Would you vote for Romney in 2016?

[House]

That's a great way to run conservatives to the independents.

I'm pretty sure the American public made their opinion of that shitclown known time & again.

People who speak like that have small penises. Psych 101...

What, am I supposed to vehemently deny your unfounded claim based on a course you most likely never even heard of, let alone passed?

(hint: Psych 101 focuses on the brain's physiological makeup. Not psychology, and certainly not Freud)


... nah.

Nice try.

People who ridicule the success of others are driven by compensation. We all compensate, of course; that being a defense mechanism, a coping skill. But to diminish the accomplishments of others reeks of a small penis. You can "vehemently" do as you wish. I simply read your words.

Oh, and you underscore my point, in spades, by referring to my education without knowing a monkey's rectum about it. Why is that, if not for a small penis? Some other envy?

Say something smart! You would rather have another liberal in the White House?

I love the hypocritical ad hominem, insinuating that I have a narcissistic disorder (my narcissism is quite orderly, thank you very much) and at the same time jumping to conclusions on my opinion of the man simply because I say he is unfit to lead the country.

You don't know as much as you think you know.

 

[House]

The fact you haven't even paid attention to my last few posts preceding yours before spurting out your oral diarrhea also speaks volumes about you.

 

[Youch]

That's a great way to run conservatives to the independents.

I'm pretty sure the American public made their opinion of that shitclown known time & again.

People who speak like that have small penises. Psych 101...

What, am I supposed to vehemently deny your unfounded claim based on a course you most likely never even heard of, let alone passed?

(hint: Psych 101 focuses on the brain's physiological makeup. Not psychology, and certainly not Freud)


... nah.

Nice try.

People who ridicule the success of others are driven by compensation. We all compensate, of course; that being a defense mechanism, a coping skill. But to diminish the accomplishments of others reeks of a small penis. You can "vehemently" do as you wish. I simply read your words.

Oh, and you underscore my point, in spades, by referring to my education without knowing a monkey's rectum about it. Why is that, if not for a small penis? Some other envy?

Say something smart! You would rather have another liberal in the White House?

I love the hypocritical ad hominem, insinuating that I have a narcissistic disorder (my narcissism is quite orderly, thank you very much) and at the same time jumping to conclusions on my opinion of the man simply because I say he is unfit to lead the country.

You don't know as much as you think you know.

Love the fact that you are engaging me.

First of all, revisit the definition of hypocritical. And I never addressed narcissism.....for a person who claims to know the order of psych courses, you throw around terms a bit too loosely. Compensation is only a tertiary component narcissism.

Second, I am replying to your ad hominen "shitclown." While not his biggest fan, he is clearly a successful man in business, in politics, in his charity work, and with his family. By all measures, he is moral and ethical. Few men can say that about themselves. Again, while not his biggest fan, I would never call such a person a "shitclown."

What I am confident about discussing, is a person who would use such a term about such a man.

I ask again, say something smart. Would you rath

That's a great way to run conservatives to the independents.

I'm pretty sure the American public made their opinion of that shitclown known time & again.

People who speak like that have small penises. Psych 101...

What, am I supposed to vehemently deny your unfounded claim based on a course you most likely never even heard of, let alone passed?

(hint: Psych 101 focuses on the brain's physiological makeup. Not psychology, and certainly not Freud)


... nah.

Nice try.

People who ridicule the success of others are driven by compensation. We all compensate, of course; that being a defense mechanism, a coping skill. But to diminish the accomplishments of others reeks of a small penis. You can "vehemently" do as you wish. I simply read your words.

Oh, and you underscore my point, in spades, by referring to my education without knowing a monkey's rectum about it. Why is that, if not for a small penis? Some other envy?

Say something smart! You would rather have another liberal in the White House?

I love the hypocritical ad hominem, insinuating that I have a narcissistic disorder (my narcissism is quite orderly, thank you very much) and at the same time jumping to conclusions on my opinion of the man simply because I say he is unfit to lead the country.

You don't know as much as you think you know.

Love the fact that you are engaging me.

First of all, revisit the definition of hypocritical. And I never addressed narcissism.....for a person who claims to know the order of psych courses, you throw around terms a bit too loosely. Compensation is only a tertiary component narcissism.

Second, I am replying to your ad hominen "shitclown." While I'm not his biggest fan, Romney is clearly a successful man in business, in politics, in his charity work, and with his family. By all measures, he is moral and ethical. Few men can say that about themselves. Again, while not his biggest fan, I would never call such a person a "shitclown." That term can be applies to so many others....

What I am confident about discussing, is a person who would use such a term about such a man.
I ask again, say something smart. Would you rather have a liberal in the White House??
Now, tell me again what I know and don't know! I enjoy the engagement..... Crick was a huge disappointment...

Read with the intent to understand...

 

[Youch]

The fact you haven't even paid attention to my last few posts preceding yours before spurting out your oral diarrhea also speaks volumes about you.

Nope, I'm responding your earlier posts. Have your recounted "shitclown" or whatever device you used?

And what, prey tell, do you consider "oral diarrhea?" I've not used any profanity, and not used any such dialect as "shitclown".

So tell me, what is it that speaks volumes about me?

 

[Youch]

The fact you haven't even paid attention to my last few posts preceding yours before spurting out your oral diarrhea also speaks volumes about you.

Oh, you are seeking attention. Well, I have a few moments.....I will go back and read recent posts of yours....

 

[House]

That's a great way to run conservatives to the independents.

I'm pretty sure the American public made their opinion of that shitclown known time & again.

People who speak like that have small penises. Psych 101...

What, am I supposed to vehemently deny your unfounded claim based on a course you most likely never even heard of, let alone passed?

(hint: Psych 101 focuses on the brain's physiological makeup. Not psychology, and certainly not Freud)


... nah.

Nice try.

People who ridicule the success of others are driven by compensation. We all compensate, of course; that being a defense mechanism, a coping skill. But to diminish the accomplishments of others reeks of a small penis. You can "vehemently" do as you wish. I simply read your words.

Oh, and you underscore my point, in spades, by referring to my education without knowing a monkey's rectum about it. Why is that, if not for a small penis? Some other envy?

Say something smart! You would rather have another liberal in the White House?

I love the hypocritical ad hominem, insinuating that I have a narcissistic disorder (my narcissism is quite orderly, thank you very much) and at the same time jumping to conclusions on my opinion of the man simply because I say he is unfit to lead the country.

You don't know as much as you think you know.

Love the fact that you are engaging me.

First of all, revisit the definition of hypocritical. And I never addressed narcissism.....for a person who claims to know the order of psych courses, you throw around terms a bit too loosely. Compensation is only a tertiary component narcissism.

Second, I am replying to your ad hominen "shitclown." While not his biggest fan, he is clearly a successful man in business, in politics, in his charity work, and with his family. By all measures, he is moral and ethical. Few men can say that about themselves. Again, while not his biggest fan, I would never call such a person a "shitclown."

What I am confident about discussing, is a person who would use such a term about such a man.

I ask again, say something smart. Would you rath

That's a great way to run conservatives to the independents.

I'm pretty sure the American public made their opinion of that shitclown known time & again.

People who speak like that have small penises. Psych 101...

What, am I supposed to vehemently deny your unfounded claim based on a course you most likely never even heard of, let alone passed?

(hint: Psych 101 focuses on the brain's physiological makeup. Not psychology, and certainly not Freud)


... nah.

Nice try.

People who ridicule the success of others are driven by compensation. We all compensate, of course; that being a defense mechanism, a coping skill. But to diminish the accomplishments of others reeks of a small penis. You can "vehemently" do as you wish. I simply read your words.

Oh, and you underscore my point, in spades, by referring to my education without knowing a monkey's rectum about it. Why is that, if not for a small penis? Some other envy?

Say something smart! You would rather have another liberal in the White House?

I love the hypocritical ad hominem, insinuating that I have a narcissistic disorder (my narcissism is quite orderly, thank you very much) and at the same time jumping to conclusions on my opinion of the man simply because I say he is unfit to lead the country.

You don't know as much as you think you know.

Love the fact that you are engaging me.

First of all, revisit the definition of hypocritical. And I never addressed narcissism.....for a person who claims to know the order of psych courses, you throw around terms a bit too loosely. Compensation is only a tertiary component narcissism.

Second, I am replying to your ad hominen "shitclown." While I'm not his biggest fan, Romney is clearly a successful man in business, in politics, in his charity work, and with his family. By all measures, he is moral and ethical. Few men can say that about themselves. Again, while not his biggest fan, I would never call such a person a "shitclown." That term can be applies to so many others....

What I am confident about discussing, is a person who would use such a term about such a man.
I ask again, say something smart. Would you rather have a liberal in the White House??
Now, tell me again what I know and don't know! I enjoy the engagement..... Crick was a huge disappointment...

Read with the intent to understand...

1) You really butchered that post.
2) As a Presidential candidate, he's a shitclown. Only a shitclown could lose against Obama in 2012, but he found a way.
3) I never gave my opinion of the man outside of the political spectrum (specifically, the Presidential candidacy). Hell, I even said I'd vote for a ticket that included him as VP. But not President.
4) lol @ you telling me to read with intent to understand when you don't even try.
5) Read my earlier posts in this thread if you want to know who I'd rather see in the office. I see no point in rehashing them.

 

[Youch]

That's a great way to run conservatives to the independents.

I'm pretty sure the American public made their opinion of that shitclown known time & again.

People who speak like that have small penises. Psych 101...

What, am I supposed to vehemently deny your unfounded claim based on a course you most likely never even heard of, let alone passed?

(hint: Psych 101 focuses on the brain's physiological makeup. Not psychology, and certainly not Freud)


... nah.

Nice try.

People who ridicule the success of others are driven by compensation. We all compensate, of course; that being a defense mechanism, a coping skill. But to diminish the accomplishments of others reeks of a small penis. You can "vehemently" do as you wish. I simply read your words.

Oh, and you underscore my point, in spades, by referring to my education without knowing a monkey's rectum about it. Why is that, if not for a small penis? Some other envy?

Say something smart! You would rather have another liberal in the White House?

I love the hypocritical ad hominem, insinuating that I have a narcissistic disorder (my narcissism is quite orderly, thank you very much) and at the same time jumping to conclusions on my opinion of the man simply because I say he is unfit to lead the country.

You don't know as much as you think you know.

Love the fact that you are engaging me.

First of all, revisit the definition of hypocritical. And I never addressed narcissism.....for a person who claims to know the order of psych courses, you throw around terms a bit too loosely. Compensation is only a tertiary component narcissism.

Second, I am replying to your ad hominen "shitclown." While not his biggest fan, he is clearly a successful man in business, in politics, in his charity work, and with his family. By all measures, he is moral and ethical. Few men can say that about themselves. Again, while not his biggest fan, I would never call such a person a "shitclown."

What I am confident about discussing, is a person who would use such a term about such a man.

I ask again, say something smart. Would you rath

That's a great way to run conservatives to the independents.

I'm pretty sure the American public made their opinion of that shitclown known time & again.

People who speak like that have small penises. Psych 101...

What, am I supposed to vehemently deny your unfounded claim based on a course you most likely never even heard of, let alone passed?

(hint: Psych 101 focuses on the brain's physiological makeup. Not psychology, and certainly not Freud)


... nah.

Nice try.

People who ridicule the success of others are driven by compensation. We all compensate, of course; that being a defense mechanism, a coping skill. But to diminish the accomplishments of others reeks of a small penis. You can "vehemently" do as you wish. I simply read your words.

Oh, and you underscore my point, in spades, by referring to my education without knowing a monkey's rectum about it. Why is that, if not for a small penis? Some other envy?

Say something smart! You would rather have another liberal in the White House?

I love the hypocritical ad hominem, insinuating that I have a narcissistic disorder (my narcissism is quite orderly, thank you very much) and at the same time jumping to conclusions on my opinion of the man simply because I say he is unfit to lead the country.

You don't know as much as you think you know.

Love the fact that you are engaging me.

First of all, revisit the definition of hypocritical. And I never addressed narcissism.....for a person who claims to know the order of psych courses, you throw around terms a bit too loosely. Compensation is only a tertiary component narcissism.

Second, I am replying to your ad hominen "shitclown." While I'm not his biggest fan, Romney is clearly a successful man in business, in politics, in his charity work, and with his family. By all measures, he is moral and ethical. Few men can say that about themselves. Again, while not his biggest fan, I would never call such a person a "shitclown." That term can be applies to so many others....

What I am confident about discussing, is a person who would use such a term about such a man.
I ask again, say something smart. Would you rather have a liberal in the White House??
Now, tell me again what I know and don't know! I enjoy the engagement..... Crick was a huge disappointment...

Read with the intent to understand...

1) You really butchered that post.
2) As a Presidential candidate, he's a shitclown. Only a shitclown could lose against Obama in 2012, but he found a way.
3) I never gave my opinion of the man outside of the political spectrum (specifically, the Presidential candidacy). Hell, I even said I'd vote for a ticket that included him as VP. But not President.
4) lol @ you telling me to read with intent to understand when you don't even try.
5) Read my earlier posts in this thread if you want to know who I'd rather see in the office. I see no point in rehashing them.

Why would ANYONE read past the first post after the term "shitclown?" Except libs, of course....

Hey, I'm simply trying to be efficient here...busy life, short time, etc... I opened this original thread (as anyone would) and found that you refer to a highly successful man in all regards as a shitclown, and I am supposed to read further?? While you professed, unsuccessfully, to know psychology courses, marketing courses obviously were not your cup of tea. Rest easy, I am not wound up about this at all... My points are easily made...

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on using a stupid term. I don't have time to read the entire thread. I ask third time (one must ask the question why this was not answered the FIRST TIME), would you rather have a liberal in the White House?

 

[Youch]

That's a great way to run conservatives to the independents.

I'm pretty sure the American public made their opinion of that shitclown known time & again.

People who speak like that have small penises. Psych 101...

What, am I supposed to vehemently deny your unfounded claim based on a course you most likely never even heard of, let alone passed?

(hint: Psych 101 focuses on the brain's physiological makeup. Not psychology, and certainly not Freud)


... nah.

Nice try.

People who ridicule the success of others are driven by compensation. We all compensate, of course; that being a defense mechanism, a coping skill. But to diminish the accomplishments of others reeks of a small penis. You can "vehemently" do as you wish. I simply read your words.

Oh, and you underscore my point, in spades, by referring to my education without knowing a monkey's rectum about it. Why is that, if not for a small penis? Some other envy?

Say something smart! You would rather have another liberal in the White House?

I love the hypocritical ad hominem, insinuating that I have a narcissistic disorder (my narcissism is quite orderly, thank you very much) and at the same time jumping to conclusions on my opinion of the man simply because I say he is unfit to lead the country.

You don't know as much as you think you know.

Love the fact that you are engaging me.

First of all, revisit the definition of hypocritical. And I never addressed narcissism.....for a person who claims to know the order of psych courses, you throw around terms a bit too loosely. Compensation is only a tertiary component narcissism.

Second, I am replying to your ad hominen "shitclown." While not his biggest fan, he is clearly a successful man in business, in politics, in his charity work, and with his family. By all measures, he is moral and ethical. Few men can say that about themselves. Again, while not his biggest fan, I would never call such a person a "shitclown."

What I am confident about discussing, is a person who would use such a term about such a man.

I ask again, say something smart. Would you rath

That's a great way to run conservatives to the independents.

I'm pretty sure the American public made their opinion of that shitclown known time & again.

People who speak like that have small penises. Psych 101...

What, am I supposed to vehemently deny your unfounded claim based on a course you most likely never even heard of, let alone passed?

(hint: Psych 101 focuses on the brain's physiological makeup. Not psychology, and certainly not Freud)


... nah.

Nice try.

People who ridicule the success of others are driven by compensation. We all compensate, of course; that being a defense mechanism, a coping skill. But to diminish the accomplishments of others reeks of a small penis. You can "vehemently" do as you wish. I simply read your words.

Oh, and you underscore my point, in spades, by referring to my education without knowing a monkey's rectum about it. Why is that, if not for a small penis? Some other envy?

Say something smart! You would rather have another liberal in the White House?

I love the hypocritical ad hominem, insinuating that I have a narcissistic disorder (my narcissism is quite orderly, thank you very much) and at the same time jumping to conclusions on my opinion of the man simply because I say he is unfit to lead the country.

You don't know as much as you think you know.

Love the fact that you are engaging me.

First of all, revisit the definition of hypocritical. And I never addressed narcissism.....for a person who claims to know the order of psych courses, you throw around terms a bit too loosely. Compensation is only a tertiary component narcissism.

Second, I am replying to your ad hominen "shitclown." While I'm not his biggest fan, Romney is clearly a successful man in business, in politics, in his charity work, and with his family. By all measures, he is moral and ethical. Few men can say that about themselves. Again, while not his biggest fan, I would never call such a person a "shitclown." That term can be applies to so many others....

What I am confident about discussing, is a person who would use such a term about such a man.
I ask again, say something smart. Would you rather have a liberal in the White House??
Now, tell me again what I know and don't know! I enjoy the engagement..... Crick was a huge disappointment...

Read with the intent to understand...

1) You really butchered that post.
2) As a Presidential candidate, he's a shitclown. Only a shitclown could lose against Obama in 2012, but he found a way.
3) I never gave my opinion of the man outside of the political spectrum (specifically, the Presidential candidacy). Hell, I even said I'd vote for a ticket that included him as VP. But not President.
4) lol @ you telling me to read with intent to understand when you don't even try.
5) Read my earlier posts in this thread if you want to know who I'd rather see in the office. I see no point in rehashing them.

Only a "shitclown" would lose to a black Santa handing out freebies? So, who would have and could have done better against Santa Claus?

I don't think you grasp the gravity of the situation. Socialism is taking root. We have a dependent society. And Republican's are playing softball.

Let' use your term shitclown (I'm enjoying it more each time I type it), I consider Boehner to be the biggest. Now, terms for Pelosi, Reid, Jarrent, Holder and Obama....now, a much more dangerous term must be used....

 

[House]

That's a great way to run conservatives to the independents.

I'm pretty sure the American public made their opinion of that shitclown known time & again.

People who speak like that have small penises. Psych 101...

What, am I supposed to vehemently deny your unfounded claim based on a course you most likely never even heard of, let alone passed?

(hint: Psych 101 focuses on the brain's physiological makeup. Not psychology, and certainly not Freud)


... nah.

Nice try.

People who ridicule the success of others are driven by compensation. We all compensate, of course; that being a defense mechanism, a coping skill. But to diminish the accomplishments of others reeks of a small penis. You can "vehemently" do as you wish. I simply read your words.

Oh, and you underscore my point, in spades, by referring to my education without knowing a monkey's rectum about it. Why is that, if not for a small penis? Some other envy?

Say something smart! You would rather have another liberal in the White House?

I love the hypocritical ad hominem, insinuating that I have a narcissistic disorder (my narcissism is quite orderly, thank you very much) and at the same time jumping to conclusions on my opinion of the man simply because I say he is unfit to lead the country.

You don't know as much as you think you know.

Love the fact that you are engaging me.

First of all, revisit the definition of hypocritical. And I never addressed narcissism.....for a person who claims to know the order of psych courses, you throw around terms a bit too loosely. Compensation is only a tertiary component narcissism.

Second, I am replying to your ad hominen "shitclown." While not his biggest fan, he is clearly a successful man in business, in politics, in his charity work, and with his family. By all measures, he is moral and ethical. Few men can say that about themselves. Again, while not his biggest fan, I would never call such a person a "shitclown."

What I am confident about discussing, is a person who would use such a term about such a man.

I ask again, say something smart. Would you rath

That's a great way to run conservatives to the independents.

I'm pretty sure the American public made their opinion of that shitclown known time & again.

People who speak like that have small penises. Psych 101...

What, am I supposed to vehemently deny your unfounded claim based on a course you most likely never even heard of, let alone passed?

(hint: Psych 101 focuses on the brain's physiological makeup. Not psychology, and certainly not Freud)


... nah.

Nice try.

People who ridicule the success of others are driven by compensation. We all compensate, of course; that being a defense mechanism, a coping skill. But to diminish the accomplishments of others reeks of a small penis. You can "vehemently" do as you wish. I simply read your words.

Oh, and you underscore my point, in spades, by referring to my education without knowing a monkey's rectum about it. Why is that, if not for a small penis? Some other envy?

Say something smart! You would rather have another liberal in the White House?

I love the hypocritical ad hominem, insinuating that I have a narcissistic disorder (my narcissism is quite orderly, thank you very much) and at the same time jumping to conclusions on my opinion of the man simply because I say he is unfit to lead the country.

You don't know as much as you think you know.

Love the fact that you are engaging me.

First of all, revisit the definition of hypocritical. And I never addressed narcissism.....for a person who claims to know the order of psych courses, you throw around terms a bit too loosely. Compensation is only a tertiary component narcissism.

Second, I am replying to your ad hominen "shitclown." While I'm not his biggest fan, Romney is clearly a successful man in business, in politics, in his charity work, and with his family. By all measures, he is moral and ethical. Few men can say that about themselves. Again, while not his biggest fan, I would never call such a person a "shitclown." That term can be applies to so many others....

What I am confident about discussing, is a person who would use such a term about such a man.
I ask again, say something smart. Would you rather have a liberal in the White House??
Now, tell me again what I know and don't know! I enjoy the engagement..... Crick was a huge disappointment...

Read with the intent to understand...

1) You really butchered that post.
2) As a Presidential candidate, he's a shitclown. Only a shitclown could lose against Obama in 2012, but he found a way.
3) I never gave my opinion of the man outside of the political spectrum (specifically, the Presidential candidacy). Hell, I even said I'd vote for a ticket that included him as VP. But not President.
4) lol @ you telling me to read with intent to understand when you don't even try.
5) Read my earlier posts in this thread if you want to know who I'd rather see in the office. I see no point in rehashing them.

Why would ANYONE read past the first post after the term "shitclown?" Except libs, of course....

Hey, I'm simply trying to be efficient here...busy life, short time, etc... I opened this original thread (as anyone would) and found that you refer to a highly successful man in all regards as a shitclown, and I am supposed to read further?? While you professed, unsuccessfully, to know psychology courses, marketing courses obviously were not your cup of tea. Rest easy, I am not wound up about this at all... My points are easily made...

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on using a stupid term. I don't have time to read the entire thread. I ask third time (one must ask the question why this was not answered the FIRST TIME), would you rather have a liberal in the White House?

He's not highly successful in all regards, obviously.

And I didn't refer to him as a shitclown in all regards, either.

As I said before, if you want an answer to your question, you can find it right here in this very thread.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Would you vote for Romney in 2016?

In the Primary? You betcha!

LOL, nice try at humor. But you failed. We all know that you will vote for your fellow lesbian Hillary no matter who runs from either party. Maybe you can get Rosie O'Donnel to run for VP----------an all bull dyke ticket.

The point was they will vote for Romney to make sure there are two socialists on the ticket. This way the democrats can't loose.

Who is your candidate? We know who you are against, who are you for?

I voted libertarian last time. I would vote republican if the candidate were a Reagan like republican vs a Bush/Romney/Perry republican. For example, I would vote for Rubio. I'm very impressed with Mr. Rubio.

So in 2012 you helped obama win. are you happy about that?

No, I helped the libertarian win. If you don't like how the voting system works fix it. If it makes you feel better I would have voted for Romney over Obama, not my fault our voting system is ludicrously archaic. I'm not gonna throw out my principles and vote for a homophobic, moderate socialist to vote against a full out socialist. If you want my conservative vote your gonna have to have a conservative for me to vote for or some sort of run off election system. If Romney and Obama were the only two on the ticket, I would vote Romney.

The way I look at it you republican all voted for a socialist when a perfectly good conservative was on the ticket.

Hmmmm, I don't recall a libertarian winning the presidency in 2012. I understand what you are saying, but the fact is that that kind of thinking will insure that we continue to be ruled by raving liberals, and you will be helping them retain power. We may not like it, but thats the trueh.

Nah, it's your kind of thinking that you have to vote for the 2nd worst candidate to ensure that the worst candidate won't win that is screwing up our elections. If you folks would have actually voted for the most conservative candidate you would have voted for the libertarian, who by the way was a lauded REPUBLICAN prior to the start of the election season. Why do you republicans insist on voting neo-con party line? What have the neo-con pnac war hawk homophobe socialist pubs done for you?

You are refusing to get my point. Conservatives elected obama by not voting for the less liberal republican. Your voting pattern will keep liberals in power because you will always split the republican vote. The poll in this thread proves what I am saying.

No, that is not your shitty party's problem. Your shitty party's problem is that the Democratic coalition is now considerably larger and attracts more independents.

Conservatives came out in droves to vote for Romney. He still lost.

Was.... Independents are running from the dems like the plague now thanks to your cult leader Obama...You're a follower, keep drinking the Kool-aid and spewing stupid talking points

Actually, that cannot be true, for generic polling for the HOR shows an even-Steven horserace. That would mean that the Indies are splitting right now. So, your statement, mathematically, is a lie.

Second, it's already been discussed and mathematically proven that mid-terms have notoriously low voter turnout, so the more appropriate statement would be that lots of indies sit out mid-terms.

In fact, I was the very first poster in USMB to address this, way back in January, 2014.

Nationally, presidential elections: VT between 53-60%
Nationally, mid-terms, VT between 35-40%.

You really need to learn the meaning of math instead of just thumping your chest.

I am quite sure that the GOP is going to do very well in November, because this is absolutely in line with 160 years of electoral history. 160 years, I say again.

But it doesn't look like a wave at all right now.

Sure looks like the GOP picks up 7 seats and will likely lose 1. That would make it 51-49 and then I assume that Angus King will switch sides, making it 52 R - 48 D, also pretty much in line with the last 24 years.

The GOP will gain about 11 seats in the House, net.

Which means that nothing changes. The GOP will not have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, so lots of crazy-assed stuff that the Tea-Party kooks in the House pass will quietly die in the Senate, setting the stage for more voter discontent and a very impressive Hillary landslide in 2016. So, thanks for setting up a good slam-dunk for us!

 

[House]

Let' use your term shitclown (I'm enjoying it more each time I type it),

I know, right? It's addictive!

Oh no, addiction is an illness...

I consider Boehner to be the biggest. Now, terms for Pelosi, Reid, Jarrent, Holder and Obama....now, a much more dangerous term must be used....

Is that a challenge?

What about... Nation Rapist? Commander-In-Cheeks (too subtle, perhaps)

I got it... KENYAN!

 

[Statistikhengst]

When republicans control both the executive and legislative branches, they have a propensity to increase the size of the Federal government, to increase the deficit, and to start illegal wars – given republican hostility to citizens' civil liberties today, along with their contempt for the Constitution and its case law, as well as the rule of law, there is clearly no reason to vote for a republican presidential candidate.

And Democrats have been the voice of fiscal restraint, right?
Wars?
Korea-Harry Truman
Vietnam-JFK.
Dems suck and when they're done the public votes in the GOP to clean up the mess.

Cough-cough:

Bush 41: Iraq 1
Bush 43: Iraq 2, Afghanistan

Cough-cough.

Those were such minor wars you might as well include Clinton-Somalia, Balkans.
/fail, you derp.

You just called Iraq 2 a "minor" war??





Yes, I think you have permanently left the land of reality for a permanent hiatus in the land of pretty unicorns.

The most expensive war in our nation's history, and you call it a minor war...

This is a classic fake-Rabbi fail, one for the history books.

actually adjusted for inflation I highly doubt Iraq is the most costly war stat-man..... Check your facts

It's right up their with WWII, statless man.

 

[Statistikhengst]

That's a great way to run conservatives to the independents.

I'm pretty sure the American public made their opinion of that shitclown known time & again.

People who speak like that have small penises. Psych 101...

What, am I supposed to vehemently deny your unfounded claim based on a course you most likely never even heard of, let alone passed?

(hint: Psych 101 focuses on the brain's physiological makeup. Not psychology, and certainly not Freud)


... nah.

Nice try.

People who ridicule the success of others are driven by compensation. We all compensate, of course; that being a defense mechanism, a coping skill. But to diminish the accomplishments of others reeks of a small penis. You can "vehemently" do as you wish. I simply read your words.

Oh, and you underscore my point, in spades, by referring to my education without knowing a monkey's rectum about it. Why is that, if not for a small penis? Some other envy?

Say something smart! You would rather have another liberal in the White House?

I love the hypocritical ad hominem, insinuating that I have a narcissistic disorder (my narcissism is quite orderly, thank you very much) and at the same time jumping to conclusions on my opinion of the man simply because I say he is unfit to lead the country.

You don't know as much as you think you know.

Love the fact that you are engaging me.

First of all, revisit the definition of hypocritical. And I never addressed narcissism.....for a person who claims to know the order of psych courses, you throw around terms a bit too loosely. Compensation is only a tertiary component narcissism.

Second, I am replying to your ad hominen "shitclown." While not his biggest fan, he is clearly a successful man in business, in politics, in his charity work, and with his family. By all measures, he is moral and ethical. Few men can say that about themselves. Again, while not his biggest fan, I would never call such a person a "shitclown."

What I am confident about discussing, is a person who would use such a term about such a man.

I ask again, say something smart. Would you rath

That's a great way to run conservatives to the independents.

I'm pretty sure the American public made their opinion of that shitclown known time & again.

People who speak like that have small penises. Psych 101...

What, am I supposed to vehemently deny your unfounded claim based on a course you most likely never even heard of, let alone passed?

(hint: Psych 101 focuses on the brain's physiological makeup. Not psychology, and certainly not Freud)


... nah.

Nice try.

People who ridicule the success of others are driven by compensation. We all compensate, of course; that being a defense mechanism, a coping skill. But to diminish the accomplishments of others reeks of a small penis. You can "vehemently" do as you wish. I simply read your words.

Oh, and you underscore my point, in spades, by referring to my education without knowing a monkey's rectum about it. Why is that, if not for a small penis? Some other envy?

Say something smart! You would rather have another liberal in the White House?

I love the hypocritical ad hominem, insinuating that I have a narcissistic disorder (my narcissism is quite orderly, thank you very much) and at the same time jumping to conclusions on my opinion of the man simply because I say he is unfit to lead the country.

You don't know as much as you think you know.

Love the fact that you are engaging me.

First of all, revisit the definition of hypocritical. And I never addressed narcissism.....for a person who claims to know the order of psych courses, you throw around terms a bit too loosely. Compensation is only a tertiary component narcissism.

Second, I am replying to your ad hominen "shitclown." While I'm not his biggest fan, Romney is clearly a successful man in business, in politics, in his charity work, and with his family. By all measures, he is moral and ethical. Few men can say that about themselves. Again, while not his biggest fan, I would never call such a person a "shitclown." That term can be applies to so many others....

What I am confident about discussing, is a person who would use such a term about such a man.
I ask again, say something smart. Would you rather have a liberal in the White House??
Now, tell me again what I know and don't know! I enjoy the engagement..... Crick was a huge disappointment...

Read with the intent to understand...

1) You really butchered that post.
2) As a Presidential candidate, he's a shitclown. Only a shitclown could lose against Obama in 2012, but he found a way.
3) I never gave my opinion of the man outside of the political spectrum (specifically, the Presidential candidacy). Hell, I even said I'd vote for a ticket that included him as VP. But not President.
4) lol @ you telling me to read with intent to understand when you don't even try.
5) Read my earlier posts in this thread if you want to know who I'd rather see in the office. I see no point in rehashing them.

Only a "shitclown" would lose to a black Santa handing out freebies? So, who would have and could have done better against Santa Claus?

I don't think you grasp the gravity of the situation. Socialism is taking root. We have a dependent society. And Republican's are playing softball.

Let' use your term shitclown (I'm enjoying it more each time I type it), I consider Boehner to be the biggest. Now, terms for Pelosi, Reid, Jarrent, Holder and Obama....now, a much more dangerous term must be used....

You are new here, I see. And very, very interesting....

 

[The Rabbi]

That's a great way to run conservatives to the independents.

I'm pretty sure the American public made their opinion of that shitclown known time & again.

People who speak like that have small penises. Psych 101...

What, am I supposed to vehemently deny your unfounded claim based on a course you most likely never even heard of, let alone passed?

(hint: Psych 101 focuses on the brain's physiological makeup. Not psychology, and certainly not Freud)


... nah.

Nice try.

People who ridicule the success of others are driven by compensation. We all compensate, of course; that being a defense mechanism, a coping skill. But to diminish the accomplishments of others reeks of a small penis. You can "vehemently" do as you wish. I simply read your words.

Oh, and you underscore my point, in spades, by referring to my education without knowing a monkey's rectum about it. Why is that, if not for a small penis? Some other envy?

Say something smart! You would rather have another liberal in the White House?

I love the hypocritical ad hominem, insinuating that I have a narcissistic disorder (my narcissism is quite orderly, thank you very much) and at the same time jumping to conclusions on my opinion of the man simply because I say he is unfit to lead the country.

You don't know as much as you think you know.

Yeah I'm with Youch on this one. You can disagree with Romney's policies. You can say he isn't a conservative and will govern more or less like Bush did. You can say you wont vote for him. That's fine and I might agreee with a lot of that.
But to say he's unqualified is simply stupid. He is very qualified. His pronouncements on foreign policy were absolutely correct, and his more recent on the subject is spot on.

 

[House]

That's a great way to run conservatives to the independents.

I'm pretty sure the American public made their opinion of that shitclown known time & again.

People who speak like that have small penises. Psych 101...

What, am I supposed to vehemently deny your unfounded claim based on a course you most likely never even heard of, let alone passed?

(hint: Psych 101 focuses on the brain's physiological makeup. Not psychology, and certainly not Freud)


... nah.

Nice try.

People who ridicule the success of others are driven by compensation. We all compensate, of course; that being a defense mechanism, a coping skill. But to diminish the accomplishments of others reeks of a small penis. You can "vehemently" do as you wish. I simply read your words.

Oh, and you underscore my point, in spades, by referring to my education without knowing a monkey's rectum about it. Why is that, if not for a small penis? Some other envy?

Say something smart! You would rather have another liberal in the White House?

I love the hypocritical ad hominem, insinuating that I have a narcissistic disorder (my narcissism is quite orderly, thank you very much) and at the same time jumping to conclusions on my opinion of the man simply because I say he is unfit to lead the country.

You don't know as much as you think you know.

Yeah I'm with Youch on this one. You can disagree with Romney's policies. You can say he isn't a conservative and will govern more or less like Bush did. You can say you wont vote for him. That's fine and I might agreee with a lot of that.
But to say he's unqualified is simply stupid. He is very qualified. His pronouncements on foreign policy were absolutely correct, and his more recent on the subject is spot on.

I never said he was unqualified. Please stop reading into my posts sentiments that aren't there.

I said the Job Exporter in Chief is a shitclown. There's a world of difference.

 

[Youch]

That's a great way to run conservatives to the independents.

I'm pretty sure the American public made their opinion of that shitclown known time & again.

People who speak like that have small penises. Psych 101...

What, am I supposed to vehemently deny your unfounded claim based on a course you most likely never even heard of, let alone passed?

(hint: Psych 101 focuses on the brain's physiological makeup. Not psychology, and certainly not Freud)


... nah.

Nice try.

People who ridicule the success of others are driven by compensation. We all compensate, of course; that being a defense mechanism, a coping skill. But to diminish the accomplishments of others reeks of a small penis. You can "vehemently" do as you wish. I simply read your words.

Oh, and you underscore my point, in spades, by referring to my education without knowing a monkey's rectum about it. Why is that, if not for a small penis? Some other envy?

Say something smart! You would rather have another liberal in the White House?

I love the hypocritical ad hominem, insinuating that I have a narcissistic disorder (my narcissism is quite orderly, thank you very much) and at the same time jumping to conclusions on my opinion of the man simply because I say he is unfit to lead the country.

You don't know as much as you think you know.

Love the fact that you are engaging me.

First of all, revisit the definition of hypocritical. And I never addressed narcissism.....for a person who claims to know the order of psych courses, you throw around terms a bit too loosely. Compensation is only a tertiary component narcissism.

Second, I am replying to your ad hominen "shitclown." While not his biggest fan, he is clearly a successful man in business, in politics, in his charity work, and with his family. By all measures, he is moral and ethical. Few men can say that about themselves. Again, while not his biggest fan, I would never call such a person a "shitclown."

What I am confident about discussing, is a person who would use such a term about such a man.

I ask again, say something smart. Would you rath

That's a great way to run conservatives to the independents.

I'm pretty sure the American public made their opinion of that shitclown known time & again.

People who speak like that have small penises. Psych 101...

What, am I supposed to vehemently deny your unfounded claim based on a course you most likely never even heard of, let alone passed?

(hint: Psych 101 focuses on the brain's physiological makeup. Not psychology, and certainly not Freud)


... nah.

Nice try.

People who ridicule the success of others are driven by compensation. We all compensate, of course; that being a defense mechanism, a coping skill. But to diminish the accomplishments of others reeks of a small penis. You can "vehemently" do as you wish. I simply read your words.

Oh, and you underscore my point, in spades, by referring to my education without knowing a monkey's rectum about it. Why is that, if not for a small penis? Some other envy?

Say something smart! You would rather have another liberal in the White House?

I love the hypocritical ad hominem, insinuating that I have a narcissistic disorder (my narcissism is quite orderly, thank you very much) and at the same time jumping to conclusions on my opinion of the man simply because I say he is unfit to lead the country.

You don't know as much as you think you know.

Love the fact that you are engaging me.

First of all, revisit the definition of hypocritical. And I never addressed narcissism.....for a person who claims to know the order of psych courses, you throw around terms a bit too loosely. Compensation is only a tertiary component narcissism.

Second, I am replying to your ad hominen "shitclown." While I'm not his biggest fan, Romney is clearly a successful man in business, in politics, in his charity work, and with his family. By all measures, he is moral and ethical. Few men can say that about themselves. Again, while not his biggest fan, I would never call such a person a "shitclown." That term can be applies to so many others....

What I am confident about discussing, is a person who would use such a term about such a man.
I ask again, say something smart. Would you rather have a liberal in the White House??
Now, tell me again what I know and don't know! I enjoy the engagement..... Crick was a huge disappointment...

Read with the intent to understand...

1) You really butchered that post.
2) As a Presidential candidate, he's a shitclown. Only a shitclown could lose against Obama in 2012, but he found a way.
3) I never gave my opinion of the man outside of the political spectrum (specifically, the Presidential candidacy). Hell, I even said I'd vote for a ticket that included him as VP. But not President.
4) lol @ you telling me to read with intent to understand when you don't even try.
5) Read my earlier posts in this thread if you want to know who I'd rather see in the office. I see no point in rehashing them.

Why would ANYONE read past the first post after the term "shitclown?" Except libs, of course....

Hey, I'm simply trying to be efficient here...busy life, short time, etc... I opened this original thread (as anyone would) and found that you refer to a highly successful man in all regards as a shitclown, and I am supposed to read further?? While you professed, unsuccessfully, to know psychology courses, marketing courses obviously were not your cup of tea. Rest easy, I am not wound up about this at all... My points are easily made...

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on using a stupid term. I don't have time to read the entire thread. I ask third time (one must ask the question why this was not answered the FIRST TIME), would you rather have a liberal in the White House?

He's not highly successful in all regards, obviously.

And I didn't refer to him as a shitclown in all regards, either.

As I said before, if you want an answer to your question, you can find it right here in this very thread.

I'll pretend to ignore the fact that you didn't deny my contention. Res Ipsa Loquitur. (I used the backspace button in big ways here, in the hope of not completely cutting you off from further honest debate).

House,

We are facing an avalanche of dangerous progressivism, Statism, whatever you want to call it. And a good man steps into the arena, and fails. And you call him a shitclown. That is why I made the obvious psychological reference. Let me remind you of something:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

 

[House]

House,

We are facing an avalanche of dangerous progressivism, Statism, whatever you want to call it. And a good man steps into the arena, and fails. And you call him a shitclown. That is why I made the obvious psychological reference. Let me remind you of something:

You continue to make assumptions about me.

His failure is not even my primary motivator, let alone my sole motivator, for calling him a shitclown.

I made my opinion of the man known in previous posts, so I see no need to rehash them for someone who is too lazy to read but obviously not too busy to bloviate.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's a great way to run conservatives to the independents.

I'm pretty sure the American public made their opinion of that shitclown known time & again.

People who speak like that have small penises. Psych 101...

What, am I supposed to vehemently deny your unfounded claim based on a course you most likely never even heard of, let alone passed?

(hint: Psych 101 focuses on the brain's physiological makeup. Not psychology, and certainly not Freud)


... nah.

Nice try.

People who ridicule the success of others are driven by compensation. We all compensate, of course; that being a defense mechanism, a coping skill. But to diminish the accomplishments of others reeks of a small penis. You can "vehemently" do as you wish. I simply read your words.

Oh, and you underscore my point, in spades, by referring to my education without knowing a monkey's rectum about it. Why is that, if not for a small penis? Some other envy?

Say something smart! You would rather have another liberal in the White House?

I love the hypocritical ad hominem, insinuating that I have a narcissistic disorder (my narcissism is quite orderly, thank you very much) and at the same time jumping to conclusions on my opinion of the man simply because I say he is unfit to lead the country.

You don't know as much as you think you know.

Yeah I'm with Youch on this one. You can disagree with Romney's policies. You can say he isn't a conservative and will govern more or less like Bush did. You can say you wont vote for him. That's fine and I might agreee with a lot of that.
But to say he's unqualified is simply stupid. He is very qualified. His pronouncements on foreign policy were absolutely correct, and his more recent on the subject is spot on.

I never said he was unqualified. Please stop reading into my posts sentiments that aren't there.

I said the Job Exporter in Chief is a shitclown. There's a world of difference.

Sorry, you said he was unfit (post 260). That is an absurd assessment. He is very fit to lead the country. The Job Exporter in Chief crap is merely mouthing the most ignorant liberal talking points. Find something realistic to disagree with him about. You're just making an idiot out of yourself.

 

[Youch]

House,

We are facing an avalanche of dangerous progressivism, Statism, whatever you want to call it. And a good man steps into the arena, and fails. And you call him a shitclown. That is why I made the obvious psychological reference. Let me remind you of something:

You continue to make assumptions about me.

His failure is not even my primary motivator, let alone my sole motivator, for calling him a shitclown.

I made my opinion of the man known in previous posts, so I see no need to rehash them for someone who is too lazy to read but obviously not too busy to bloviate.

Did you, or did you not, call him a shitclown?

Everything else is a distraction.....

 

[House]

House,

We are facing an avalanche of dangerous progressivism, Statism, whatever you want to call it. And a good man steps into the arena, and fails. And you call him a shitclown. That is why I made the obvious psychological reference. Let me remind you of something:

You continue to make assumptions about me.

His failure is not even my primary motivator, let alone my sole motivator, for calling him a shitclown.

I made my opinion of the man known in previous posts, so I see no need to rehash them for someone who is too lazy to read but obviously not too busy to bloviate.

Did you, or did you not, call him a shitclown?

Everything else is a distraction.....

Motive is never a distraction. Unseen intent often means more than the visible action.

But in this case, my motive and intent are both visible.

Enough playing for now. Daddy has work to do.

I'll be back in... well.. whenever the job is done.