I too voted that way I felt exactly the same between one and two...Huck has been working with McCain for the divide and conquer and get a job somewhere in his cabinet...plus I very much agree with mattm...I posted his same sentiments elsewhere this morning.
I voted that it was due to the MSM promoting him, as that probably was the biggest reason.
I had also mentioned last night that crossover may have had a lot to do with it as well, though I made the crossover voters out to be somewhat malicious in there intent.
I am beginning to back away from the malicious aspect of it somewhat as I am now thinking there may be a considerable number of "moderate" dems who do not like Broom Hilda and are not exactly thrilled with Obama's promise to surrender to Osama as soon as he gets elected.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
That is funny with the JD bit...I told my other half last night I wished I had a couple shots of JD on the rocks...been ages and ages, but I sure would of liked a few...
Maybe we can meet half way on super Tuesday and commiserate if the leftist McCain wins....lol!
I hope to goodness not, but it is looking dim, plus he has the msm like he always has, then he too will be attacked...that has been their plan all along.
What I find so frustrating with McCain's stupid supporters is that they, like their senile candidate, do not realize the the liberal MSM is just toying with McCain right now. Like a cat toys with its prey just before eating it.
If McCain should manage to win the republican nomination, the MSM will turn on him so fast that McCain's diminished capacity will not allow him to realize it for at least a week. Perhaps even a month. I have watched him carefully in the debates, and he appears to be easily confused. He will get soundly trounced in the GE, whether it is against Obama or Broom Hilda.
If there is a silver lining in all this, and I am seriously trying to maintain an optimistic outlook here, just maybe the republicans will use the next year or so and clean house from top to bottom, then mount a huge effort in the 2110 mid-terms, and be really ready in 2012. Just because Broom Hilda is in the White House does not make her a dictator. She still has to get her plans (schemes) through the congress.
Remember, many of the democrats elected to congress last mid-term were not all flaming loony libs, as they came from fairly moderate, if not somewhat conservative, areas. They, like their constituents, are not all that impressed with Hillary.
It will not be easy for her, and if the republicans can get their opposition tactics in gear once again and find their lost spine, it will be even more difficult for her.
Well, it makes me feel better, anyway. Okay, maybe just a little better.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Well, it isn't over yet...we have one week to go...and I will be gone on Wed. I think, so if it is bad I won't be posting the next day...which will be a good thing...lol!
Never in my wildest dreams did I ever think it would come down to McCain being the candidate...never.
Go Romney go...
Btw...if I hear one more time the glee from the leftist talking heads on the networks hoping Romney goes broke by staying in the race I am going to scream...I find it deplorable, disgusting.
I hope McCain is not the nominee, either. Believe me.
But even if he is, it isn't going to mean the end of the republic. The executive branch is only one of three branches of the federal government.
Thank God our founders had the foresight to put that system in place, as it was designed so that no one branch, on its own, could beach the whole country.
You know, I think I am coming out of the depression I have been feeling for the last 24 hrs.
Now I am getting angry.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Why do you think the DNC moved all their delegates to convention time?
IMO, something really needs to be done on our part to defend from all this. Like, e-mailing the RNC chairman or something.
The Dem party, in the long run, is just one big mass of the same thing. All the same feelings and intent are associated with all its members, no matter who their nominee will end up being. They have very little moral grounding in anything, and they are such a huge party that they can cheat like this and get away with it with considerable ease. They know our weakness and it is likely that they are trying to use it against us. Now that we know theirs, it's about time we did something to defend ourselves against it (not, of course, by fruitlessly trying to play their game against them). The reason the Rep Party is voting for McCain is because WE'RE NOT THE ONES WHO ARE VOTING HIM IN. Plenty of room for malicious intent, if you ask me. Taking a few steps to lessen the negative effect wouldn't hurt at all, if you ask me again.
The current nominating process is stacked against conservatives. Just look at the number of conservatives that have already dropped out, and we haven't even made it to Super Tuesday, the first real opportunity for actual conservatives to vote en masse.
The current process is hideously flawed and needs to be fixed.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Democrats. Their Fla. primary votes don't count toward anything, UNLESS instead of voting in support of a Dem, they temporarily change their party registration to Rep, vote in the Rep primary (in a way that is destructive to the Republican Party), switch back to the Dem party no later than 29 days before the general election (according to Fla. law), and vote Dem. They are essentially choosing the Republican candidate who they think would be the easiest to defeat in the general election. Having their cake and eating it, too. Some might call it cheating. I call it an abomination that needs to be addressed by some higher-ups.
bigtimer...are you concluding that the media is rooting for a Republican victory in November? I believe the pre-Fla. primary national polls were showing McCain as the only Republican beating Hillary one-on-one.
I think Fla. went for McCain because of military support in panhandle, Cuban-American support in Miami, endorsements from Gov. and Martinez, support by independents, and Guiliani's freefall, which benefited McCain more than Romney.
Many people rely completely on the MSM for news. Name recognition will play a big role for many people. With that in mind consider the 100 US Senators.
Which of those 100 US Senators have been getting free national media coverage for years, way before the "election cycle"?
Lets See:
Hillary Clinton (D)
Ted Kennedy (D)
John McCain (R)
Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R)
Maybe you can come up with a few more, but out of 100 Senators some are clearly given disproportionate free coverage. Of all Republicans, McCain has had the most of this for years.
Oh it is miraculous alright. Miraculous that he calls himself a Republican.
But you cannot deny McCain has for years gotten the most free coverage of any Republican- unless you have not been watching the news the last few years.
That is not saying the media has not recently given coverage to Huckabee also. I suspect for much different reasons.
People have told me over and over again, how great the movie "The Lord of the Rings" is. When I finally watched it, I was like wtf, this show blows.
No matter how much I see HRC on tv, it does not make me like her more. My point is I can make my own informed decision when the time comes. The results of this poll remind me of how the Liberals cried over spilt milk in the 2000 and all conspiricy theorys.
If McCain wins the nomination, just suck it up and either vote for him or not. He is gaining momentum because he is popular and he will get the votes that would have gone to Guiliani.
"My point is I can make my own informed decision when the time comes."
You can, but you are not the average voter. The fact that you spend so much time posting on a political site says you are NOT the AVERAGE voter. Not even an average Primary voter.
Name Recognition counts a great deal for those who rely on TV and maybe newspaper news only. They get only a fraction of the history or stands of a particular canidate that you get by hanging around political site.
I am not as politically savvy as most on this site, but yes I probably know more than the average joe. I will again refer the 2000 election, since so many say the msm is so tilted toward the liberals, why did Bush beat McCain the primarys, why did Bush win the general election. The answer is, if the liberel bias is as bad as you say, the McCain would have got the nomination and Gore would be President.
...voted Republican every election, decade after decade, then wouldn't liberals have good reason to fear the influence of conservative bias coming from the MSM?
This is the reality which survey after survey shows that conservatives have faced in the 80-90percent liberal voting MSM for decades.
Ever consider the possibility that conservative base was motivated after 8 years of Clinton, that Bush had good name recognition, that conservatives found a way around MSM bias with radio, that Gore is a very off-putting pompous a$$ (with a capital "P"), and that without the backing of the MSM Gore might have only gotten 40% instead of 50% of the vote?
The reason for Hillary's coverage, positive and negative, should be self-explanatory.
Kennedy likewise. His name is Kennedy. He's been there forever. All three brothers met violent deaths. He's controversial...both hated and revered.
McCain has had high profile for some time. Former POW, repeat candidate for President
Hutchinson: Female senator from second largest state in union.
I don't think it really breaks along party lines. Bob Dole was widely covered before long before he was presidential candidate. Jesse Helms was controversial but well covered. There may be some validity to your argument, but I don't think it's the controlling factor.
Note: rereading your post, alamojb, I may have misunderstood your point. I initially thought you were contending that overall the media were covering Democrats more because they like Democrats better. But, it may be that you are just illustrating the value of name recognition regardless of party.
Yes the conservative party sure has changed. Just like JFK would roll over in his grave if he saw what the Democratic party has become. Although If Clinton was JFK, Monica would be floating in river right now
Voting for a RINO just because you think he is the only one that can beat Hellary makes no sense to me. If McCain gets elected, we aren't much better off than if the witch herself won....
Again, I would love to be wrong on this one. I would be quite happy with Romney as President, and I will vote for whoever the GOP candidate is. But I would also be far happier to have McCain over Hillary Rodham Clinton -- the two are worlds apart on many issues. It seems that we all optimistically think "well, that could never happen -- this country won't really elect Hill-Bill" -- well, I'm more pessimistic, and tremble at the prospect. Even the Democratic strategist on O'Reilly admits that she'd rather have Romney the nominee because he doesn't stand a chance in the general election.
Privately they are afraid of running a Senator while the economy slows down. An outsider economic star like Romney running against someone on the Hill is their worst nighmare.
This has been reported by peole who have had private conversations with Democrat Strategists.
Any illegal sympathizer, moderate, or media member will get more of what they want from Hillary or Obama they will not vote for McCain.
It really troubled me that McCain lied about Romney supposedly agreeing to a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. IMO that was so sleazy. Now that lie was either intentional or the dudes......bonkers. :)
I'd say the Mormon thing in tandem with Mitt's utter lack of integrity.
How can you trust a guy that has fundamentally changed his stance on every single major social issue for the sole purpose of being able to run for president? He's manufactured and as such has no principles.
If I'm a Republican, I'd be scared of what a guy with no principles could do if elected.
No way. I'm way more scared of McCain. He could actually win.
Romney doesn't have a chance to win so why would I be scared of him?
You somehow assume that my criticism stems from fear. It stems my disgust surrounding a human being that could sacrifice every single one of his principles like Mitt for the sole purpose of advancing a career. That sickens me.
Well, that and his creepy religion of racism and child abuse.
But I've said it before and I'll say it again. McCain, if nominated, CAN win the general election. Romney canNOT. As such, I'm more scared of McCain.
I will support whomever gets in the WH that will continue to fight and win the war on Islamofacism....whether it be McCain or Romney...none of the Dems have the guts to even say the word; win. However, I am afraid of you, leon...because I am always afraid of igorant, and "creepy', lying bigots who make themselves out as intellectuals. They and you are dangerous to the country I, my father and my son fought for in WWII, Vietnam and Iraq. I have seen bigots throughtout my life and have hated them deeply...especially since my aunt (a Mormon) married a black man in the '50s. Watching what happened to my aunt and uncle and and their family over the years has convinced me that the racial and religious "creepy" bigots in America are on the political left and the Democrat party. And "that sickens me".....your hatred has no place in America.
Her own people were the ones hating her. You know that whole Black people are evil aspect of Mormonism.
Sorry. I dislike Mormonism b/c it's a religion built on CHILD ABUSE and RACISM.
This is fact. My apologies for not accepting this type of behavior. If that makes me a bigot, than stamp it on my head. I'm proud of fighting against such a disturbing religion.
You act as if I have no reason to distrust Mormons while there are 10s of thousands living all over central america having sex with Children, forcing girls into incestuous relationships, maintaining their communities through fear and threat of physical violence, preaching that black people are inherently evil, and spreading an overall disturbing message.
I feel that my opinion is warranted and as such is not bigotry at all. Fighting against abuse and racism is what I'm all about. If you think that makes me a bigot so be it, but I'll be damned if I'll respect a religion that has dabbled so heavily in disgusting behavior.
Actually, Leon, opponents of LDS use the fact that before 1978 they did not allow blacks in leadership positions proves racism. Of course, it was not that long before that that the governement finally allowed blacks to drink out of the same water fountains as whites. Of course, you like to used the argument that "they said that" or "they think that" as proof of something. "Fact" requires proof, not "they said..." Also, you will not be able to prove CHILD ABUSE allegations. (Just because they allowed 13 year-olds to marry back in the days before the US defined an age of consent does not mean abuse. In order for me to believe that this is the CURRENT POLICY OF THE CHURCH, I would need to see some proof that this is currently occuring. You can go back a few years if you must, but you should also be able to document several cases. )
BTW, the reason the Mormons eventually settled in Utah is because bigots ran them out of Missouri.
1) I charge Mormonism as racist b/c of the preacher thing AND b/c of their scripture. The descendants of Cain? Ever heard of it?
Furthermore, you are correct it wasn't THAT long, but it was a FULL DECADE later. That's a pretty long time.
This is a FACT. Everything I've stated above is FACT.
2) Child abuse occurred in the past and it occurs to this day. Forcing a 12 year old girl to marry and have sex is abuse. This happens daily in the Mormon community. Perhaps not in America, b/c Americans are smart enough to figure out right and wrong, but in Central America, these sick people continue to enforce this sick lifestyle on innocent children. This, again, is a fact.
3) Bigots ran them out of Missouri? Yeah, b/c they were child-abusing polygamists. Sorry speaking out against abhorrent behavior does not make one a bigot.
1. Descendents of Cain? Musical group out of the UK? Oh, and how long after we gave blacks voting rights did it take for us to allow them to the front of the bus? I guess 15 years looks pretty good now, eh? Of course, they are still racists even though they ended racist practices before you were born.
2. What is the median marraige age of non-Mormons in Central America? What is the median marraige age of Mormons in Central America? (Oh, in case you missed it, Romney is not from Central America.)
3. Of course, the Church renounced polygamy in the 1890s.
Of course, the Church renounced polygamy in the 1890s.
Of course, there is a religion that still practises polygamy TODAY.. and one of the current Presidential hopefuls has half his relatives who still profess it.
In fact, his grandfather had three wives.
And the practitioners of that religion also begins with the letter "M."
CLUE -- it not MORMON.
Check out my exclusive edit of BBC News America's interview with Mrs Clinton: It's news to me!
I think Leon has been taking (or teaching) classes at the John McCain School of Slander. Lesson #1 Let's throw up a bunch of BS we know to be false and see how much sticks. Lesson #2 Let's through up a bunch of BS we don't want to check because we don't want it to turn out to be false.
1) So you don't know the book of Mormon. Strange that would you comment on something you don't know. Check out what the Mormons believe about Black people (which is why they were so long in accepting blacks). Hint: The descendants of Cain. Look it up and get back to me.
2) Romney's family is from Central America. Mexico to be specific. Again, you shouldn't comment on things you don't know.
3) Yes the Church in America banned Polygamy. The Church everywhere else in the world continues to practice polygamy with no end in sight.
But Leon, you commented a couple of weeks ago that Romney's family left the US and then came back. So technically, you are right - they are from Mexico. But they are also from the US. (So are you being disingenuous solely for the purpose of this discussion?) And Romney is currently (and always has been) a subject of the US Church. That is kind of like saying that I like beer because my ancestors are German. So the Mormons say it's OK to be a descendent of Cain. That sounds to me to be very unbigoted.
I thought you were trying to impart some knowledge by your "comments" but it seems you are only trying to "comment" on your own disdain for Mormons because in the past they practiced bigotry and polygomy.
His father was born there. His father wasn't from the US at all. You are misinformed.
Seriously, read about Cain before making asinine comments, but since I've already implored you twice to have a clue what you're talking about before commenting and you've failed to do so, I'll give you a quick break down.
Mormon theology teaches that Cain and his descendants were placed under a curse by God. What was that curse? Black skin. This was the basis of the Mormons exclusion of blacks from the priesthood.
Don't believe me? Let's take a look at the actual scripture from the Book of Mormon and the Book of Moses which are both held sacred by Mormons then (these are just a few examples of many):
1) "And I beheld, after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark and loathsome and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations." (1 Nephi 12:23)
2) "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them." (2 Nephi 5:21)
3) "For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people." (Moses 6:8)
And let's close with this gem from the almight Brigham Young:
"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 10:110)
So there really is no dispute over the racism of Mormonism.
It's right there in their scripture. Racism is an inherent part of their religion.
Did I say I didn't believe you? I am pleased you have given me some of the actual scripture by which the Mormon Church bases their belief system. (I have seen this kind of verse in my Bible.) And your point that the Mormon Church still practices this racism is where? This is my point, Mormons of this country in this century do not practice racism and do not practice polygomy. I could make a similar case (i.e distrust or hatred towards some people) against every religion and every government that has existed based on your kind of arguments.
How about George's father and mother? Didn't they leave the US for Mexico? (Oh, you mean family, nudge, nudge, wink, wink.)
BTW, Mexico is not considered Central America, unless I am mistaken.
Don't let this little tidbit interrupt the Mormon Church-bashing. Please continue dazzling us with your vast knowledge of the religion, Alan.
...southernmost region of North America, lying between Mexico and South America and comprising Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Belize. (Geologists and physical geographers sometimes extend the northern boundary to the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in Mexico.)
According to that statement, we could both be considered correct, if we were talking about tectonics. But we aren't, and ALWAYS always trumps SOMETIMES.
The simple fact of the matter is that you went out of your way to try to go after me and you weren't even right.
Sorry tiger. Don't know what you want me to say. Geopolitically, Mexico is not commonly considered part of Central America, but physiographically it is. Both are legitimate measures.
Pumpkin, you give me too much credit, thinking I devote a large amount of time to point out your errors. I hardly "go out of my way" to do that. It is rather easy, but may appear hard to you, but, hopefully, someday, when you grow up, it will become easier for you.
Displaying homophobia AND 2 feeble personal attacks in one post? Man, my dental work must be drilling deeper than usual today. I think you need another shot of novocaine, Alan.
Snice my Leon Filter is working well today, you are actually saying "all homophobes like me know that only gays say 'pumpkin'"". Okay. Got it. Anything else? Fashion Tips for Homophobes, perhaps?
I have Mormon friends and business associates. When it comes to integrity, they are far and away better than any other group of people I have dealt with. Ever.
And that includes some so-called "Christians" I know.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
conservative. You guys don't trash McCain like this. If you really thought he was just pandering you guys wouldn't care. You didn't care with Clinton I and you don't care with Clinton II and you didn't care with Kerry or Gore. Liberals didn't care when Clinton faked being religious they only care when people actually are religious. Mormon, Christian, Jewish it doesn't matter; real faith scares liberals.
Our dislike of him makes him a conservative? Huh? Wonder how Barry Goldwater got that title when I wasn't even born. Interesting.
While McCain has made some liberal moves, he's remained true to his principles.
Romney's a life long liberal that switched to conservative at the behest of the Republicans to try to save a floundering field of candidates.
McCain's made some mistakes, but he hasn't gone 180 on all of his fundamental beliefs.
Mitt's a manufactured conservative. Nothing more. Unless of course I'm wrong that his family donated money to abortion clinics, he openly stated that he was pro-choice, said he was more pro-gay than Ted Kennedy, and supported universal healthc
Comments Policy
Democrat crossover votes.
January 30, 2008 - 16:13 ET by mattmDemocrat crossover votes.
BTW: New GOP logo.
LOL at the logo
January 30, 2008 - 17:14 ET by masslibertarianReckon they can work that into the printed materials for the convention? Looks like that's where we're headed.
Thanks matt....I was going
January 30, 2008 - 17:20 ET by motherbeltThanks matt....I was going to say, can I pick "other"? I think it was independents getting ballots and voting for him.
i need the "who really
January 31, 2008 - 12:38 ET by TruthMongeri need the "who really cares?" option too please matt
1 and 2
January 30, 2008 - 16:10 ET by MassConservI'd take both of the top two choices if possible, but I'll pick media promotion as my top reason.
MC... I too voted that
January 30, 2008 - 16:13 ET by bigtimerMC...
I too voted that way I felt exactly the same between one and two...Huck has been working with McCain for the divide and conquer and get a job somewhere in his cabinet...plus I very much agree with mattm...I posted his same sentiments elsewhere this morning.
Yes, BT
January 30, 2008 - 16:18 ET by MassConservI'd take that third option as well.
Have I been cloned??
January 30, 2008 - 18:08 ET by MassConservativeNamed like me, sounds like me, also stuck in the land of Obama's mini-me (Deval Patrick), but not me. SPOOKY !!!
"There are scandals that need to be addressed. Republicans address them, Democrats re-elect them." - Tom Delay
Hello, my fellow namesake.
January 31, 2008 - 16:17 ET by MassConservCloned? Dunno, have you signed up for any healthplans though the Massachusetts Connector lately? ;-)
I do want to apologize for the similarity of our names. Call it a lapse of memory and lack of imagination on my part.
I only hope I do not sully your good name, sir. :-)
BTW, I'm still trying to figure out what that whole, "Together we can" was all supposed to mean. You?
bt,
January 30, 2008 - 16:50 ET by R D HelmI voted that it was due to the MSM promoting him, as that probably was the biggest reason.
I had also mentioned last night that crossover may have had a lot to do with it as well, though I made the crossover voters out to be somewhat malicious in there intent.
I am beginning to back away from the malicious aspect of it somewhat as I am now thinking there may be a considerable number of "moderate" dems who do not like Broom Hilda and are not exactly thrilled with Obama's promise to surrender to Osama as soon as he gets elected.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Hi RD... I couldn't bear
January 30, 2008 - 17:06 ET by bigtimerHi RD...
I couldn't bear to post here last night, I was tempted but too danged pissed off with the Florida primary...lol.
Not a good time to post if you know what I mean.
bt,
January 30, 2008 - 17:13 ET by R D HelmYeah, it was pretty depressing here last night. It got a little better once I put down a couple of stout Jack & Cokes, lol.
I am so hoping that conservatives will rise up on Super Tuesday and send McCain back to Arizona with his tail between his legs.
If they do not, I will be going after another bottle. :-)
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
RD... That is funny with
January 30, 2008 - 17:20 ET by bigtimerRD...
That is funny with the JD bit...I told my other half last night I wished I had a couple shots of JD on the rocks...been ages and ages, but I sure would of liked a few...
Maybe we can meet half way on super Tuesday and commiserate if the leftist McCain wins....lol!
I hope to goodness not, but it is looking dim, plus he has the msm like he always has, then he too will be attacked...that has been their plan all along.
Sad.
bt,
January 30, 2008 - 17:42 ET by R D HelmWhat I find so frustrating with McCain's stupid supporters is that they, like their senile candidate, do not realize the the liberal MSM is just toying with McCain right now. Like a cat toys with its prey just before eating it.
If McCain should manage to win the republican nomination, the MSM will turn on him so fast that McCain's diminished capacity will not allow him to realize it for at least a week. Perhaps even a month. I have watched him carefully in the debates, and he appears to be easily confused. He will get soundly trounced in the GE, whether it is against Obama or Broom Hilda.
If there is a silver lining in all this, and I am seriously trying to maintain an optimistic outlook here, just maybe the republicans will use the next year or so and clean house from top to bottom, then mount a huge effort in the 2110 mid-terms, and be really ready in 2012. Just because Broom Hilda is in the White House does not make her a dictator. She still has to get her plans (schemes) through the congress.
Remember, many of the democrats elected to congress last mid-term were not all flaming loony libs, as they came from fairly moderate, if not somewhat conservative, areas. They, like their constituents, are not all that impressed with Hillary.
It will not be easy for her, and if the republicans can get their opposition tactics in gear once again and find their lost spine, it will be even more difficult for her.
Well, it makes me feel better, anyway. Okay, maybe just a little better.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
RD.... Well, it isn't
January 30, 2008 - 17:50 ET by bigtimerRD....
Well, it isn't over yet...we have one week to go...and I will be gone on Wed. I think, so if it is bad I won't be posting the next day...which will be a good thing...lol!
Never in my wildest dreams did I ever think it would come down to McCain being the candidate...never.
Go Romney go...
Btw...if I hear one more time the glee from the leftist talking heads on the networks hoping Romney goes broke by staying in the race I am going to scream...I find it deplorable, disgusting.
bt, I am with you.
January 30, 2008 - 18:19 ET by R D HelmI hope McCain is not the nominee, either. Believe me.
But even if he is, it isn't going to mean the end of the republic. The executive branch is only one of three branches of the federal government.
Thank God our founders had the foresight to put that system in place, as it was designed so that no one branch, on its own, could beach the whole country.
You know, I think I am coming out of the depression I have been feeling for the last 24 hrs.
Now I am getting angry.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
RD, for some reason I am
January 31, 2008 - 00:56 ET by SchnikeysRD, for some reason I am still highly suspicious of the intent of those "crossover" votes. Very. Highly. Suspicious.
Schnikeys,
January 31, 2008 - 01:02 ET by R D HelmAs I told bt, I have only partially retreated from my opinion that there was some ill intent on the part of the x-overs.
I agree that the majority of them were up to no good.
Obama should not have finished so far behind Broom Hilda.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Why do you think the DNC
January 31, 2008 - 01:25 ET by SchnikeysWhy do you think the DNC moved all their delegates to convention time?
IMO, something really needs to be done on our part to defend from all this. Like, e-mailing the RNC chairman or something.
The Dem party, in the long run, is just one big mass of the same thing. All the same feelings and intent are associated with all its members, no matter who their nominee will end up being. They have very little moral grounding in anything, and they are such a huge party that they can cheat like this and get away with it with considerable ease. They know our weakness and it is likely that they are trying to use it against us. Now that we know theirs, it's about time we did something to defend ourselves against it (not, of course, by fruitlessly trying to play their game against them). The reason the Rep Party is voting for McCain is because WE'RE NOT THE ONES WHO ARE VOTING HIM IN. Plenty of room for malicious intent, if you ask me. Taking a few steps to lessen the negative effect wouldn't hurt at all, if you ask me again.
Schnikeys,
January 31, 2008 - 01:32 ET by R D HelmI totally agree.
The current nominating process is stacked against conservatives. Just look at the number of conservatives that have already dropped out, and we haven't even made it to Super Tuesday, the first real opportunity for actual conservatives to vote en masse.
The current process is hideously flawed and needs to be fixed.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Allow me to clarify what I
January 31, 2008 - 01:41 ET by SchnikeysAllow me to clarify what I am saying:
Democrats. Their Fla. primary votes don't count toward anything, UNLESS instead of voting in support of a Dem, they temporarily change their party registration to Rep, vote in the Rep primary (in a way that is destructive to the Republican Party), switch back to the Dem party no later than 29 days before the general election (according to Fla. law), and vote Dem. They are essentially choosing the Republican candidate who they think would be the easiest to defeat in the general election. Having their cake and eating it, too. Some might call it cheating. I call it an abomination that needs to be addressed by some higher-ups.
bigtimer...why McCain won in Fla.
January 31, 2008 - 01:03 ET by Jerbigtimer...are you concluding that the media is rooting for a Republican victory in November? I believe the pre-Fla. primary national polls were showing McCain as the only Republican beating Hillary one-on-one.
I think Fla. went for McCain because of military support in panhandle, Cuban-American support in Miami, endorsements from Gov. and Martinez, support by independents, and Guiliani's freefall, which benefited McCain more than Romney.
Jer
McCain in front because of msm puleez
January 31, 2008 - 01:12 ET by shawn228Jer, I cannot believe the overwhelming majority of the vote saying McCain is front because of promotion from the msm.
It is republicans that are voting for McCain not the msm.
"Suck it"
Pop Tech
Shawn...I think the MSM is
January 31, 2008 - 01:17 ET by JerShawn...I think the MSM is cited out of force of habit...and loyalty to the mission statement of NewsBusters.
Jer
Many people rely completely
January 31, 2008 - 01:28 ET by alamojbMany people rely completely on the MSM for news. Name recognition will play a big role for many people. With that in mind consider the 100 US Senators.
Which of those 100 US Senators have been getting free national media coverage for years, way before the "election cycle"?
Lets See:
Hillary Clinton (D)
Ted Kennedy (D)
John McCain (R)
Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R)
Maybe you can come up with a few more, but out of 100 Senators some are clearly given disproportionate free coverage. Of all Republicans, McCain has had the most of this for years.
alamojb
January 31, 2008 - 01:34 ET by shawn228McCain was pretty much out of money a few months back, if the msm was promoting any republican it would have been Huckabee.
You cannot deny he has made a miraculus comeback, even the msm said it was all over for him at one point.
"Suck it"
Pop Tech
Oh it is miraculous
January 31, 2008 - 01:40 ET by alamojbOh it is miraculous alright. Miraculous that he calls himself a Republican.
But you cannot deny McCain has for years gotten the most free coverage of any Republican- unless you have not been watching the news the last few years.
That is not saying the media has not recently given coverage to Huckabee also. I suspect for much different reasons.
alamojb
January 31, 2008 - 02:07 ET by shawn228People have told me over and over again, how great the movie "The Lord of the Rings" is. When I finally watched it, I was like wtf, this show blows.
No matter how much I see HRC on tv, it does not make me like her more. My point is I can make my own informed decision when the time comes. The results of this poll remind me of how the Liberals cried over spilt milk in the 2000 and all conspiricy theorys.
If McCain wins the nomination, just suck it up and either vote for him or not. He is gaining momentum because he is popular and he will get the votes that would have gone to Guiliani.
"Suck it"
Pop Tech
Shawn228
January 31, 2008 - 02:17 ET by alamojb"My point is I can make my own informed decision when the time comes."
You can, but you are not the average voter. The fact that you spend so much time posting on a political site says you are NOT the AVERAGE voter. Not even an average Primary voter.
Name Recognition counts a great deal for those who rely on TV and maybe newspaper news only. They get only a fraction of the history or stands of a particular canidate that you get by hanging around political site.
alamojb
January 31, 2008 - 02:22 ET by shawn228I am not as politically savvy as most on this site, but yes I probably know more than the average joe. I will again refer the 2000 election, since so many say the msm is so tilted toward the liberals, why did Bush beat McCain the primarys, why did Bush win the general election. The answer is, if the liberel bias is as bad as you say, the McCain would have got the nomination and Gore would be President.
Anyway off to bed, good night alamojb
"Suck it"
Pop Tech
Alamo, if at least 8 of 10 reporters....
January 31, 2008 - 04:12 ET by Parker1227...voted Republican every election, decade after decade, then wouldn't liberals have good reason to fear the influence of conservative bias coming from the MSM?
This is the reality which survey after survey shows that conservatives have faced in the 80-90percent liberal voting MSM for decades.
Ever consider the possibility that conservative base was motivated after 8 years of Clinton, that Bush had good name recognition, that conservatives found a way around MSM bias with radio, that Gore is a very off-putting pompous a$$ (with a capital "P"), and that without the backing of the MSM Gore might have only gotten 40% instead of 50% of the vote?
alamojb...
January 31, 2008 - 02:02 ET by JerThere are a variety of factors in play.
The reason for Hillary's coverage, positive and negative, should be self-explanatory.
Kennedy likewise. His name is Kennedy. He's been there forever. All three brothers met violent deaths. He's controversial...both hated and revered.
McCain has had high profile for some time. Former POW, repeat candidate for President
Hutchinson: Female senator from second largest state in union.
I don't think it really breaks along party lines. Bob Dole was widely covered before long before he was presidential candidate. Jesse Helms was controversial but well covered. There may be some validity to your argument, but I don't think it's the controlling factor.
Note: rereading your post, alamojb, I may have misunderstood your point. I initially thought you were contending that overall the media were covering Democrats more because they like Democrats better. But, it may be that you are just illustrating the value of name recognition regardless of party.
Jer
shawn,
January 31, 2008 - 01:18 ET by R D HelmIt is republicans that are voting for McCain
You are right about that.
But it is not conservatives voting for him.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
rdh
January 31, 2008 - 02:28 ET by shawn228Yes the conservative party sure has changed. Just like JFK would roll over in his grave if he saw what the Democratic party has become. Although If Clinton was JFK, Monica would be floating in river right now
"Suck it"
Pop Tech
shawn,
January 31, 2008 - 02:36 ET by R D HelmRight along side Broom Hilda, as I think she is making his life a living h*ll right about now.
LOL-Imagine my distress!
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Delete - duplicate
January 30, 2008 - 18:05 ET by MassConservativeDelete - duplicate
How about A, B, and the fear
January 30, 2008 - 16:23 ET by midnight cowboyHow about A, B, and the fear of Hillary being the nominee.
How about fear of Hillary
January 30, 2008 - 16:56 ET by lotrHow about fear of Hillary Rodham Clinton being sworn in as the 44th President of U.S. after handily defeating Romney in the general election?
McCain can't win; Romney Can
January 30, 2008 - 17:08 ET by Daniel BakerClinton is Washington Insider who will be seen as more competent than McCain,who is a bigger insider.
Romney is a competent outsider.
I dont' think Hellary would beat Romney
January 30, 2008 - 17:09 ET by SouthJersey1953Voting for a RINO just because you think he is the only one that can beat Hellary makes no sense to me. If McCain gets elected, we aren't much better off than if the witch herself won....
It's not Right vs. Left; it is Right vs. Wrong
Again, I would love to be
January 30, 2008 - 17:20 ET by lotrAgain, I would love to be wrong on this one. I would be quite happy with Romney as President, and I will vote for whoever the GOP candidate is. But I would also be far happier to have McCain over Hillary Rodham Clinton -- the two are worlds apart on many issues. It seems that we all optimistically think "well, that could never happen -- this country won't really elect Hill-Bill" -- well, I'm more pessimistic, and tremble at the prospect. Even the Democratic strategist on O'Reilly admits that she'd rather have Romney the nominee because he doesn't stand a chance in the general election.
Publicly Democrats are afraid of McCain; Privately its different
January 30, 2008 - 17:42 ET by Daniel BakerPrivately they are afraid of running a Senator while the economy slows down. An outsider economic star like Romney running against someone on the Hill is their worst nighmare.
This has been reported by peole who have had private conversations with Democrat Strategists.
Any illegal sympathizer, moderate, or media member will get more of what they want from Hillary or Obama they will not vote for McCain.
Good point Daniel
January 30, 2008 - 17:55 ET by acumenAnd then there's that troubling endorsement of McCain by the NY Slimes....although I think that was sincere.
IMO - I think the dems and demedia are scared to death of Romney.
acumen,
January 31, 2008 - 01:08 ET by R D HelmWhich is precisely why it is so maddening that so many "conservatives," even around here, seem so willing to vote for John McClinton as a last resort.
They are playing right into the hands of the lefties.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Mormon thing, all the way.
January 30, 2008 - 16:26 ET by balboaMormon thing, all the way.
A First
January 30, 2008 - 16:53 ET by acumenHa. You and I agree on this one bal.
I would add one other unlisted factor considering Florida - senility. I think McCain spoke their language.
Ouch! McCain isn't that
January 30, 2008 - 17:07 ET by balboaOuch! McCain isn't that bonkers is he?
The MSM will love to prove McCain is bonkers
January 30, 2008 - 17:09 ET by Daniel BakerHow can he fight that perception
Bal
January 30, 2008 - 17:52 ET by acumenIt really troubled me that McCain lied about Romney supposedly agreeing to a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. IMO that was so sleazy. Now that lie was either intentional or the dudes......bonkers. :)
Bal, I'd say the Mormon
January 30, 2008 - 17:55 ET by LeonBal,
I'd say the Mormon thing in tandem with Mitt's utter lack of integrity.
How can you trust a guy that has fundamentally changed his stance on every single major social issue for the sole purpose of being able to run for president? He's manufactured and as such has no principles.
If I'm a Republican, I'd be scared of what a guy with no principles could do if elected.
Well you're not a republican
January 30, 2008 - 17:58 ET by bigtimerWell you're not a republican little one... so don't worry your pretty little head about it.
bt
January 30, 2008 - 18:08 ET by acumenAnother Hillary plant? LOL
Mitt's utter lack of integrity???
January 30, 2008 - 18:01 ET by R D HelmAs compared to who? Monica Lewinsky's former boyfriend, aka Broom Hilda's husband?
LMAO!
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
RD, I fail to see how
January 30, 2008 - 18:12 ET by LeonRD,
I fail to see how Bill Clinton's integrity has anything to do with Mitt.
Ya' Yeller?
January 30, 2008 - 18:19 ET by acumenYou dems are really scared of Mitt getting the R nod aren't you Leon? C'mon fess up....not many other libs here to hassle you about coming clean.
Acumen, No way. I'm way
January 30, 2008 - 18:25 ET by LeonAcumen,
No way. I'm way more scared of McCain. He could actually win.
Romney doesn't have a chance to win so why would I be scared of him?
You somehow assume that my criticism stems from fear. It stems my disgust surrounding a human being that could sacrifice every single one of his principles like Mitt for the sole purpose of advancing a career. That sickens me.
Well, that and his creepy religion of racism and child abuse.
But I've said it before and I'll say it again. McCain, if nominated, CAN win the general election. Romney canNOT. As such, I'm more scared of McCain.
Leon... Be careful what
January 30, 2008 - 18:32 ET by bigtimerLeon...
Be careful what you wish for.
Meanwhile back in bizzaro world
January 30, 2008 - 18:50 ET by acumenThen explain why a lib such as yourself would be pulling for the supposedly stronger republican candidate. Nevermind, I'm burnt out on leftist bs.
But let's talk about something where you can actually provide an honest answer. Which empty-suit socialist you pulling for, Hillary or Barack?
I am afraid of you
January 30, 2008 - 19:55 ET by bbbossI will support whomever gets in the WH that will continue to fight and win the war on Islamofacism....whether it be McCain or Romney...none of the Dems have the guts to even say the word; win. However, I am afraid of you, leon...because I am always afraid of igorant, and "creepy', lying bigots who make themselves out as intellectuals. They and you are dangerous to the country I, my father and my son fought for in WWII, Vietnam and Iraq. I have seen bigots throughtout my life and have hated them deeply...especially since my aunt (a Mormon) married a black man in the '50s. Watching what happened to my aunt and uncle and and their family over the years has convinced me that the racial and religious "creepy" bigots in America are on the political left and the Democrat party. And "that sickens me".....your hatred has no place in America.
bbbosss, I'll bet your
January 31, 2008 - 11:49 ET by Leonbbbosss,
I'll bet your aunt experienced bigotry.
The Mormon church was openly racist until 1978.
Her own people were the ones hating her. You know that whole Black people are evil aspect of Mormonism.
Sorry. I dislike Mormonism b/c it's a religion built on CHILD ABUSE and RACISM.
This is fact. My apologies for not accepting this type of behavior. If that makes me a bigot, than stamp it on my head. I'm proud of fighting against such a disturbing religion.
You act as if I have no reason to distrust Mormons while there are 10s of thousands living all over central america having sex with Children, forcing girls into incestuous relationships, maintaining their communities through fear and threat of physical violence, preaching that black people are inherently evil, and spreading an overall disturbing message.
I feel that my opinion is warranted and as such is not bigotry at all. Fighting against abuse and racism is what I'm all about. If you think that makes me a bigot so be it, but I'll be damned if I'll respect a religion that has dabbled so heavily in disgusting behavior.
Actually, Leon, opponents
January 31, 2008 - 12:28 ET by HermanoActually, Leon, opponents of LDS use the fact that before 1978 they did not allow blacks in leadership positions proves racism. Of course, it was not that long before that that the governement finally allowed blacks to drink out of the same water fountains as whites. Of course, you like to used the argument that "they said that" or "they think that" as proof of something. "Fact" requires proof, not "they said..." Also, you will not be able to prove CHILD ABUSE allegations. (Just because they allowed 13 year-olds to marry back in the days before the US defined an age of consent does not mean abuse. In order for me to believe that this is the CURRENT POLICY OF THE CHURCH, I would need to see some proof that this is currently occuring. You can go back a few years if you must, but you should also be able to document several cases. )
BTW, the reason the Mormons eventually settled in Utah is because bigots ran them out of Missouri.
Hermano, 1) I charge
January 31, 2008 - 12:34 ET by LeonHermano,
1) I charge Mormonism as racist b/c of the preacher thing AND b/c of their scripture. The descendants of Cain? Ever heard of it?
Furthermore, you are correct it wasn't THAT long, but it was a FULL DECADE later. That's a pretty long time.
This is a FACT. Everything I've stated above is FACT.
2) Child abuse occurred in the past and it occurs to this day. Forcing a 12 year old girl to marry and have sex is abuse. This happens daily in the Mormon community. Perhaps not in America, b/c Americans are smart enough to figure out right and wrong, but in Central America, these sick people continue to enforce this sick lifestyle on innocent children. This, again, is a fact.
3) Bigots ran them out of Missouri? Yeah, b/c they were child-abusing polygamists. Sorry speaking out against abhorrent behavior does not make one a bigot.
1. Descendents of Cain?
January 31, 2008 - 12:54 ET by Hermano1. Descendents of Cain? Musical group out of the UK? Oh, and how long after we gave blacks voting rights did it take for us to allow them to the front of the bus? I guess 15 years looks pretty good now, eh? Of course, they are still racists even though they ended racist practices before you were born.
2. What is the median marraige age of non-Mormons in Central America? What is the median marraige age of Mormons in Central America? (Oh, in case you missed it, Romney is not from Central America.)
3. Of course, the Church renounced polygamy in the 1890s.
hermano -- Of course,
January 31, 2008 - 13:05 ET by Jack Bauerhermano --
Of course, there is a religion that still practises polygamy TODAY.. and one of the current Presidential hopefuls has half his relatives who still profess it.
In fact, his grandfather had three wives.
And the practitioners of that religion also begins with the letter "M."
CLUE -- it not MORMON.
Hey JB, I think Leon has
January 31, 2008 - 13:32 ET by HermanoHey JB,
I think Leon has been taking (or teaching) classes at the John McCain School of Slander. Lesson #1 Let's throw up a bunch of BS we know to be false and see how much sticks. Lesson #2 Let's through up a bunch of BS we don't want to check because we don't want it to turn out to be false.
He might need a refresher course.
Yeah Jack, And that's
January 31, 2008 - 13:59 ET by LeonYeah Jack,
And that's diseased to.
Difference.
Barrack doesn't practice the religion of his grandfather.
Romney does.
Hermano, 1) So you
January 31, 2008 - 13:57 ET by LeonHermano,
1) So you don't know the book of Mormon. Strange that would you comment on something you don't know. Check out what the Mormons believe about Black people (which is why they were so long in accepting blacks). Hint: The descendants of Cain. Look it up and get back to me.
2) Romney's family is from Central America. Mexico to be specific. Again, you shouldn't comment on things you don't know.
3) Yes the Church in America banned Polygamy. The Church everywhere else in the world continues to practice polygamy with no end in sight.
But Leon, you commented a
January 31, 2008 - 15:19 ET by HermanoBut Leon, you commented a couple of weeks ago that Romney's family left the US and then came back. So technically, you are right - they are from Mexico. But they are also from the US. (So are you being disingenuous solely for the purpose of this discussion?) And Romney is currently (and always has been) a subject of the US Church. That is kind of like saying that I like beer because my ancestors are German. So the Mormons say it's OK to be a descendent of Cain. That sounds to me to be very unbigoted.
I thought you were trying to impart some knowledge by your "comments" but it seems you are only trying to "comment" on your own disdain for Mormons because in the past they practiced bigotry and polygomy.
Wrong Hermano, Romney's
January 31, 2008 - 15:34 ET by LeonWrong Hermano,
Romney's family is from Mexico.
His father was born there. His father wasn't from the US at all. You are misinformed.
Seriously, read about Cain before making asinine comments, but since I've already implored you twice to have a clue what you're talking about before commenting and you've failed to do so, I'll give you a quick break down.
Mormon theology teaches that Cain and his descendants were placed under a curse by God. What was that curse? Black skin. This was the basis of the Mormons exclusion of blacks from the priesthood.
Don't believe me? Let's take a look at the actual scripture from the Book of Mormon and the Book of Moses which are both held sacred by Mormons then (these are just a few examples of many):
1) "And I beheld, after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark and loathsome and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations." (1 Nephi 12:23)
2) "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them." (2 Nephi 5:21)
3) "For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people." (Moses 6:8)
And let's close with this gem from the almight Brigham Young:
"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 10:110)
So there really is no dispute over the racism of Mormonism.
It's right there in their scripture. Racism is an inherent part of their religion.
Did I say I didn't believe
January 31, 2008 - 15:47 ET by HermanoDid I say I didn't believe you? I am pleased you have given me some of the actual scripture by which the Mormon Church bases their belief system. (I have seen this kind of verse in my Bible.) And your point that the Mormon Church still practices this racism is where? This is my point, Mormons of this country in this century do not practice racism and do not practice polygomy. I could make a similar case (i.e distrust or hatred towards some people) against every religion and every government that has existed based on your kind of arguments.
How about George's father and mother? Didn't they leave the US for Mexico? (Oh, you mean family, nudge, nudge, wink, wink.)
BTW, Mexico is not
January 31, 2008 - 15:34 ET by Roger the ShrubberBTW, Mexico is not considered Central America, unless I am mistaken.
Don't let this little tidbit interrupt the Mormon Church-bashing. Please continue dazzling us with your vast knowledge of the religion, Alan.
Rog, Sure it is. The
January 31, 2008 - 15:39 ET by LeonRog,
Sure it is.
The Northern most border of what is considered Central America is located on the Isthmus of Tehuantepec IN MEXICO.
Don't worry. I won't allow your lack of knowledge to interfere with my dissemination of truth.
Sorry Leon...
January 31, 2008 - 15:44 ET by vrwc13http://www.worldatla...
v
but keep up the good work on "shining the light", you ol Bible-thumper you.
Sorry V, Should have stayed
January 31, 2008 - 15:46 ET by LeonSorry V,
Should have stayed out of this one. Physiographically speaking I am 100% correct.
V, See p. 5
January 31, 2008 - 15:50 ET by LeonV,
See p. 5
Shrubbo.. I just did a
January 31, 2008 - 15:57 ET by Jack BauerShrubbo..
I just did a little checking and depending on which source, Central America comprises either 6 or 7 countries. I don't see Mexico in the list.
Boy Jack, You really love
January 31, 2008 - 16:03 ET by LeonBoy Jack,
You really love me.
Central America is not necessarily defined by country borders.
Physiographically, I am correct, as I stated above.
Should have stayed out of this one tiger. But I must say it is cute to see you rush to Rog's rescue. How special.
See p. 5
OK, everyone - so is
January 31, 2008 - 16:19 ET by HermanoOK, everyone - so is Iceland Europe or North America?
I would think that
January 31, 2008 - 17:32 ET by Roger the ShrubberI would think that Encyclopedia Britannica would be a more of an authority.
...southernmost region of North America, lying between Mexico and South America and comprising Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Belize. (Geologists and physical geographers sometimes extend the northern boundary to the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in Mexico.)
According to that statement, we could both be considered correct, if we were talking about tectonics. But we aren't, and ALWAYS always trumps SOMETIMES.
Rog, The simple fact of
February 1, 2008 - 10:20 ET by LeonRog,
The simple fact of the matter is that you went out of your way to try to go after me and you weren't even right.
Sorry tiger. Don't know what you want me to say. Geopolitically, Mexico is not commonly considered part of Central America, but physiographically it is. Both are legitimate measures.
Pumpkin, you give me too
February 1, 2008 - 10:50 ET by Roger the ShrubberPumpkin, you give me too much credit, thinking I devote a large amount of time to point out your errors. I hardly "go out of my way" to do that. It is rather easy, but may appear hard to you, but, hopefully, someday, when you grow up, it will become easier for you.
Rog, Calling another man
February 1, 2008 - 10:54 ET by LeonRog,
Calling another man Pumpkin is gay.
Fact.
I didn't know you did the gay thing out there in the middle of nowhere PA. Interesting.
Did it say that in your
February 1, 2008 - 11:58 ET by Roger the ShrubberDid it say that in your Handbook for Homophobes?
Displaying homophobia AND 2 feeble personal attacks in one post? Man, my dental work must be drilling deeper than usual today. I think you need another shot of novocaine, Alan.
Rog, Nah it's just common
February 1, 2008 - 12:06 ET by LeonRog,
Nah it's just common knowledge among men.
The pumpkin rule comes right after the 'it's gay for two guys to share an umbrella rule.'
Snice my Leon Filter is
February 1, 2008 - 12:16 ET by Roger the ShrubberSnice my Leon Filter is working well today, you are actually saying "all homophobes like me know that only gays say 'pumpkin'"". Okay. Got it. Anything else? Fashion Tips for Homophobes, perhaps?
Hermano
January 31, 2008 - 15:27 ET by MassConservYou have to keep in mind that 10 years is a long time to Leon. He's a young'un and that constitutes practically half his life.
MC, are you sure its only half?
January 31, 2008 - 15:42 ET by R D HelmLol-Somehow I was thinking 80%.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
:-)
January 31, 2008 - 16:09 ET by MassConservI could be wrong. :-)
Leon,
January 30, 2008 - 18:27 ET by R D HelmI have Mormon friends and business associates. When it comes to integrity, they are far and away better than any other group of people I have dealt with. Ever.
And that includes some so-called "Christians" I know.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
R D, Contemporary
January 31, 2008 - 11:52 ET by LeonR D,
Contemporary Mormons remind me of contemporary Germans.
Trying extra hard to overcompensate for their past, disgraceful histories.
The Mormon religion is diseased and I'll stand by that accusation.
Any religion that preaches child abuse and racism is not ok in my book.
No Leon - the fact that you & Bal don't like him proves he's
January 30, 2008 - 18:10 ET by Dee Bunkconservative. You guys don't trash McCain like this. If you really thought he was just pandering you guys wouldn't care. You didn't care with Clinton I and you don't care with Clinton II and you didn't care with Kerry or Gore. Liberals didn't care when Clinton faked being religious they only care when people actually are religious. Mormon, Christian, Jewish it doesn't matter; real faith scares liberals.
Dee, That is the worst
January 30, 2008 - 18:16 ET by LeonDee,
That is the worst logic I've ever seen.
Our dislike of him makes him a conservative? Huh? Wonder how Barry Goldwater got that title when I wasn't even born. Interesting.
While McCain has made some liberal moves, he's remained true to his principles.
Romney's a life long liberal that switched to conservative at the behest of the Republicans to try to save a floundering field of candidates.
McCain's made some mistakes, but he hasn't gone 180 on all of his fundamental beliefs.
Mitt's a manufactured conservative. Nothing more. Unless of course I'm wrong that his family donated money to abortion clinics, he openly stated that he was pro-choice, said he was more pro-gay than Ted Kennedy, and supported universal healthc