Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Despite being another "Bush," it might still help him that he isn't from Texas. A lot of people dismissed Perry in 2012 because they didn't want another Texan in the White House.
Really? I figured a Bush name is more of an albatross than a candidate from Texas.
What's wrong with Texas?
Nothing wrong with Texas, and certainly the Bush name will be a problem for him. I just remember back in 2012 there were lots of commentary about Perry having to deal with the fact that the last Texas governor in the White House didn't work out too well for a lot of people. He was almost a Bush by association, basically.
Which is truly ironic as the Perrys are NOT big fans of the Bushies.
Anyway, here's an honest question, as I am not completely familiar with every position each candidate has and how it interacts with the power of the President. Let's assume the raging Socialist Bernie Sanders wins the Presidency. Now, as President, what can he actual accomplish as far as what he would want to do? How much Socialism/extreme-left-stuff can he put in place with his Presidential authority without needing Congress? And, as a comparison, let's take Sanders's opposite (the GOP pool is so big now, not sure who would be the most right-leaning one, guessing Cruz). How much extreme-right-wing stuff could be done with Presidential authority without needing Congress?
Of the two, extreme left and extreme right, who could accomplish more (or do more damage, depending on your point of view) solely with their own executive power?
Sanders would be FAR more damanging that Cruz could ever be...
Just look at how far Obama has pushed is regulatory muscles and how he's set his disasterous foriegn policies.
If you want Obama's policies on steroids... vote for Sanders.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/09 00:45:33
I think an extremist conservative would be much more damaging at least to the things I care about. Cutting funding to schools and social programs. Allowing industries to run amok, slashing budgets for consumer protection and environmental agencies. Cutting taxes for the ultra rich for no good reason (again). Possibly getting us into more wars. Deregulation on a massive scale. And IIRC he's one of those people who refuse to believe in separation of church and state, so he'll probably push for a constitutional ban on same sex marriage, those sorts of things. I fear what would happen if someone like Perry got his way. Now that being said, I sort of support Bernie, but that's mostly because I hate Hillary, and the likelihood of the R's running a moderate candidate at this point is zero-none.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/09 00:56:47
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I think an extremist conservative would be much more damaging at least to the things I care about. Cutting funding to schools and social programs. Allowing industries to run amok, slashing budgets for consumer protection and environmental agencies. Cutting taxes for the ultra rich for no good reason (again). Possibly getting us into more wars. Deregulation on a massive scale. And IIRC he's one of those people who refuse to believe in separation of church and state, so he'll probably push for a constitutional ban on same sex marriage, those sorts of things. I fear what would happen if someone like Perry got his way. Now that being said, I sort of support Bernie, but that's mostly because I hate Hillary, and the likelihood of the R's running a moderate candidate at this point is zero-none.
What about Jeb? He's about as moderate as they come... and he's likely to get the nomination because, alas... money talks yo.
Moderate? I thought he was in line with his brother. TBH, I know barely anything about him, having just passed him off as another Bush.
The one I want to win the republican nomination is Pataki. He's experienced (mayor, assembly, state senate, governor) and, though he wasn't a very exciting governor, he was a good one. He has a great environmental record, and is moderate-liberal socially (pro-choice, pro-gay marriage), crime dropped steadily while he was governor, and he pushed expansion of healthcare to NY's poorest. And if anyone has a chance to help ease the gridlock in Washington, I think he will, as he can bridge the gap between the D's and R's.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/09 01:35:05
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Of the two, extreme left and extreme right, who could accomplish more (or do more damage, depending on your point of view) solely with their own executive power?
Great question. Theoretically, Sanders would be the greater evil, since he is clearly a big gov't guy, and would use expand the federal gov't and federal programs in an attempt to 'solve' the problems he perceives.
A Cruz (or an actual 'conservative') should want to shrink federal gov't/power and should be less likely to use it/expand it as the solution set for the problems he perceives.
But that is all theoretical...
Nah, I've said it before, when politicians say they believe in smaller government, what they really mean is they want to shrink the parts they don't like and increase the parts they do like in equal amounts.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Just look at how far Obama has pushed is regulatory muscles and how he's set his disasterous foriegn policies.
IMO, Sanders and hell, just about any of the "current" batch of candidates have a better foreign policy plan in place than big O does.
And I'm with Co'tor on the issue of which "side" could do more harm if left to their own devices. I have quite literally heard a number of Tea Party, Conservatives and general Republican "types" espouse the view that the Fed should not be in the market at all. They seriously want to go back to late 1800s levels of regulation wherein we got the wondrous paragons of Virtue named Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan, Vanderbilt and others like them.
We're already to a point, economically speaking where the wealth and income gap is as large as it's been since 1928. The middle class, the very class which has historically driven the entire economy in the US, especially in the mid-20th century, is shrinking. Fewer people are buying homes, which in turn creates a larger demand for rental housing, which has created a situation where many apartment complexes are driving their rates up, which cause many people to no longer be able to afford THAT housing. Now, I'm not blaming these situations on anyone, as each president has left his mark on the economy, and each successor reacts in the way that he thinks best, or is advised to.... It's simply the situation we're in, and when I look at what the Republicans have repeatedly gone on record saying they want to do, the bills they want to pass, etc, to me, they are seriously trying to push for that glory age of monopolies and utter control of the country by the wealthiest people in the country.
And while I personally think that Common Core is terrible, I think the idea behind it is good. Having a kid who grew up in say, Mississippi, apply for colleges in Michigan (and isn't a star athlete) should be on equal footing, with little to no "catch up" classes when compared to a similarly aged applicant from Michigan, Wisconsin or any other state.
And well, quite frankly I am sick and tired of hearing right leaning candidates and politicians espouse idiotic views like "America is a Christian Nation!" (because it quite simply isn't) and the sheer lunacy of things like Akin's statements about rape (and really, the numerous guys who inserted foot in mouth around that time). Of course, I get sick and tired of ignorance from the left, but usually it stems from exactly that: ignorance... I am of course referring to things like the California senators who went on for 10 minutes or whatever it was about "ghost guns" and "30 round automatic clip firing guns" and such. Most of y'all who've been around know that I'm pretty well right-leaning when it comes to 2A issues
Nah, I've said it before, when politicians say they believe in smaller government, what they really mean is they want to shrink the parts they don't like and increase the parts they do like in equal amounts.
And the ones who ACTUALLY believe that, aren't in office (usually)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/09 01:47:06
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: A coalition system would encourage co-operation on common ground, but the USA would never go in for it. Frankly, the current system is the only one that could work in the USA.
Sort of. That'd be true if the US swapped to a proportional system overnight, but you mustn't forget that political culture changes (a few decades ago the US was noted by how frequently congressmen crossed the floor and voted based on regional or personal values, over the party line). And of course the culture of politics is largely defined by the system - the
And for what it's worth, I'm not even much of a fan of proportional systems, I'm certainly not trying to sell them as better. I'm just talking through the idea, really.
I'm still trying to figure out how much of the Sanders surge represents a genuine interest and appetite for more socialist policies, and how much is just the anyone-but-Hillary factor.
I think we'll probably only know once this is all over, and we see whether Sanders keeps his very prominent spot on the national spotlight.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blood Hawk wrote: Does anyone else think the Hillary Clinton is going to be Mitt Romney for 2016? She probably will end up winning the primary but liberals will never love her like they did with Obama in 2008. I mean if the republicans can put up a decent candidate they could beat her IMO. All they have to do is push Trump off the stage.
Clinton has been uninspiring in her past campaigns, that’s for sure. That’s why I’ve been saying to Whembly for like two years now that Clinton’s presidency was far from assured.
But in order for her to be as doomed as Mitt Romney was, well having a similarly mediocre set of campaign skills isn’t enough by itself. Romney also ran with a completely incoherent platform (the 47% thing stuck because it seemed like the only time Romney said anything about anything). And he was also up against Obama, who was a very skilled campaigner who even in his second run managed a clear message that worked with a lot of voters.
Now, the Republicans simply do not have a candidate like Obama, so that's one thing that improves Hillary's chances. But on the other hand there’s no guarantee Hillary won’t manage a campaign that’s worse than Romney’s – Romney was mediocre, Hillary could easily be downright terrible.
I think she's still the most likely winner, but this could go any way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: So... you saying Sanders could be the Obama of '08? 'Cuz, that is what's going to take to knock her off again. I don't see it.
I think an actual Muslim Kenyan will win a general before a socialist does.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: Paul Ryan should have run. He's conservative enough to appeal to the Republican base, but can appear to be moderate and might even have some cross-party youth appeal.
Paul Ryan really doesn't want to come under scrutiny right now. He came to fame with his pretend seriousness, and all those proposed budgets that turned out to be complete and utter gibberish. As long as he stays safely nestled in conservative quarters the crappiness of his policy work won't hurt, but if he actually came out in a live election and started getting media questions on the fictions in his budgets, he'd basically be left with nothing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The only other candidate I can see giving Clinton a legitimate challenge is Jeb Bush, but his last name is "Bush"...if he were not a Bush, I think people would be giving him a harder look.
Basically the only achievement Jeb! has is the Florida growth rate, but it turns out that was just a property bubble and he was just lucky enough to leave office before it popped. Even if we don't penalise Jeb! for letting the bubble happen, and we just remove it from the picture, then the story is that he actually oversaw a pretty mediocre state economy (which is incredible when you consider the migration towards Florida).
I think Perry is still under-rated. He's actually got a genuine economic record to stand behind - Texas has had excellent sustained growth, and while Texas has had favourable circumstances, good economic policy has certainly played a part.
I think Perry is written off because of his terrible performance last time. But if the stories about back surgery are true and he campaigns well this time, then 2012 will be quickly forgotten and maybe his strong Texas record will come to the fore.
That article was a bit silly. Having an almost entirely white crowd only matters when there's genuine concern over your party's ability to woo non-white voters, and that's a R problem, not a D problem. And it then becomes a real problem for Ron Paul because of the way he's flirted with racism.
And there's a similarly simplistic analysis on the policies of the two men. Both have unorthodox beliefs compared to the US mainstream, but that doesn't mean both sets of beliefs are similarly flawed. What Sanders is proposing is fairly close to what much of the developed world uses as the bedrock of their economies, it may not be politically viable in the US, or even optimal, but it's certainly functional on an economic level. In comparison Ron Paul's ideas are not just outside the mainstream, but based on nonsense and completely ignorant of economic realities.
And then comparing things Sanders wrote five decades ago to Akin's recent comments... well I shouldn't have to explain why that's so sillly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Sanders would be FAR more damanging that Cruz could ever be...
I think answering that question is going to be more of a test of personal political biases than any kind of real analysis of their policies and what they would do.
It's also a fairly irrelevant question because Sanders is not going to be President. His chance of winning the primary is almost zero, and his chance of winning the general is zero. Cruz is an outsider, but not a 0% outsider.
This message was edited 9 times. Last update was at 2015/07/09 05:28:34
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
All Bernie is talking about it getting back to the "New Deal, but add 21st century updates to it. IF that is socialist, I am Stalin!
"Your mumblings are awakening the sleeping Dragon, be wary when meddling the affairs of Dragons, for thou art tasty and go good with either ketchup or chocolate. "
Dragons fear nothing, if it acts up, we breath magic fire that turns them into marshmallow peeps. We leaguers only cry rivets!
@sebster: Bernie having a mainly white audience actually does matter, not in a general, but in a democratic primary. He is doing marginally well vs Clinton in the two early states (NH and IA) but those two states are in the top three as far as having a white dominate electoral base. They certainly aren't reflective of the majority of the states. Nate Silver (the only election polling analyst I put any stock in) just had an interesting write up about Bernie's problem http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/bernie-sanders-could-win-iowa-and-new-hampshire-then-lose-everywhere-else/
Gordon Shumway wrote: @sebster: Bernie having a mainly white audience actually does matter, not in a general, but in a democratic primary. He is doing marginally well vs Clinton in the two early states (NH and IA) but those two states are in the top three as far as having a white dominate electoral base. They certainly aren't reflective of the majority of the states. Nate Silver (the only election polling analyst I put any stock in) just had an interesting write up about Bernie's problem http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/bernie-sanders-could-win-iowa-and-new-hampshire-then-lose-everywhere-else/
Oh for sure. It definitely matters in terms of being one more reason why Sanders isn't a viable candidate (as I said in a bunch of my other posts).
No, I meant him having a white audience didn't mean anything in terms of having a problematic issue about race, like Ron Paul has. Because unlike Paul, Sanders has no other race issues, while for Paul it's just one part of his overall issue.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Gordon Shumway wrote: @sebster: Bernie having a mainly white audience actually does matter, not in a general, but in a democratic primary. He is doing marginally well vs Clinton in the two early states (NH and IA) but those two states are in the top three as far as having a white dominate electoral base. They certainly aren't reflective of the majority of the states. Nate Silver (the only election polling analyst I put any stock in) just had an interesting write up about Bernie's problem http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/bernie-sanders-could-win-iowa-and-new-hampshire-then-lose-everywhere-else/
Oh for sure. It definitely matters in terms of being one more reason why Sanders isn't a viable candidate (as I said in a bunch of my other posts).
No, I meant him having a white audience didn't mean anything in terms of having a problematic issue about race, like Ron Paul has. Because unlike Paul, Sanders has no other race issues, while for Paul it's just one part of his overall issue.
Is cool. And I agree with what you're saying about Sanders winning a couple of whitebred states then nowhere else.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/09 06:27:29
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Looks like the Iran nuclear deal is reaching the finishing line.
Question is, though: will Obama get it through Congress?
What's the mood in Congress like these days?
With next year's Presidential campaign soon to be upon us, I get the feeling everybody's going to be outdoing each other on who can be the toughest on Iran...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
And for what it's worth, I'm not even much of a fan of proportional systems, I'm certainly not trying to sell them as better. I'm just talking through the idea, really
I'm pretty sure I've seen you bang the drum for PR, before, Sebster. Of course I may be wrong
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/09 08:52:37
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
I think the issue with Sanders and Minorities is he just needs to spread the platform for the other voting groups like African-American and Latino/Hispanic-Americans and others to get the word out. This is still early enough he has time to spread that out and via the social networks and internet if not the Corporate Mainstream media.
"Your mumblings are awakening the sleeping Dragon, be wary when meddling the affairs of Dragons, for thou art tasty and go good with either ketchup or chocolate. "
Dragons fear nothing, if it acts up, we breath magic fire that turns them into marshmallow peeps. We leaguers only cry rivets!
AlmightyWalrus wrote: For once, the American definition is closer to the truth. Socialism and Communism have the same end-goals, but differ in how to get there.
Indeed... hence why we must ever be vigilant!
Aaaand we're back to disagreeing again.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I think an extremist conservative would be much more damaging at least to the things I care about. Cutting funding to schools and social programs. Allowing industries to run amok, slashing budgets for consumer protection and environmental agencies. Cutting taxes for the ultra rich for no good reason (again). Possibly getting us into more wars. Deregulation on a massive scale. And IIRC he's one of those people who refuse to believe in separation of church and state, so he'll probably push for a constitutional ban on same sex marriage, those sorts of things. I fear what would happen if someone like Perry got his way. Now that being said, I sort of support Bernie, but that's mostly because I hate Hillary, and the likelihood of the R's running a moderate candidate at this point is zero-none.
This, a hundred times.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Trump leads the GOP pack this week, though few think he will win the nomination
The Republican horserace continues to be a contest of multiple candidates – with frontrunners sometimes ahead by only a few points, and no one dominating the race. In this week’s Economist/YouGov Poll, businessman Donald Trump leads among Republicans, ahead of Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, Florida Senator Marco Rubio and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.
Trump looks even better as a candidate this week when Republicans are asked for their second choice. When they are, Trump extends his lead. One in four Republicans who are registered to vote say he is their first or second choice.
But who are these Republicans? Trump’s statements on immigration may be striking a chord. Two-thirds of those who choose Trump first or second support the goals of the Tea Party, higher than the overall percentage of Republicans who do. They are much less likely to have a college education than are other Republicans, and they are more likely than other Republicans to say they are “very” conservative.
Trump supporters may be making more of a statement than voting for someone they consider a contender. Just one in five of Trump’s supporters think Trump will win the nomination. Only 7% of Republicans think Trump will capture the nomination: more give the edge to Bush, Paul, Rubio and Walker.
Trump also may have a problem mobilizing the rest of his party. While one in four Republicans make him their first or second choice this week, more than four in ten Republicans don’t like him.
This is a slight improvement for Trump compared to his ratings in some previous weeks, when there have been more Republicans who had an unfavorable than a favorable opinion of Trump. And when they were asked to give a one-word description of Trump, Republicans more often cited negative than positive assessments.
Oh my!
Polls, smolls, either he's a closetted Republican or he knows how to out-retail-politicks his competitors.
He's known to contribute to Democratic candidates... but, I'm not so sure that's a valid criticism per se, as he's a big businessman in NYC/NY. To be successful, you'd have to know whose palms you need to grease.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And now for some lighthearted political news
For Limberbutt McCubbins, 'The Time Is Meow' To Run For President
The first thing people noticed was the name.
A Louisville resident named Limberbutt McCubbins had apparently filed to run for president, gaining attention in recent months from a campaign watchdog and, most recently, The Rachel Maddow Show.
It's not entirely clear whether everyone realized that Limberbutt McCubbins is a cat.
In an interview, Isaac Weiss, 17, a rising senior at duPont Manual High School in Louisville, said he thought it would be funny to enlist his friend's cat to run for president. The presidential candidate belongs to 18-year-old Emilee McCubbins, who is also a rising senior at Manual.
So Weiss logged on to the Federal Election Commission's website this spring and created "The Committee for the Installation of Limberbutt."
According to Federal Election Commission filings, Limberbutt is a Democrat. Or as Weiss puts it, a "demo-cat."
Weiss and Emilee McCubbins say they have already gotten letters about Limberbutt's candidacy—some going as far as to ask for proof of the cat's citizenship. Other letters are seeking information about possible volunteer opportunities to help get McCubbins in the White House.
"I got a letter in the mail from a lawyer wanting to represent him," McCubbins said. "I've gotten numerous emails."
Weiss added: "It does not appear that they know that he is indeed a cat."
Candidate McCubbins is not the first non-human to become a presidential candidate. Others include a pig named Pigasus the Immortal in 1968 and Molly the Dog in 2008.
Anyone can start a committee to explore running for president, but actually getting on the ballot requires fundraising, an FEC spokesman said. It doesn't break FEC rules, per se, for a committee to be launched for a cat, the spokesman added.
Weiss said he and his friends started this process — which already includes a Facebook page ("The time is meow, watch out Hillary!" declares one post) and campaign swag — mostly as a joke.
"We often joked around that Limberbutt would make a great president," Weiss said of the 5-year-old cat.
He said what stood out to him was that it was even possible to register a cat with the FEC.
"Anyone can easily run for president, which is why if you go to the FEC website you'll see over 200 people listed—including Limberbutt," Weiss said.
I be highly amused watching Trump in a GOP debate. I'm so anti politician I'm seriously contemplating throwing my vote his way
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm pretty sure I've seen you bang the drum for PR, before, Sebster. Of course I may be wrong
Really? In a bicameral* system then having one house proportionally represented is okay, but not outside of that. But for the basis of forming government I think it's a terrible idea - no singular control and authority. I do bang the drum pretty hard** for preferential voting though, so you may be thinking of that?
*It has taken all my concentration to make sure I didn't type bicaramel. Mmmm caramel.
** Well, as hard as you can bang the drum for any kind of voting system by posting on a wargaming forum
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: I be highly amused watching Trump in a GOP debate. I'm so anti politician I'm seriously contemplating throwing my vote his way
I don't think anybody is as political as Trump. His whole method is image and sales, with no substance behind it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/10 03:26:27
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
His interviews do seem to be a thing of majesty. He just sits there and announces borderline insane things, before retorting that he isn't announcing anything. When you see that, the idea that he isn't intending on actually getting into the Oval Office does seem a bit more compelling. After all, getting your face plastered everywhere is easier if you come across as eminently entertaining watching.
But the biggest shock of the day was turning on the news and seeing
Al Gore
America, I demand an apology for that outrage
It's hard to believe that Gore could have been President...
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/07/10 11:15:52
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
But the biggest shock of the day was turning on the news and seeing
Al Gore
America, I demand an apology for that outrage
It's hard to believe that Gore could have been President...
Occasionally even the holy Al Gore must take breaks from hunting Manbearpig to blow off some steam.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
To the rest of the GOP candidates... this is how you do it:
That is, run a campaign that de-legitimize the central idea of the current US lefty ideology...which isthat the government, is a good and benevolent force.
Too bad that this is probably the only time we'll see something like this.
<--- this guy is resigned for 8 more years of HRC Presidency.
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT: I just saw this... the head of OPM tweeting this:
Mitt Romney’s statements reveal “little understanding of what’s going on in the 21st century”: http://t.co/0JBikUFh #RomneyNotReady
— Katherine Archuleta (@Archuleta2012) October 22, 2012
If I were Mitt, I’d run in 2016 with bumper stickers that say “I FETHING TOLD YOU SO!” Because, you know, he was right on just about everything.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/07/10 16:47:46
But what is it with you guys and rubbish vice-presidents?
Al Gore, Joe Biden, Dan Quayle, Spiro Agnew
Is there a special bunker where these guys are locked away and wheeled out every 4 years?
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
(usually)
