My question is why would a pud pounding sperm slurping colon jouster such as yourself want Herman Cain?
What are his qualifications to be president?
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Who Do You Want To See Elected As President In November...?
- Thread starter bayoubill
- Start date
My question is why would a pud pounding sperm slurping colon jouster such as yourself want Herman Cain?
What are his qualifications to be president?
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
Interesting that the rw's don't like their candidates very much. But, that's what we've seen in the cock-eye (plural for caucus). They've been told to hate the only person in all of our government who has actually effected real growth but they can't get reeel enthused about the Clown Car Candidates.
Result - they're splintered and unhappy.
Sadly, come November, they will follow the orders of lushbo, baby huey beck and all of fox. They WILL blindly vote against their own best interests because that's what they've been told to do.
Personally, I think that if they are SO damn dumb that they want to pay higher taxes and get nothing in return for it, they should just send the government a check. But, they don't have to take the whole country down with them.
I don't know which is worse: how ignorant Paulatics are, or how deluded they are.
First of all, the plural of "caucus" is "caucuses". Second, people don't hate Paul because "they've been told to". They hate him because they've been listening to him, and figured out what a crackpot he is on their own. Third, you supercilious nitwits are NOT helping your cause by constantly telling everyone how YOU'RE the only "real" conservatives, and YOU'RE the only ones smart enough to REALLY think for yourselves. You sound like a bunch of leftists when you do that.
lol... the Goppers bashing RP is like the doomed folks on the Titanic rearranging deck chairs...
Obama's gonna win, no matter what...
Well, if he does, it's because idiots like you are too busy looking for a Messiah to form a cult around to get serious about keeping Obama from destroying our nation. So if he wins, be prepared to own the consequences.
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
I wanted Hermann Cain. Too bad.
Robert
So what are you going to do now?
Full-Auto
Gold Member
- Jun 13, 2009
- 13,555
- 1,624
- 153
I wanted Hermann Cain. Too bad.
Robert
So what are you going to do now?
Write in.There are some disclaimers but that is what my current view is.
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
I wanted Hermann Cain. Too bad.
Robert
So what are you going to do now?
There are some disclaimers but that is what my current view is.
Why would you even bother to waste the gas driving to the polling place for that? Might as well just stay home. It'll accomplish the same amount of nothing.
Anyone But Obama.
Clear enough for you?
Clear enough for you?
Wry Catcher
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #68
None of the above.
I sincerely believe that the Republican nominee isn't even in the picture right now.
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
Sorry about the reading comprehension problem and I DO wish you well. Meanwhile I'll try to use smaller words:
I honestly believe that Republicans will not choose any of the now-visible people who say they want to be their nominee. That someone notable but not among those who are now "in the running" will show up close to or at the convention and there will be an "AH HA" moment. Then Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, et al will be dropped in favour of the new arrival. No, I don't know who that might be. None of the current crop are acceptable and the party might figure that out in the fullness of time.
"None of the current crop are acceptable and the party might figure that out in the fullness of time." The party didn't in 2008.
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
Anyone But Obama.
Clear enough for you?
Do you have an actual preference as to who that "anyone" is?
Yeah...just imagine? Herman pulls OUT of the race and miraculously? The Bimbo eruption ceases.I wanted Hermann Cain. Too bad.
Robert
You actually WANTED Herman Cain as president?
I'm ashamed to share the same first name as you.
Now WHY do you suppose that is Gay boy?
Late2TheParty
Classical Liberal
- Mar 15, 2011
- 211
- 37
- 66
I want to see Ron Paul win.
But Romney will be the nominee and Obama will win.
But Romney will be the nominee and Obama will win.
I want to see Ron Paul win.
But Romney will be the nominee and Obama will win.
Are you sure? Because Santorum is eating Mittens' lunch right now.
Not2BSubjugated
Callous Individualist
I'm writing in Ross Perot. Not sure if he's still alive, but he's my candidate.
Ron Paul didn't make the list? That's unfortunate considering that he's the only fiscal conservative candidate coming out of either party. You're right, though, the guy'll never win a major party nomination. Small government, Jeffersonian types are in diametric opposition to the entrenched hierarchies of both the traditionalist wing and the progressive wing of the big government party. IF you ask me, the guy's fiscal and domestic policies are without equal in this race. On his foreign policy, I gotta side somewhat with my TV. I'd say there's a happy, self interested medium to be found somewhere between isolationism and nation building.
Newt's probably my favorite "not really a real conservative" republican candidate. The guy's a high end politician, undoubtedly, which brings its own set of issues and baggage to the table with it. I do recall, however, that back when he ran on his Contract with America idea, the guy got into office and actually did what he could to affect the changes he ran on. Even making an attempt at affecting the changes touted during an election campaign is a level of honesty not common among high profile political types. Not saying Newt's an honest guy, just slightly more honest than your average Washington chucklehead, and when he says he'd use the power of the Presidency to repeal a good portion of the big government policies laid out by his predecessors, I smell a kernel of truth. Not saying he wouldn't also wet his beak and do his share of robbing the piggy bank, but that's to be expected of anyone on that list.
Now, down to the front running republicans. Santorum and Romney. Big government Christian or big government closet socialist? Decisions decisions. I guess I'd have to say Santorum's the more conservative of the two. The trouble is all his key issues are about Christian traditionalism, something that, to my thinking, has nothing to do with the Federal government and very little that I could personally sign off on. Outside of potential social engineering ideas, the conservative label gets shrugged off. The guy's quoted saying that individualism is a broken philosophy, yet I'm supposed to believe that he can somehow be a small government advocate -and- a collectivist? Is he assuming I'm that stupid, or is he that stupid? And Romney's a conservative? Similar declarations on individualism vs collectivism, on top of which, ROMNEYCARE. Oh, but I'm supposed to buy that it's not big govt liberalism when he did it because it was via the power of a state government, which isn't expressly forbidden by the US Constitution. Sorry to pop that "conservative" bubble, but using the power of -any- level of government to mandate that people buy a service to offset the cost of giving that service to people who can't/won't buy it is big govt liberalism. No way around it. Add to all that his advisor contradicting one of his campaign pillars: repealing the unconstitutional Federal counterpart of his own Romneycare. I don't care if Newt was barebacking transexual prostitutes in his wife's bed 3 at a time, I'd still, sadly, have to give him the edge over Romney when it comes to campaign integrity.
And then we have the incumbent. Have I made it clear how I feel about big government socialism yet? It kills me, too, to be so opposed to the man's philosophy and governance. As a mixed breed Hawaiian, I love seeing a local boy (even if he's not actually from Hawaiian ancestry) make it big. But, despite his ability to tickle my hometown pride, the continued consolidation of power to the executive branch, quite frankly, frightens me. Bush was an asshole for the czars too, don't get me wrong, but -any- president who feels he can appoint executive branch officials who have the power to legislate unilaterally -and- rule, themselves, on whether or not their own legislation is legal, is a tyrant. I also don't attribute any economic recovery (if that's indeed what's happening. There's so many discrepancies in how they count employment and job creation these days that I don't know who to believe anymore) to Obama's policies. The rapid increase in random regulations, regardless of how you feel about their necessity, does not speed up the creation of wealth. Hard to credit the stimulus, either, when there was a short spike at the time of the stimulus before economic activity in virtually every sector reverted quickly to their previous downward trends. I'm supposed to believe that, nearly 2 years later, if things start to look up it's a residual effect of the government putting a few bucks in everybody's pocket back in '09? I smell bullsh*#.
Let's face it: given the current slew of likely candidates, the old American concepts of individualism and personal freedom are in their death throes. At this point we're just voting on how quickly we should choke them out.
Ron Paul didn't make the list? That's unfortunate considering that he's the only fiscal conservative candidate coming out of either party. You're right, though, the guy'll never win a major party nomination. Small government, Jeffersonian types are in diametric opposition to the entrenched hierarchies of both the traditionalist wing and the progressive wing of the big government party. IF you ask me, the guy's fiscal and domestic policies are without equal in this race. On his foreign policy, I gotta side somewhat with my TV. I'd say there's a happy, self interested medium to be found somewhere between isolationism and nation building.
Newt's probably my favorite "not really a real conservative" republican candidate. The guy's a high end politician, undoubtedly, which brings its own set of issues and baggage to the table with it. I do recall, however, that back when he ran on his Contract with America idea, the guy got into office and actually did what he could to affect the changes he ran on. Even making an attempt at affecting the changes touted during an election campaign is a level of honesty not common among high profile political types. Not saying Newt's an honest guy, just slightly more honest than your average Washington chucklehead, and when he says he'd use the power of the Presidency to repeal a good portion of the big government policies laid out by his predecessors, I smell a kernel of truth. Not saying he wouldn't also wet his beak and do his share of robbing the piggy bank, but that's to be expected of anyone on that list.
Now, down to the front running republicans. Santorum and Romney. Big government Christian or big government closet socialist? Decisions decisions. I guess I'd have to say Santorum's the more conservative of the two. The trouble is all his key issues are about Christian traditionalism, something that, to my thinking, has nothing to do with the Federal government and very little that I could personally sign off on. Outside of potential social engineering ideas, the conservative label gets shrugged off. The guy's quoted saying that individualism is a broken philosophy, yet I'm supposed to believe that he can somehow be a small government advocate -and- a collectivist? Is he assuming I'm that stupid, or is he that stupid? And Romney's a conservative? Similar declarations on individualism vs collectivism, on top of which, ROMNEYCARE. Oh, but I'm supposed to buy that it's not big govt liberalism when he did it because it was via the power of a state government, which isn't expressly forbidden by the US Constitution. Sorry to pop that "conservative" bubble, but using the power of -any- level of government to mandate that people buy a service to offset the cost of giving that service to people who can't/won't buy it is big govt liberalism. No way around it. Add to all that his advisor contradicting one of his campaign pillars: repealing the unconstitutional Federal counterpart of his own Romneycare. I don't care if Newt was barebacking transexual prostitutes in his wife's bed 3 at a time, I'd still, sadly, have to give him the edge over Romney when it comes to campaign integrity.
And then we have the incumbent. Have I made it clear how I feel about big government socialism yet? It kills me, too, to be so opposed to the man's philosophy and governance. As a mixed breed Hawaiian, I love seeing a local boy (even if he's not actually from Hawaiian ancestry) make it big. But, despite his ability to tickle my hometown pride, the continued consolidation of power to the executive branch, quite frankly, frightens me. Bush was an asshole for the czars too, don't get me wrong, but -any- president who feels he can appoint executive branch officials who have the power to legislate unilaterally -and- rule, themselves, on whether or not their own legislation is legal, is a tyrant. I also don't attribute any economic recovery (if that's indeed what's happening. There's so many discrepancies in how they count employment and job creation these days that I don't know who to believe anymore) to Obama's policies. The rapid increase in random regulations, regardless of how you feel about their necessity, does not speed up the creation of wealth. Hard to credit the stimulus, either, when there was a short spike at the time of the stimulus before economic activity in virtually every sector reverted quickly to their previous downward trends. I'm supposed to believe that, nearly 2 years later, if things start to look up it's a residual effect of the government putting a few bucks in everybody's pocket back in '09? I smell bullsh*#.
Let's face it: given the current slew of likely candidates, the old American concepts of individualism and personal freedom are in their death throes. At this point we're just voting on how quickly we should choke them out.
Ron Paul is not an isolationist and he has defended that statement many times. Placing sanctions on countries that don't agree with what we want is more like isolationism. His foreign policy is to bring all troops home to DEFEND our country. He is only cutting spending over seas. He is not cutting any other military spending. Do you think that we will be attacked if we brought our whole military home? We have the largest military in the planet. I don't think that anyone will mess with us. We have our own problems to work out before we can hope to help any other country.
The active military support Ron Paul 50% more than all the other candidates combined. Including Obama. I think they know what they are doing seeing as they are the ones the are in the middle of these wars.
The active military support Ron Paul 50% more than all the other candidates combined. Including Obama. I think they know what they are doing seeing as they are the ones the are in the middle of these wars.
Ron Paul is not an isolationist and he has defended that statement many times. Placing sanctions on countries that don't agree with what we want is more like isolationism. His foreign policy is to bring all troops home to DEFEND our country. He is only cutting spending over seas. He is not cutting any other military spending. Do you think that we will be attacked if we brought our whole military home? We have the largest military in the planet. I don't think that anyone will mess with us. We have our own problems to work out before we can hope to help any other country.
The active military support Ron Paul 50% more than all the other candidates combined. Including Obama. I think they know what they are doing seeing as they are the ones the are in the middle of these wars.
You DO realize that we need bases like Sigonella Sicily, because that is the jump off point to send people anywhere in the Med, we need places like Yokosuka Japan because we have to have a quick response presence for places like Russia, China and North Korea, right?
I'll give you a hint about how long it takes to cross the Atlantic on a U.S. Navy vessel, it's about 10 days. How can you respond to a bad situation if it takes 10 days to get there? And that's just from Norfok VA to the Straits of Gibraltar.
Trust me............I took that trip several times during my 20 years in the Navy.
Skull Pilot
Diamond Member
- Nov 17, 2007
- 45,446
- 6,163
- 1,830
Sasha Grey.
Just think we could have a female president and a first lady.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 9
- Views
- 189
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 135
- Replies
- 26
- Views
- 539
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 30
- Views
- 120
- Replies
- 49
- Views
- 177
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8105
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-