get us. What exactly are you affraid a liberal dominated court will do? Please be issue specific. http://www.nytimes.com/info/us-supreme-court-2009-2010-term/ Browse through the cases from the last year. Tell me if there are any of those that would bother you of they went the other way. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Back to voting for less worse again huh.......................I refuse to play. Hey, Einstein - This is what "refusing to play" gets ya: http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/2223/algsotomayorkagan.jpg This is great. The more power the liberal socialist have, the more they reveal their true colors which repulses the American people. These two appointments are a good thing in the long term fight. Are you fucking kidding me? Those are LIFETIME appointees. What good are they to the long term fight? Get a grip
I have a nice grip thank you. Both replaced like minded liberal appointees. The balance of power on the bench changed exactly zero on the court. Perhaps you need to get a grip if you think either party would let that 5/4 balance knowingly change to the other side. Keep refusing to vote for the "lesser of two evils" and you will see that 5-4 go to 0-9. Then what? You have no grip. You sound like every other child on here who doesn't understand how real life works. Why are you so afraid of a 9-0 decision? I'm afraid of the 9-0 that your type of "thinking" will get us. What exactly are you affraid a liberal dominated court will do? Please be issue specific. http://www.nytimes.com/info/us-supreme-court-2009-2010-term/ Browse through the cases from the last year. Tell me if there are any of those that would bother you of they went the other way. So what you are saying the primary reason for voting for a president is the possibility of appointing justices? If I disagree with a candiate on enough issues to not vote for him, would it not stand to reason that I wouldn't agree with his proposed Justice nominees on those same issues? Which begs the question of why I should vote for someone I do not agree with a majority of the time? |
|
Perry, clearly. The "lesser of two evils" is crap. During the last presidential election, people let the media and the money decide who we had to choose from. There were more besides Romney and Geritol on the GOP side. The days of brass balls and solid hardcore through and through conservatism is over, sadly. There's too much pandering to do, too many special interests groups to fight over and of course the increasing voter base of people arriving everyday from the south. When a nobody shows up on scene, displays true patriotism and honor, we pass him/her up because of "no experience". The democrats backed a person with no experience who expressed their views and he won. We get what we deserve. |
WTF is up with this Rick Perry love in GD tonight. Look, I would vote for Rick Perry over zero, but has something changed in polotics and no one told me. Rick Perry is very much like Bush and the country sure as shit does not need another Bush. Ron Paul in 2012.
|
|
Quoted:
Perry, clearly. The "lesser of two evils" is crap. During the last presidential election, people let the media and the money decide who we had to choose from. There were more besides Romney and Geritol on the GOP side. The days of brass balls and solid hardcore through and through conservatism is over, sadly. There's too much pandering to do, too many special interests groups to fight over and of course the increasing voter base of people arriving everyday from the south. When a nobody shows up on scene, displays true patriotism and honor, we pass him/her up because of "no experience". The democrats backed a person with no experience who expressed their views and he won. We get what we deserve. So would you have voted for Rick Perry in late 80's when he was a democrat? |
|
Quoted:
WTF is up with this Rick Perry love in GD tonight. Look, I would vote for Rick Perry over zero, but has something changed in polotics and no one told me. Rick Perry is very much like Bush and the country sure as shit does not need another Bush. Ron Paul in 2012. When will this stop? Ron Paul never was and never will be a viable presidential candidate. The only time he will see the inside of the oval office is on a guided tour. |
|
Quoted:
Perry, clearly. The "lesser of two evils" is crap. During the last presidential election, people let the media and the money decide who we had to choose from. There were more besides Romney and Geritol on the GOP side. The days of brass balls and solid hardcore through and through conservatism is over, sadly. There's too much pandering to do, too many special interests groups to fight over and of course the increasing voter base of people arriving everyday from the south. When a nobody shows up on scene, displays true patriotism and honor, we pass him/her up because of "no experience". The democrats backed a person with no experience who expressed their views and he won. We get what we deserve. Well put. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
WTF is up with this Rick Perry love in GD tonight. Look, I would vote for Rick Perry over zero, but has something changed in polotics and no one told me. Rick Perry is very much like Bush and the country sure as shit does not need another Bush. Ron Paul in 2012. When will this stop? Ron Paul never was and never will be a viable presidential candidate. The only time he will see the inside of the oval office is on a guided tour. A romney supporter? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
WTF is up with this Rick Perry love in GD tonight. Look, I would vote for Rick Perry over zero, but has something changed in politics and no one told me. Rick Perry is very much like Bush and the country sure as shit does not need another Bush. Ron Paul in 2012. When will this stop? Ron Paul never was and never will be a viable presidential candidate. The only time he will see the inside of the oval office is on a guided tour. Ron Paul is even questionable as a congressmen. What the fuck has he ever accomplished in his term as a representative? A man truly living in a naive world with respect to foreign policy and the federal reserve system. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Back to voting for less worse again huh.......................I refuse to play. Hey, Einstein - This is what "refusing to play" gets ya: http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/2223/algsotomayorkagan.jpg This is great. The more power the liberal socialist have, the more they reveal their true colors which repulses the American people. These two appointments are a good thing in the long term fight. Are you fucking kidding me? Those are LIFETIME appointees. What good are they to the long term fight? Get a grip
I have a nice grip thank you. Both replaced like minded liberal appointees. The balance of power on the bench changed exactly zero on the court. Perhaps you need to get a grip if you think either party would let that 5/4 balance knowingly change to the other side. Keep refusing to vote for the "lesser of two evils" and you will see that 5-4 go to 0-9. Then what? You have no grip. You sound like every other child on here who doesn't understand how real life works. Why are you so afraid of a 9-0 decision? I'm afraid of the 9-0 that your type of "thinking" will get us. What exactly are you affraid a liberal dominated court will do? Please be issue specific. http://www.nytimes.com/info/us-supreme-court-2009-2010-term/ Browse through the cases from the last year. Tell me if there are any of those that would bother you of they went the other way. So what you are saying the primary reason for voting for a president is the possibility of appointing justices? If I disagree with a candiate on enough issues to not vote for him, would it not stand to reason that I wouldn't agree with his proposed Justice nominees on those same issues? Which begs the question of why I should vote for someone I do not agree with a majority of the time? Do whatever you want. You're not even worth my time. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Neither. I don't do the lessor of two evils game. Both want a socialist ideal, the quicker we get there, the quicker the American people wake up and fight.  Either he is serious, thus should be shunned. Or he is a troll (and real one), and thus should be shunned. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Neither. I don't do the lessor of two evils game. Both want a socialist ideal, the quicker we get there, the quicker the American people wake up and fight.
Either he is serious, thus should be shunned. Or he is a troll, and thus should be shunned. lol, I know you want to debate, otherwise you would have not responded... |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Neither. I don't do the lessor of two evils game. Both want a socialist ideal, the quicker we get there, the quicker the American people wake up and fight. Either he is serious, thus should be shunned. Or he is a troll, and thus should be shunned. lol, I know you want to debate, otherwise you would have not responded... Ahh you wasted post 556. So how are you going to "fight" when you have no guns with your socialists in power? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
WTF is up with this Rick Perry love in GD tonight. Look, I would vote for Rick Perry over zero, but has something changed in polotics and no one told me. Rick Perry is very much like Bush and the country sure as shit does not need another Bush. Ron Paul in 2012. When will this stop? Ron Paul never was and never will be a viable presidential candidate. The only time he will see the inside of the oval office is on a guided tour. A romney supporter? I must be, because I do not support your savior the lord Ron Paul. Paulbots are by far the most delusional of any group. There is a better chance of someone opening a real Jurassic Park before the 2012 election than Ron Paul winning any significant percentage of the vote. B ut you guys will always have your Internet polls. |
|
Quoted: Neither. I don't do the lessor of two evils game. Both want a socialist ideal, the quicker we get there, the quicker the American people wake up and fight. So you voted for Obama? Or did you throw your vote away on some third party candidate? Were you even old enough to vote in the last election?  I wouldn't vote for Perry in a primary. I would vote for him over Obama though.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Neither. I don't do the lessor of two evils game. Both want a socialist ideal, the quicker we get there, the quicker the American people wake up and fight.
Either he is serious, thus should be shunned. Or he is a troll, and thus should be shunned. lol, I know you want to debate, otherwise you would have not responded... Ahh you wasted post 556. So how are you going to "fight" when you have no guns with you socialists in power? Riddle me this... If the socialist have the power as you outline, then guns would be banned by law. I you and everyone here would disagree with this. So if such a blatent violation of the consitution occured, you would roll over and disarm yourself? Do you think I would comply in such circumstances? The last time we tried to forcibly disarming the people was at Lexington and Concord. That would be a disaster here since any kind of violence means we all lose. However, noncompliance and active revolution are two very different things. Criminals break the law everyday and typically go about their lives, bidding their time to strike in some fashion. However, do you not trust the American people, when they see such blantant disregard of their fundamental human rights to site idle back during election cycles and not elect candidates who would reverse those trends, impeach those justices and restore our nation? The more power the socialist get, the more they are tempted to tip their hand and expose themselves for who they are. The more they expose themselves, the more the American people see beyond the shinny retoric and are repulsed. The ballot box will win everytime. Even if it is not in 2010, or 2012. I will not prematurely elect someone who only says they are with out side when in fact they are just in it for self gratification. If that means suffering and bidding time for another 4 years, then so be it. Past generations paid in blood, we can surely pay higher taxes and more restrictions for a 4 year term longer. |
|
Originally Posted By ––bullseye––:
Quoted:
Neither. I don't do the lessor of two evils game. Both want a socialist ideal, the quicker we get there, the quicker the American people wake up and fight. So you voted for Obama? Or did you throw your vote away on some third party candidate? Were you even old enough to vote in the last election? I wouldn't vote for Perry in a primary. I would vote for him over Obama though. High there Jethro, I voted to bush twice, once standing four hours in the rain in Ohio in 2000 in one of the swing counties. Since you broached the topic, what is your age and politic/legal background? |
|
Quoted: Originally Posted By ––bullseye––: Quoted: Neither. I don't do the lessor of two evils game. Both want a socialist ideal, the quicker we get there, the quicker the American people wake up and fight. So you voted for Obama? Or did you throw your vote away on some third party candidate? Were you even old enough to vote in the last election? I wouldn't vote for Perry in a primary. I would vote for him over Obama though. High there Jethro, I voted to bush twice, once standing four hours in the rain in Ohio in 2000 in one of the swing counties. Since you broached the topic, what is your age and politic/legal background? I'm a college student. I voted for McCain in the last election. I worked on a Republican gubernatorial candidates campaign before I could vote (he ended up losing). In my view, four years of Obama will leave us damaged enough. I can tell you already that I will be voting for whoever wins the Republican nomination for president in 2012. It seems (at least this year) that more "real" conservatives are running, so I have hope we will nominate a true conservative in 2012.
|
|
Originally Posted By ––bullseye––:
Quoted:
Originally Posted By ––bullseye––:
Quoted:
Neither. I don't do the lessor of two evils game. Both want a socialist ideal, the quicker we get there, the quicker the American people wake up and fight. So you voted for Obama? Or did you throw your vote away on some third party candidate? Were you even old enough to vote in the last election? I wouldn't vote for Perry in a primary. I would vote for him over Obama though. High there Jethro, I voted to bush twice, once standing four hours in the rain in Ohio in 2000 in one of the swing counties. Since you broached the topic, what is your age and politic/legal background? I'm a college student. I voted for McCain in the last election. I worked on a Republican gubernatorial candidates campaign before I could vote (he ended up losing). In my view, four years of Obama will leave us damaged enough. I can tell you already that I will be voting for whoever wins the Republican nomination for president in 2012. It seems (at least this year) that more "real" conservatives are running, so I have hope we will nominate a true conservative in 2012. Good for you. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Perry, clearly. The "lesser of two evils" is crap. During the last presidential election, people let the media and the money decide who we had to choose from. There were more besides Romney and Geritol on the GOP side. The days of brass balls and solid hardcore through and through conservatism is over, sadly. There's too much pandering to do, too many special interests groups to fight over and of course the increasing voter base of people arriving everyday from the south. When a nobody shows up on scene, displays true patriotism and honor, we pass him/her up because of "no experience". The democrats backed a person with no experience who expressed their views and he won. We get what we deserve. So would you have voted for Rick Perry in late 80's when he was a democrat? Reagan used to be a democrat. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Perry, clearly. The "lesser of two evils" is crap. During the last presidential election, people let the media and the money decide who we had to choose from. There were more besides Romney and Geritol on the GOP side. The days of brass balls and solid hardcore through and through conservatism is over, sadly. There's too much pandering to do, too many special interests groups to fight over and of course the increasing voter base of people arriving everyday from the south. When a nobody shows up on scene, displays true patriotism and honor, we pass him/her up because of "no experience". The democrats backed a person with no experience who expressed their views and he won. We get what we deserve. So would you have voted for Rick Perry in late 80's when he was a democrat? Reagan used to be a democrat. Which was not the question, but ok. Would you vote for Perry as a democratic state rep? Would you vote for Regan as a demorate (whatever the office was)? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Neither. I don't do the lessor of two evils game. Both want a socialist ideal, the quicker we get there, the quicker the American people wake up and fight.
Either he is serious, thus should be shunned. Or he is a troll, and thus should be shunned. lol, I know you want to debate, otherwise you would have not responded... Ahh you wasted post 556. So how are you going to "fight" when you have no guns with you socialists in power? Riddle me this... If the socialist have the power as you outline, then guns would be banned by law. I you and everyone here would disagree with this. So if such a blatent violation of the consitution occured, you would roll over and disarm yourself? Do you think I would comply in such circumstances? The last time we tried to forcibly disarming the people was at Lexington and Concord. That would be a disaster here since any kind of violence means we all lose. However, noncompliance and active revolution are two very different things. Criminals break the law everyday and typically go about their lives, bidding their time to strike in some fashion. However, do you not trust the American people, when they see such blantant disregard of their fundamental human rights to site idle back during election cycles and not elect candidates who would reverse those trends, impeach those justices and restore our nation? The more power the socialist get, the more they are tempted to tip their hand and expose themselves for who they are. The more they expose themselves, the more the American people see beyond the shinny retoric and are repulsed. The ballot box will win everytime. Even if it is not in 2010, or 2012. I will not prematurely elect someone who only says they are with out side when in fact they are just in it for self gratification. If that means suffering and bidding time for another 4 years, then so be it. Past generations paid in blood, we can surely pay higher taxes and more restrictions for a 4 year term longer. Yeah because the american people aren't too stupid or lazy to revolt.....
Remember the revolution of 1994 and the similar ones in the states that enacted a new ban on semi-auto rifles? Or then there was the revolt against social security taxes and the thousands over the years over all the newer taxes....
You're under thirty and/or not too bright obviously. This ain't a movie son. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Perry, clearly. The "lesser of two evils" is crap. During the last presidential election, people let the media and the money decide who we had to choose from. There were more besides Romney and Geritol on the GOP side. The days of brass balls and solid hardcore through and through conservatism is over, sadly. There's too much pandering to do, too many special interests groups to fight over and of course the increasing voter base of people arriving everyday from the south. When a nobody shows up on scene, displays true patriotism and honor, we pass him/her up because of "no experience". The democrats backed a person with no experience who expressed their views and he won. We get what we deserve. So would you have voted for Rick Perry in late 80's when he was a democrat? Reagan used to be a democrat. Which was not the question, but ok. Would you vote for Perry as a democratic state rep? Would you vote for Regan as a demorate (whatever the office was)? He's not a democrat anymore, just like Reagan wasn't when I voted. What if monkeys flew out of your ass, who would you vote for?
|