rtwngAvngr
Senior Member
- Jan 5, 2004
- 15,755
- 513
- 48
- Banned
- #21
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
no1tovote4 said:Nah, you'll be the "John Edwards" of the Republican Party. Except you'll be smarter and have a better looking wife who doesn't look like she is about to topple over from a too-big boob job.
(Sometimes plastic surgeons need to learn the meaning of the words, "No, that wouldn't look natural and would make you look stupid!")
gop_jeff said:If I'm John Edwards, does that make you John Kerry?! :
Trinity said:Ewww............. that was a little below the belt!
rtwngAvngr said:Did you say jeff was little below the belt?
gop_jeff said:If I'm John Edwards, does that make you John Kerry?! :
Gabriella84 said:You make some excellent points.
Every Republican worth his/her salt enjoys bagging on Clinton. But the only reason that a loser like Clinton could be elected (with bigger "mandates" than Bush got in either election) was that the country was disgusted by 12 years of Reaganomics.
The same thing will happen in 2008. The country will be so repulsed by eight years of Bush bumbling and bloodshed that they will elect any loser that the Dems decide to put up. Which is a scary thought.
gop_jeff said:I'll take you to task on two things here:
1. Bush got a higher percentage of the popular vote in 2000 (49%) and 2004 (51%) than Clinton got in 1992 (43%) and 1996 (47%).
2. If the country was so repulsed by war, bloodshed, etc., why was Bush reelected in 2004, with a majority of the popular vote, something which no one has done since 1988?
Bonnie said:Gee if people were so disgusted by Reagonomics how is it alomst everyone did well, and how is it that he got elected by huge landslides followed byBush four more years, I suppose we have to conclude then that it was due to four years of Carter and his many failings???