PDA

View Full Version : Republicans Only: Who should we nominate in 2008 to face Hilary?


historymann49
02-18-2005, 02:52 PM
Who is our best potential candidate for 2008? My pick would be Condi Rice. I don't know if she's interested, but I'd love to see her run.

Cochise
02-18-2005, 02:56 PM
No one really jumps out at me in this election cycle.

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 02:56 PM
Sure, someone that lied under oath to Congress multiple times would be an excellent example of Bush-republican values.

And you know what?
I bet they'd vote for her!

historymann49
02-18-2005, 03:15 PM
The purpose of this thread is for Republicans to have an intelligent discussion of the issues and potential candidates for the 2008 election cycle.
As for Dr. Rice lying under oath:
1) Give me one verifiable example of such lying;
2) Just because you disagree with someone's political views does not make that person a liar;
3) If you're a Democrat you really shouldn't call others liars.

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 03:17 PM
ignorant man wrote: 2) Just because you disagree with someone's political views does not make that person a liar;
3) If you're a Democrat you really shouldn't call others liars.

Oh the irony.
Too bad it was lost on it's creator.

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 03:21 PM
Oh, and about Condi..

When she said that Richard Clarke never gave her the Clinton administration's plan for dealing with Al Queda, under oath, was the lying?

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 03:23 PM
February 10, 2005

Washington, D.C., February 10, 2005 - The National Security Archive today posted the widely-debated, but previously unavailable, January 25, 2001, memo from counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke to national security advisor Condoleezza Rice - the first terrorism strategy paper of the Bush administration. The document was central to debates in the 9/11 hearings over the Bush administration's policies and actions on terrorism before September 11, 2001. Clarke's memo requests an immediate meeting of the National Security Council's Principals Committee to discuss broad strategies for combating al-Qaeda by giving counterterrorism aid to the Northern Alliance and Uzbekistan, expanding the counterterrorism budget and responding to the U.S.S. Cole attack. Despite Clarke's request, there was no Principals Committee meeting on al-Qaeda until September 4, 2001.

The January 25, 2001, memo, recently released to the National Security Archive by the National Security Council, bears a declassification stamp of April 7, 2004, one day prior to Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Commission on April 8, 2004. Responding to claims that she ignored the al-Qaeda threat before September 11, Rice stated in a March 22, 2004 Washington Post op-ed, "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration."

Cochise
02-18-2005, 03:23 PM
historymann, whoever you are, don't bother.

Saulbadguy
02-18-2005, 03:28 PM
I nominate Gunther_Fan.

historymann49
02-18-2005, 03:32 PM
There was no irony. I don't call people like Bubba liars because I disagree with their political views. I call them liars because that fact is well-documented. I also don't claim that all Democrats are liars. I'm sure you're not (despite your last few posts.) If you want to have a real discussion, great. But infantile comments like "ignorant man" do nothing to advance your cause.

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 03:35 PM
Ok, fine, but tell me why you don't think that Condi lied under oath?

RINGLEADER
02-18-2005, 04:55 PM
According to the Dems over at DU they say that Bush has a secret plan to invoke martial law and rescind the next presidential election just prior to installing himself for an open-ended third-term sometime in October, 2008. Because of this I don't really see the relevance of this thread.

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 05:20 PM
No one wants to say that she didn't lie under oath?

I thought there would be at least one taker?

SNR
02-18-2005, 06:52 PM
I think they'll just stay within the organization and hire Al Saunders.

Oops, wrong thread

InChiefsHell
02-18-2005, 07:10 PM
Condi would be a good candidate to go up against Hillary, but I don't know that she would be a good President. I just don't know much about her. I do know that she aspires to be commisioner of the NFL after Tagliabue steps down. As far as I've read, she has no Presidential aspiriations. For now...

Logical
02-18-2005, 07:28 PM
Sure, someone that lied under oath to Congress multiple times would be an excellent example of Bush-republican values.

...!Proof?

PunkinDrublic
02-18-2005, 07:42 PM
Please don't say Jeb Bush!!!

CHIEF4EVER
02-18-2005, 07:42 PM
Proof?

You are wasting your keystrokes bro.....for a LWNJ: proof = allegation; no substantiation necessary. :shake:

SBK
02-18-2005, 08:49 PM
You are wasting your keystrokes bro.....for a LWNJ: proof = allegation; no substantiation necessary. :shake:

"the seriousness of the charge"

Garcia Bronco
02-18-2005, 09:35 PM
I don't think Clinton will even get the party nomination.

CHIEF4EVER
02-18-2005, 09:39 PM
I don't think Clinton will even get the party nomination.

No way can we allow Hillary the "Ice Queen" to be POTUS. Heck, we would declare war on somebody once a month.......

whoman69
02-18-2005, 09:43 PM
The whole basis of this thread is flawed since the Dems will not nominate Hillary, just as Republicans will not nominate Rice. Rice has no experience as an elected official, has no personality, and will not be able to answer any question with a straight answer. Hillary is hated by her opposition and would polarize them like no other person could. She is also a horrible public speaker and nobody is buying her sudden religious tactics.

Garcia Bronco
02-18-2005, 09:44 PM
No way can we allow Hillary the "Ice Queen" to be POTUS. Heck, we would declare war on somebody once a month.......

No offense to the woman.

Honestly...that's why I would never vote for a woman as president...they're too emotionally unstable...not a good quality for the POTUS

Garcia Bronco
02-18-2005, 09:45 PM
It also pisses me off that people continue to give her the nomination 4 years out from the election year. WTF? You can't call that shit.

CHIEF4EVER
02-18-2005, 09:45 PM
No offense to the woman.

Honestly...that's why I would never vote for a woman as president...they're too emotionally unstable...not a good quality for the POTUS

It was a joke GB. You know.....humor, comical, funny.......kinda like your favorite football team.:pROFL

Garcia Bronco
02-18-2005, 09:46 PM
It was a joke GB. You know.....humor, comical, funny.......kinda like your favorite football team.:pROFL

We're coming for the keys bitch....

Garcia Bronco
02-18-2005, 09:47 PM
:)

CHIEF4EVER
02-18-2005, 09:48 PM
We're coming for the keys bitch....

You mean you're BRINGING the keys bidge.....to your crib. :p

Garcia Bronco
02-18-2005, 09:56 PM
You mean you're BRINGING the keys bidge.....to your crib. :p

:shake:

































ROFL

The Pedestrian
02-18-2005, 10:02 PM
If Hellary Clinton really is the presidential candidate for any party, then my choice of Republican opponent would be:

1) Condi Rice
2) Colin Powell (he needs to run for president, and we need more retired generals as presidents)
3) Jeb Bush
4) Arnold S. (granted a Constitutional amendment gets passed to let him become president)
5) Dick Chaney

InChiefsHell
02-19-2005, 06:15 AM
The whole basis of this thread is flawed since the Dems will not nominate Hillary, just as Republicans will not nominate Rice. Rice has no experience as an elected official, has no personality, and will not be able to answer any question with a straight answer. Hillary is hated by her opposition and would polarize them like no other person could. She is also a horrible public speaker and nobody is buying her sudden religious tactics.

Exactly. The only people who would feel good about either candidate would be hard-core party liners. It would probably be the lowest voter turnout in history.

Giuliani and somebody else would be pretty viable maybe. Thing is, Rudy is pretty liberal...I personally don't want a RINO...Cheney is too old, and will not run for any office after this, IMO...

Fairplay
02-19-2005, 06:39 AM
Sam Brownback, Bill Frist or Rudy G.

RINGLEADER
02-19-2005, 09:52 AM
The whole basis of this thread is flawed since the Dems will not nominate Hillary, just as Republicans will not nominate Rice. Rice has no experience as an elected official, has no personality, and will not be able to answer any question with a straight answer. Hillary is hated by her opposition and would polarize them like no other person could. She is also a horrible public speaker and nobody is buying her sudden religious tactics.


I agree with you about her public speaking skills...she just kind of starts screaming in this nasty, grating way.

But what I find more interesting is your comment about people not buying her "sudden religious tactics". If you look at Hillary's record on one of the issues I care about, National Defense, she's borderline hawk. But I find myself not buying that either. The Clintons were just so calculating (which isn't necessarily a bad thing for a politician I guess) that I'm skeptical that anything Hillary does is for the reasons she says.

SBK
02-19-2005, 10:19 AM
How bout we at least spend a few years enjoying our victory from 2004......

Pitt Gorilla
02-19-2005, 10:39 AM
Sam Brownback, Bill Frist or Rudy G.I hope you're kidding about Brownback; that guy is a complete douche. I'd replace him with Condy or Arnold.

Condy vs. Clinton would be really fun.

Pitt Gorilla
02-19-2005, 10:42 AM
How bout we at least spend a few years enjoying our victory from 2004......Enjoying a victory? The process is about finding the best person to lead the county, not beating the other team. The right person won the last election, which is a reason to be happy.

Calcountry
02-19-2005, 10:46 AM
Sure, someone that lied under oath to Congress multiple times would be an excellent example of Bush-republican values.

And you know what?
I bet they'd vote for her!The liberal mindset:

A lie= an agenda contrary to the fringe liberals.

Cochise
02-19-2005, 11:29 AM
According to the Dems over at DU they say that Bush has a secret plan to invoke martial law and rescind the next presidential election just prior to installing himself for an open-ended third-term sometime in October, 2008. Because of this I don't really see the relevance of this thread.

Oh man... you gotta give us a link to that... sounds like comedy gold ROFL

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 11:29 AM
Dr. Frist from Tennessee.

No other need apply, IMO.

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 11:30 AM
Sure, someone that lied under oath to Congress multiple times would be an excellent example of Bush-republican values.

And you know what?
I bet they'd vote for her!
Perjury is a crime. I agree that all who have done so should serve a prison term. Too bad perjury is selective to your party as well, isn't it?

Cochise
02-19-2005, 11:31 AM
There's no real superstar on the right side of the aisle.

I don't want to see Jeb at all. I'd vote for Condi or Sam Brownback or Frist or whomever else.

Seems kind of academic though.. due to a number of personal litmus tests I don't think I'll be voting for a Democrat any time soon.

SBK
02-19-2005, 01:41 PM
Enjoying a victory? The process is about finding the best person to lead the county, not beating the other team. The right person won the last election, which is a reason to be happy.

That's the point. Lets enjoy the right person winning for a few years before we worry about who's up next.

Rausch
02-19-2005, 07:55 PM
There's no real superstar on the right side of the aisle.

I don't want to see Jeb at all. I'd vote for Condi or Sam Brownback or Frist or whomever else.

http://www.nnbh.com/0316724556.jpg

Cochise
02-19-2005, 08:01 PM
http://www.nnbh.com/0316724556.jpg

I'd take him as VP. Too wishy-washy for my taste to be at the top of the bill though. Marriage baggage and everything.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 12:52 AM
To those that are still unware that Condi lies under oath, and somehow missed this on the first page of the thread....

February 10, 2005

Washington, D.C., February 10, 2005 - The National Security Archive today posted the widely-debated, but previously unavailable, January 25, 2001, memo from counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke to national security advisor Condoleezza Rice - the first terrorism strategy paper of the Bush administration. The document was central to debates in the 9/11 hearings over the Bush administration's policies and actions on terrorism before September 11, 2001. Clarke's memo requests an immediate meeting of the National Security Council's Principals Committee to discuss broad strategies for combating al-Qaeda by giving counterterrorism aid to the Northern Alliance and Uzbekistan, expanding the counterterrorism budget and responding to the U.S.S. Cole attack. Despite Clarke's request, there was no Principals Committee meeting on al-Qaeda until September 4, 2001.

The January 25, 2001, memo, recently released to the National Security Archive by the National Security Council, bears a declassification stamp of April 7, 2004, one day prior to Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Commission on April 8, 2004. Responding to claims that she ignored the al-Qaeda threat before September 11, Rice stated in a March 22, 2004 Washington Post op-ed, "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration."

Michael Michigan
02-20-2005, 12:56 AM
To those that are still unware that Condi lies under oath, and somehow missed this on the first page of the thread....

February 10, 2005

Washington, D.C., February 10, 2005 - The National Security Archive today posted the widely-debated, but previously unavailable, January 25, 2001, memo from counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke to national security advisor Condoleezza Rice - the first terrorism strategy paper of the Bush administration. The document was central to debates in the 9/11 hearings over the Bush administration's policies and actions on terrorism before September 11, 2001. Clarke's memo requests an immediate meeting of the National Security Council's Principals Committee to discuss broad strategies for combating al-Qaeda by giving counterterrorism aid to the Northern Alliance and Uzbekistan, expanding the counterterrorism budget and responding to the U.S.S. Cole attack. Despite Clarke's request, there was no Principals Committee meeting on al-Qaeda until September 4, 2001.

The January 25, 2001, memo, recently released to the National Security Archive by the National Security Council, bears a declassification stamp of April 7, 2004, one day prior to Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Commission on April 8, 2004. Responding to claims that she ignored the al-Qaeda threat before September 11, Rice stated in a March 22, 2004 Washington Post op-ed, "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration."

Is this you?

http://www.skinheads.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1061

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 01:01 AM
No, I'm me.

Why don't you tell me why you don't consider this lying under oath?

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 01:02 AM
Frankly I find it morally reprehensible to even talk to the morons on this board.

I'm really not going to go so far out of my way that I would bother dealing with people that describe themselves as skinheads.

Michael Michigan
02-20-2005, 01:03 AM
Frankly I find it morally reprehensible to even talk to the morons on this board.

I'm really not going to go so far out of my way that I would bother dealing with people that describe themselves as skinheads.

He sounds like you.

Have you been outed?

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 01:05 AM
It is my impression that on this board all liberals sound alike to the brain dead conservatives that can't accept any criticism of their lord and savior, George W, Bush.

Are you one of them?

Michael Michigan
02-20-2005, 01:07 AM
It is my impression that on this board all liberals sound alike to the brain dead conservatives that can't accept any criticism of their lord and savior, George W, Bush.

Are you one of them?

Your impression is as accurate as your posts on Eason Jordan.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 01:35 AM
Then I'm glad we're clear on that.

By the way, have you found those actual Eason quotes yet, or are you still talking out your hiney?

As well as avoiding discussion of Jim Guckert?

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 08:27 AM
To those that are still unware that Condi lies under oath, and somehow missed this on the first page of the thread....

February 10, 2005

Washington, D.C., February 10, 2005 - The National Security Archive today posted the widely-debated, but previously unavailable, January 25, 2001, memo from counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke to national security advisor Condoleezza Rice - the first terrorism strategy paper of the Bush administration. The document was central to debates in the 9/11 hearings over the Bush administration's policies and actions on terrorism before September 11, 2001. Clarke's memo requests an immediate meeting of the National Security Council's Principals Committee to discuss broad strategies for combating al-Qaeda by giving counterterrorism aid to the Northern Alliance and Uzbekistan, expanding the counterterrorism budget and responding to the U.S.S. Cole attack. Despite Clarke's request, there was no Principals Committee meeting on al-Qaeda until September 4, 2001.

The January 25, 2001, memo, recently released to the National Security Archive by the National Security Council, bears a declassification stamp of April 7, 2004, one day prior to Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Commission on April 8, 2004. Responding to claims that she ignored the al-Qaeda threat before September 11, Rice stated in a March 22, 2004 Washington Post op-ed, "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration."
It isn't that we aren't "unaware" of anything. We just don't like your hypocrisy on the topic.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 08:28 AM
It is my impression that on this board all liberals sound alike to the brain dead conservatives that can't accept any criticism of their lord and savior, George W, Bush.

Are you one of them?
Do you have a quote where someone has elevated GWB to such a lofty goal, or are you talking out of your ass again?

Michael Michigan
02-20-2005, 10:08 AM
Then I'm glad we're clear on that.

By the way, have you found those actual Eason quotes yet, or are you still talking out your hiney?

Here's a quote:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/11/easonjordan.cnn/

"After 23 years at CNN, I have decided to resign in an effort to prevent CNN from being unfairly tarnished by the controversy over conflicting accounts of my recent remarks regarding the alarming number of journalists killed in Iraq," Eason Jordan said in a letter to colleagues.

There's a tape of his comments. There need not be a conflict, the coward just won't release it.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 10:11 AM
Here's a quote:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/11/easonjordan.cnn/

"After 23 years at CNN, I have decided to resign in an effort to prevent CNN from being unfairly tarnished by the controversy over conflicting accounts of my recent remarks regarding the alarming number of journalists killed in Iraq," Eason Jordan said in a letter to colleagues.

There's a tape of his comments. There need not be a conflict, the coward just won't release it.
And the cowards defending him by stating they didn't hear it as well.

Michael Michigan
02-20-2005, 10:31 AM
And the cowards defending him by stating they didn't hear it as well.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) heard him say it, and then repeated it.

But then again Barney Frank is a gay democrat and once got caught paying for gay prostitutes and even had his gay lover running a gay prostitution ring out of Frank's apartment.

And of course Frank is lying, he's a gay guy with a history of being involved with gay prostitutes.

Right Lefty the homophobe?

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 10:39 AM
Please explain my "hypocrisy" on the subject, KC?

And calling me a homophobe is completely retarded, even for a bunch of rabid conservatives.

Please try and use your brain instead of your penis when typing.
It seems to be giving you the wrong impression about me.

Michael Michigan
02-20-2005, 10:49 AM
Please explain my "hypocrisy" on the subject, KC?

And calling me a homophobe is completely retarded, even for a bunch of rabid conservatives.

Please try and use your brain instead of your penis when typing.
It seems to be giving you the wrong impression about me.

So do you believe that the gay Congressman that had gay prostitutes running out of his apartment is lying about Eason Jordan?

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 11:01 AM
Please explain my "hypocrisy" on the subject, KC?

And calling me a homophobe is completely retarded, even for a bunch of rabid conservatives.

Please try and use your brain instead of your penis when typing.
It seems to be giving you the wrong impression about me.
LOL - When you ask someone to use their brain, quote the right person next time.


What an idiot.

Michael Michigan
02-20-2005, 11:10 AM
LOL - When you ask someone to use their brain, quote the right person next time.


What an idiot.

We all look alike.

;)

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 11:15 AM
We all look alike.

;)
LOL - You see, Leftist, THAT is irony.

Stick around, your posting ability may improve.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 11:27 AM
Yes, everyone on an anonymous messageboard does "look" the same to me.

Amazing.
How did you know?

Michael Michigan
02-20-2005, 11:36 AM
Yes, everyone on an anonymous messageboard does "look" the same to me.

Amazing.
How did you know?

Hey lefty, what about Barney Frank?

Why don't you believe him?

Bwana
02-20-2005, 11:41 AM
With Dean as the Dem leader, I think the reps will win with anyone they choose to stick in there.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 11:50 AM
Let me know when you want to get back to the subject of the thread, Mike.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 11:50 AM
Yes, everyone on an anonymous messageboard does "look" the same to me.

Amazing.
How did you know?

translation - Damn, I quoted the wrong person and I look stupid. How do I deflect? Oh, yeah "Look a bird"!

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 11:51 AM
With Dean as the Dem leader, I think the reps will win with anyone they choose to stick in there.
People like Duhnise and jAZ disagree with you. And I hope they continue to do so for several years.

Bwana
02-20-2005, 11:56 AM
People like Duhnise and jAZ disagree with you. And I hope they continue to do so for several years.
Oh, I know they do Russ but does that surprise you? They guy is going to implode the party further into the thunder cup and they will claim it had nothing to do with Deans "leadership" after the fact.ROFL All I can do is sit back and get a good laugh out of the ordeal.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 12:10 PM
More sarcasm wasted on KC.

I guess I should've made "look" in bold italics.

Although I don't think even that would help at this point.

Too much model glue as a kid?

Michael Michigan
02-20-2005, 12:12 PM
Let me know when you want to get back to the subject of the thread, Mike.

Hey lefty, what about Barney Frank?

Why don't you believe him?

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 12:18 PM
What does Barney Frank have to do with this thread, Mike?

You aren't a homophobe, are you?

I'm still wating for you right wingers to explain how Condi didn't lie under oath.

And that was on the first page of this thread!

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 12:21 PM
What does Barney Frank have to do with this thread, Mike?

You aren't a homophobe, are you?

I'm still wating for you right wingers to explain how Condi didn't lie under oath.

And that was on the first page of this thread!
No one is contesting Rice, no one even spoke on Rice but yourself. My God, you are horrible at any kind of reasonable debate. No wonder you left your other format.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 12:23 PM
Um, idiot, you might want to actually read the thread before posting...
Like maybe the ORIGINAL post that created the thread?

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 12:24 PM
And why is it that Mike and KC keep answering each others threads?

I know that I have confused responses to the two of you, but when you guys keep giving each other the reach-around, it's hard to tell you two apart.

Michael Michigan
02-20-2005, 12:27 PM
What does Barney Frank have to do with this thread, Mike?

You aren't a homophobe, are you?

I'm still wating for you right wingers to explain how Condi didn't lie under oath.


And that was on the first page of this thread!

You brought up Guckert in the Jordan issue in this thread.

Then I'm glad we're clear on that.

By the way, have you found those actual Eason quotes yet, or are you still talking out your hiney?

As well as avoiding discussion of Jim Guckert?

I noted that a gay person who had visited gay prostitutes and even had a gay prostitution ring running out of his apartment flatly stated what Eason Jordan said in Davos.

I believe Barney Frank.

I also believe he was a Patriot for challenging Jordan to prove his accusations against our American soldiers.



Again do you believe Barney Frank?

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 12:27 PM
And why is it that Mike and KC keep answering each others threads?

I know that I have confused responses to the two of you, but when you guys keep giving each other the reach-around, it's hard to tell you two apart.
Ahh, the homosexual references when all else fails. And directly after blaming someone else for being a homophobe.


Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the next flameout poster ala' Thomas Recount, LeftisttheWacko.

You aren't worth the effort. Simply answer my bet yes or no on the other thread, then I will be done with you and look for serious debate with a more knowledgeable candidate.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 12:31 PM
The modus operandi around here for conservatives when Guckert is mentioned to to ask the liberal asking the question if they are a homophobe.

Again, more irony wasted on KC.

But I'm pretty sure the people that actually read the threads before responding "get it".

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 12:34 PM
What did Barney Frank say Eason said?

And should I really comment on what someone said someone else said?

Wouldn't that be hearsay?

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 12:37 PM
What did Barney Frank say Eason said?

And should I really comment on what someone said someone else said?

Wouldn't that be hearsay?
If you were in a court of law, you would have a point.

As you aren't, much of what you post is heresay, including the post right before this one.


Nice that you live under a lower standard than you expect of others.

Michael Michigan
02-20-2005, 12:41 PM
What did Barney Frank say Eason said?

And should I really comment on what someone said someone else said?

Wouldn't that be hearsay?

Didn't we cover your hearsay argument?

If you don't know how Barney Frank helped bring down Eason Jordan, then you are hopeless on this subject.

Google Chris Dodd while you are at it.

He's a "straight" senator from Connecticut.

Maybe you will believe him.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 12:43 PM
I don't think you are capable of following a conversation this morning.

You seem to be jumping from subject to subject in an effort to avoid admitting your mistakes.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 12:45 PM
By the way, I could swear that Jordan quit on his own.

I didn't know that there was an effort to "bring him down".

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 12:48 PM
I don't think you are capable of following a conversation this morning.

You seem to be jumping from subject to subject in an effort to avoid admitting your mistakes.
Actually there is only one answer I am interested in at this point, and one which you are continually dodging. I am beginning to think you are a liar and a coward. I would hope you could prove otherwise, simply click on the link since you can't find the thread on your own and either accept or decline the bet. It's not that difficult, is it?

BTW - It is not morning here and hasn't been for quite some time

Chiefsplanet Thread Asking Lefty to a Friendly Wager (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=110136&page=1)

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 12:52 PM
I don't see anything on that link pertaining to me.

Was it on a different page of the thread?
When did this supposed wager come up?

Did you PM me, or just assume that you matter to me and I always check to see what you said?

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 01:00 PM
I don't see anything on that link pertaining to me.

Was it on a different page of the thread?
When did this supposed wager come up?

Did you PM me, or just assume that you matter to me and I always check to see what you said?
Nope, you called me a liar and I challenged your call. You have deliberately avoided that thread since I have and answered every other thread with my statements.

Since you can't read your own posts, I will gladly bring them up here as well. I am beginning to wonder why you won't take the wager?

Read back to your first posts on and around Feb 10. You stated numerous times that those who call others names are ignorant and have nothing to offer.



Please provide a link to the quotes, and the quotes themselves.

Seeing as how you have a limited grasp of events as they actually happened, I will assume that you are making stuff up again.

I will make an agreement with you. As the search function is disabled, it takes a great deal of time to find information. If I go to the trouble of bringing up your quote stating to the affect of [sic]those who use names are ignorant", then you will post an apology in a new thread admitting you lied. Also note that if I find any deleted quotes by you, you will do the same.

If I don't I will post a thread to you apologizing for my error.

From there you became strangely silent on the topic. So, do you want to take the bet or not?

Because, honestly, that is the only interest I have in you any longer. You do not have the integrity of jAZ or Dan or any other liberal leaning poster on this board. Conversations with you simply aren't warranted or worth my time. It would be the final humiliation that I would enjoy greatly. After that, I don't care if you post pics of GWB boinking your mom when your dad is gone.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 01:21 PM
I have answered your post, but you really are a sad little man for thinking that I actually care what you think of me....

And I'm still waiting for you to prove your claim.

Or are you like most modern day republicans?
The charge matters more than the facts?

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 01:22 PM
I have answered your post, but you really are a sad little man for thinking that I actually care what you think of me....

And I'm still waiting for you to prove your claim.

Or are you like most modern day republicans?
The charge matters more than the facts?
No, you mustered a failed answer.

Do you accept the bet in the terms I laid out? Yes or no?

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 01:58 PM
Start a new thread and make your "bet" clear and concise.

I promise to give you a direct answer.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 02:00 PM
Start a new thread and make your "bet" clear and concise.

I promise to give you a direct answer.
You already did. Your dishonesty on the topic is painfully clear.

You are a liar and a coward

Cochise
02-20-2005, 02:43 PM
For my money, you should have the mental capacity to use the quote feature before calling someone else here an idiot.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 02:44 PM
Really, when was that?

I still don't have a clue what you are even trying to get me to agree too.

I have asked you for a clear post, on a new thread stating what it is that you want me to agree to.

I asked you if what I thought it was, and you haven't given me an honest answer.

This might be fun for you, but I fing it a bit manipulative and boring as well.

Make a new thread, state exactly what you are trying to get to agree to, without a buch of extraeous crap.

Can you do that?

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 02:51 PM
Really, when was that?

I still don't have a clue what you are even trying to get me to agree too.

I have asked you for a clear post, on a new thread stating what it is that you want me to agree to.

I asked you if what I thought it was, and you haven't given me an honest answer.

This might be fun for you, but I fing it a bit manipulative and boring as well.

Make a new thread, state exactly what you are trying to get to agree to, without a buch of extraeous crap.

Can you do that?
Nope, I am done with you. You have proven all I need for future reference.

Good luck, liar.

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 03:11 PM
Yeah, that really means alot coming from you, jacka$$.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 03:58 PM
Yeah, that really means alot coming from you, jacka$$.

Instead of calling me names, a sign oif a lesser intellectm....

:hmmm:

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 04:49 PM
I guess I'm not allowed to call you names, KC?

Why don't you try quoting me in context.

If that isn't too big a word for you to understand...

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 04:50 PM
By the way, if you are trying to irritate me in order to drive me off, good luck.

Bigger dumba$$es than you have tried and failed.

Ask shooter.....

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 04:54 PM
I guess I'm not allowed to call you names, KC?

.
You can call me names all you want. Please don't misinterpret your own statements.

I was merely pointing out that you consider yourself having the signs of a lesser intellect, or in your case sign oif a lesser intellectm

I am assuming intellectum is a class or phylum of which I am unaware?

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 04:55 PM
By the way, if you are trying to irritate me in order to drive me off, good luck.

Bigger dumba$$es than you have tried and failed.

Ask shooter.....
I don't know who Shooter is, do you wear him on your hand?

http://www.pacificsites.com/~wddavis/csc120/images/southpark/mr.garrison.gif

Michael Michigan
02-20-2005, 04:57 PM
By the way, if you are trying to irritate me in order to drive me off, good luck.

Bigger dumba$$es than you have tried and failed.

Ask shooter.....

Oh, please stay.

jAZ and meme have been wrong so much it's boring.

Michael Michigan
02-20-2005, 04:59 PM
I guess I'm not allowed to call you names, KC?

Why don't you try quoting me in context.

If that isn't too big a word for you to understand...

FTR the word "context" is only seven letters.

Or is seven "big" to you?

Lefty_the_Right
02-20-2005, 05:03 PM
Seven letters seems to be too big for someone that takes me out of context while complianing about being taken out of context.


It's just about as moronic as pointing out typing errors on an internet message board.

Unless of course KC thinks I intentionally typed it that way?

That would prove more about him, and why I had to point out that he is taking me out of context in the first place.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 05:09 PM
Seven letters seems to be too big for someone that takes me out of context while complianing about being taken out of context.


It's just about as moronic as pointing out typing errors on an internet message board.

Unless of course KC thinks I intentionally typed it that way?

That would prove more about him, and why I had to point out that he is taking me out of context in the first place.
Really, explain the statement then. It should be easy.

Instead of calling me names, a sign oif a lesser intellectm....
[cue diversionary statement #426 on three, two, one......]

jAZ
02-20-2005, 06:52 PM
I don't know who Shooter is
That's his name over at AATalk. He is/was a poster on the Planet before I started the site. He and Lefty go back...

IIRC, Shooter is/was Patriot21.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 06:54 PM
That's his name over at AATalk. He is/was a poster on the Planet before I started the site. He and Lefty go back...

IIRC, Shooter is/was Patriot21.
Like I care

jAZ
02-20-2005, 07:03 PM
Like I care
Yeah, cause otherwise you WOULDN'T have made the effort to reply.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 07:08 PM
Yeah, cause otherwise you WOULDN'T have made the effort to reply.
That would explain the serious picture attached, wouldn't it?

Damn, you are a testy and bitchy tonight.

jAZ
02-20-2005, 07:30 PM
Damn, you are a testy and bitchy tonight.
Just tryin' to keep up with ya Wolfie.

KCWolfman
02-20-2005, 07:31 PM
Just tryin' to keep up with ya Wolfie.
Good luck, but you will have to climb out of your mangina first.

lardass
02-21-2005, 03:31 PM
Condi would be a good match for Hillary, I would like to see that. ;)

Honestly I don’t think Hillary can win a national election. Carrying California and New York doesn't win a national election. Therefore it wouldn't matter too much, if the Dems nominate Hillary I will be surprised and I think that would be a mistake. This is however the party of Mondale, Dukakis, Carter and Kerry.

Lefty_the_Right
02-21-2005, 04:33 PM
What about Condi lying under oath to Congress?
That doesn't bother any of you?

I'm guessing some of you were up in arms about Clinton commiting perjury over a BJ?

SBK
02-21-2005, 04:52 PM
What about Condi lying under oath to Congress?
That doesn't bother any of you?

I'm guessing some of you were up in arms about Clinton commiting perjury over a BJ?

You never give up. Im sure if she lied under oath you wouldn't be the only one on the planet bringing it up.....

Lefty_the_Right
02-21-2005, 04:56 PM
February 10, 2005

Washington, D.C., February 10, 2005 - The National Security Archive today posted the widely-debated, but previously unavailable, January 25, 2001, memo from counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke to national security advisor Condoleezza Rice - the first terrorism strategy paper of the Bush administration. The document was central to debates in the 9/11 hearings over the Bush administration's policies and actions on terrorism before September 11, 2001. Clarke's memo requests an immediate meeting of the National Security Council's Principals Committee to discuss broad strategies for combating al-Qaeda by giving counterterrorism aid to the Northern Alliance and Uzbekistan, expanding the counterterrorism budget and responding to the U.S.S. Cole attack. Despite Clarke's request, there was no Principals Committee meeting on al-Qaeda until September 4, 2001.

The January 25, 2001, memo, recently released to the National Security Archive by the National Security Council, bears a declassification stamp of April 7, 2004, one day prior to Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Commission on April 8, 2004. Responding to claims that she ignored the al-Qaeda threat before September 11, Rice stated in a March 22, 2004 Washington Post op-ed, "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration."

beavis
02-21-2005, 05:18 PM
What about Condi lying under oath to Congress?
That doesn't bother any of you?

I'm guessing some of you were up in arms about Clinton commiting perjury over a BJ?
Isn't it about time for you to crawl back into your hole?

SBK
02-21-2005, 06:13 PM
February 10, 2005

Washington, D.C., February 10, 2005 - The National Security Archive today posted the widely-debated, but previously unavailable, January 25, 2001, memo from counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke to national security advisor Condoleezza Rice - the first terrorism strategy paper of the Bush administration. The document was central to debates in the 9/11 hearings over the Bush administration's policies and actions on terrorism before September 11, 2001. Clarke's memo requests an immediate meeting of the National Security Council's Principals Committee to discuss broad strategies for combating al-Qaeda by giving counterterrorism aid to the Northern Alliance and Uzbekistan, expanding the counterterrorism budget and responding to the U.S.S. Cole attack. Despite Clarke's request, there was no Principals Committee meeting on al-Qaeda until September 4, 2001.

The January 25, 2001, memo, recently released to the National Security Archive by the National Security Council, bears a declassification stamp of April 7, 2004, one day prior to Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Commission on April 8, 2004. Responding to claims that she ignored the al-Qaeda threat before September 11, Rice stated in a March 22, 2004 Washington Post op-ed, "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration."

Oh come on. Clarke?

lardass
02-21-2005, 06:29 PM
What about Condi lying under oath to Congress?
That doesn't bother any of you?

I'm guessing some of you were up in arms about Clinton commiting perjury over a BJ?

mmmmm nah, nope... not bothered. ;)

InChiefsHell
02-21-2005, 09:41 PM
What about Condi lying under oath to Congress?
That doesn't bother any of you?

I'm guessing some of you were up in arms about Clinton commiting perjury over a BJ?
Actually, the perjury was bad enough, but the thing that got me was the top dog in the nation is denying due process and slandering the name of a stupid little girl just because he had to get his rocks off. I mean really, can't you hold off on the illicit blowjobs long enough to be a freakin' president? Guess not...

Bantering around ideas does not a plan make. Sounds like the memo suggests some ideas, but it's not a plan.

Lefty_the_Right
02-21-2005, 10:25 PM
The memo is online Chief.

You might want to read it before guessing what it says.

Lefty_the_Right
02-21-2005, 10:28 PM
And you are right about Bill.

He should have said it was no ones business and left it that.

Or he could have used Bush's excuse.
"I don't want the children trying what I did."

But if you remember, it was the republicans that wanted to teach every seven year old that watches television that the POTUS got a BJ.

KCWolfman
02-21-2005, 10:29 PM
And you are right about Bill.

He should have said it was no ones business and left it that.

Or he could have used Bush's excuse.
"I don't want the children trying what I did."

But if you remember, it was the republicans that wanted to teach every seven year old that watches television that the POTUS got a BJ.
Katy Couric is a Republican? She was the one that met with Junior High kids and spoke on a national forum regarding the topic.

Time to take down that soapbox, your slats are broken and you can't keep your balance on this topic.

Lefty_the_Right
02-21-2005, 10:35 PM
So Rush never spoke of it?

I know that you don't listen to him, but apparently there are a few people that do.

Seriously, you need to take a chill pill dude.

You are so uptight that you can't even admit that small stuff.

KCWolfman
02-21-2005, 10:39 PM
So Rush never spoke of it?

I know that you don't listen to him, but apparently there are a few people that do.

Seriously, you need to take a chill pill dude.

You are so uptight that you can't even admit that small stuff.
Admit what? You made a false statement and when provided with facts you state I am uptight?

How about honesty in your posts before you ask others to take a chill pill?


As far as Limbaugh goes, yup, I am sure he ranted for years on the topic. And people listened. But I am willing to bet he did not go on national television with junior high kids asking what they thought of the POTUS having illicit sex and lying about it.

Blame the Reps for all kinds of ills, I really don't mind at all. But at least be honest and stop your revisionist history. It is getting old.

Lefty_the_Right
02-21-2005, 10:42 PM
You're the one saying that Watergate broke overnight in the mainstream media.

LOL

KCWolfman
02-21-2005, 10:45 PM
Your the one saying that Watergate broke overnight in the mainstream media.

LOL
The front page of the Washington Post and all three major networks are not "mainstream"?

I realize they don't have the talent and knowledge of the blogs you must read, but they deserve some credit.

Lefty_the_Right
02-21-2005, 10:54 PM
Well, a break in at Democratic Headquarters is a little different than a prostitute working on the White House Press room.

One is actually a crime.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

The real Watergate story wasn't on the news that week and you know it.

Just as the real story about James Guckert is being revealed now.

KCWolfman
02-21-2005, 11:00 PM
Well, a break in at Democratic Headquarters is a little different than a prostitute working on the White House Press room.

One is actually a crime.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

The real Watergate story wasn't on the news that week and you know it.

Just as the real story about James Guckert is being revealed now.
No, YOU are comparing apples to oranges. You made the foolish statement, not I.

Also your first two sentences has either one falsehood or another, you may take your pick. Either Gannon has not been formally charged as a prostitute and your label is incorrect or BOTH are a crime as prostitution is not legal outside of controlled areas like Vegas.

Lefty_the_Right
02-21-2005, 11:08 PM
So a prostitute is only a prostitute if they get caught?

What are they when they haven't been?

KCWolfman
02-21-2005, 11:13 PM
So a prostitute is only a prostitute if they get caught?

What are they when they haven't been?
Alleged


I thought you knew this after all your "heresay" crap you tried to pull before.

Lefty_the_Right
02-21-2005, 11:16 PM
Well, I would say that having a web page with your rates and what you will and won't do for money is a little more than alleged.

KCWolfman
02-21-2005, 11:22 PM
Well, I would say that having a web page with your rates and what you will and won't do for money is a little more than alleged.
Then convict more than 100,000 people in the US alone.

You obviously don't understand the law as you attempted to lead us to believe when you first started posting.

Unless the website says "I will have sex with you for x.xx" then it is not illegal to advertise escort prices. Only until there is a mutual understanding that the escort will take money for sex is prostitution finally charged.

Lefty_the_Right
02-21-2005, 11:31 PM
Nice try.

But he was selling his ass.
And at $200 an hour, and $1200 a weekend, he wasn't GIVING it away.

Lefty_the_Right
02-21-2005, 11:36 PM
A search for USMCPT on Google turns up two more escort sites for Bulldog, one in DC and one in Philly (both are still online, but in inactive status). One mentions the weekend rate of $1200/weekend, the other an hourly rate, $200. The sites also include feedback from satisfied customers. The most recent review is from 11/12/2002, from a man named Spaceman. An earlier review, dated 7/11/2000, is from a man who says he’s an active duty senior officer in the US Army. He notes that Jeff has a Marine background.

KCWolfman
02-21-2005, 11:36 PM
Nice try.

But he was selling his ass.
And at $200 an hour, and $1200 a weekend, he wasn't GIVING it away.
So you are stating he is a prostitute without proof?

Is that slander or libel? Or is he not afforded the same latitude Jordan is?


Secondly, and more importantly, if you truly believe him to be a prostitute, then your original statement is incorrect - BOTH are crimes.

Lefty_the_Right
02-21-2005, 11:37 PM
The USMCPT home page never specifically mentions sex, though it’s clear this is not your run-of-the-mill personal trainer or bodyguard. Under a section entitled “Mission,” it says:
Ex-USMC Jock: Available for hourly, overnight, weekend or longer travel - OUT ONLY!

Personal Trainer: Safe-Sane-Strenuous-Satisfying workouts, Sports training, and competition, especially wrestling....

Big SPORTS Fan: Will go to the game with you, then take you home and....

"AGGRESIVE, VERBAL, DOMINANT TOP"
I DON'T LEAVE MARKS....ONLY IMPRESSIONS

Lefty_the_Right
02-21-2005, 11:38 PM
As far as we know he wasn't selling his ass in the White House.

So your analogy really doesn't work.

KCWolfman
02-21-2005, 11:40 PM
.

Could you point out in the post where it states he exchanged sex for money? I can't find it.

KCWolfman
02-21-2005, 11:42 PM
.

Nope, still nothing that will convict him in any court of law for prostitution.

Evidently, you don't afford the same grace to Republican agendists like Gannon as you do Democrat ones like Jordan.

Lefty_the_Right
02-21-2005, 11:44 PM
Maybe you should try reading the customer reviews?

Look, if he wasn't a hooker, and it couldn't be proved that he was, why did he cut and run when it became public knowledge?

Are you saying that he has nothing to hide?

Do you spend a lot of time defending prostitutes, KC, especially when they are men?

Or is this just about the principal?

Lefty_the_Right
02-21-2005, 11:46 PM
What did Jordan do that was illegal?
I must have missed that part of the story...

There is a big difference between what Jordan did and what Gannon did, and you are really reaching when you try and make that leap.

KCWolfman
02-21-2005, 11:52 PM
Maybe you should try reading the customer reviews?

Look, if he wasn't a hooker, and it couldn't be proved that he was, why did he cut and run when it became public knowledge?

Are you saying that he has nothing to hide?

Do you spend a lot of time defending prostitutes, KC, especially when they are men?

Or is this just about the principal?
Ah, the homo reference again. You are getting good at that. Desperation is becoming the norm for you when confronted with facts you cannot assail

Where did I state he has nothing to hide?

I tell you what, you show me a single statement that LEGALLY proves he is a prostitute and I will agree with you.

KCWolfman
02-21-2005, 11:52 PM
What did Jordan do that was illegal?
I must have missed that part of the story...

There is a big difference between what Jordan did and what Gannon did, and you are really reaching when you try and make that leap.
What did Gannon do that was illegal? Do you have a link?

Lefty_the_Right
02-22-2005, 12:06 AM
You're right.

I'm sure that the multiple sites that Guckert set up had NOTHING to do with solicitation.

That's why he is still working in the White House, right?

KCWolfman
02-22-2005, 12:09 AM
You're right.

I'm sure that the multiple sites that Guckert set up had NOTHING to do with solicitation.

That's why he is still working in the White House, right?
Now, now, no need to get testy and start putting words in my mouth because you are wrong.

I never stated he didn't solicite sex for money. I said there is no proof he did; therefore, he is not a prostitute - he is an alleged prostitute.

And I believe he left the WH before the prostitution angle came out, which means you are revising history once again when you attempt to allude to the idea that is why is he is no longer there.

Lefty_the_Right
02-22-2005, 12:01 PM
He closed Talon News within 3 hours of his other websites becoming public knowledge.

DailyKOS posted the story at 9pm Pacific Time, and by 11:40PM Guckert had posted the new placeholder image.

The actual prostitution angle didn't "come out" for a day or so after that, but he must have known that it was comming.

If he didn't have anything to hide, or at the very least dodge, he would've hung tough.

But he didn't.
So he knew that it was about to hit the fan.

He went and lied about everything on CNN, you know, the "liberal" network?

And Wolfie let him skate right by, along with Howard Kurtz, who both downplayed the porn angle.

If he is a conservative, and he really believed that he was in the "right", why didn't he go on Fox?

craneref
02-22-2005, 05:02 PM
I would run Moncia Lewinski, I believe she has proven that she can match Senator Clinton, blow by blow. :p

Lefty_the_Right
02-22-2005, 05:07 PM
Like Chris Rock said, she should have already been there when Monica showed up, and she should have told her to make herself useful, "tickle his balls!"

Of course as Wanda Sykes said, "When you are First Lady of the United States, you shouldn't have to suck anybody's d!ck!".

historymann49
03-08-2005, 08:50 AM
Sorry to be gone so long. I see that I missed some great stuff. OK, Lefty_the_Right, I'll say it. Condi didn't lie. If you have an actual example, not just something you want to be true or an undocumented accusation, let me know.

patteeu
03-08-2005, 11:30 AM
Sorry to be gone so long. I see that I missed some great stuff. OK, Lefty_the_Right, I'll say it. Condi didn't lie. If you have an actual example, not just something you want to be true or an undocumented accusation, let me know.

I think Lefty_the_Right got banned. It's unfortunate because I would have taken him up on his "Rice lied" foolishness too. To prove she had lied, he posted a quote from an article describing a Richard Clarke memo. According to that quote, Clarke's memo requested "an immediate meeting of the National Security Council's Principals Committee to discuss broad strategies." Doesn't sound like much of a plan to me.

But LtR is gone so it will have to wait for another day and another moonbat.

Lefty's Alter Ego
03-08-2005, 07:57 PM
I don't know who LtR is, but they must be an idiot to criticize Condi.
And they must be a racist to boot!

She is one of the most amazing women in the world, and she deserves to be the next president of the United States.

penchief
03-13-2005, 08:07 AM
Hillary has a shot. She's smart, tough, serious, and thoughtful. Plus, she's winning over even some of her most strident critics in the senate.

If she runs, don't be surprised if she picks a serious republican (as opposed to an ideologue) to be her running mate. Maybe someone like Lindsay Graham. That could make her even tougher, IMO.

mlyonsd
03-13-2005, 09:22 AM
Hillary has a shot. She's smart, tough, serious, and thoughtful. Plus, she's winning over even some of her most strident critics in the senate.


The perception that the Clinton's new best friends are the Bush's doesn't hurt either. That's one thing I have to admit about the Clinton's, they are excellent at the game of politics.

Kris Kringle
03-15-2005, 09:31 AM
If Hellary Clinton really is the presidential candidate for any party, then my choice of Republican opponent would be:

1) Condi Rice
2) Colin Powell (he needs to run for president, and we need more retired generals as presidents)
3) Jeb Bush
4) Arnold S. (granted a Constitutional amendment gets passed to let him become president)
5) Dick Chaney

1. She's pro choice and says she won't run
2. He's a moderate and not conservative enough
3. Yes, good idea. But he's no George
4. No. Don't change the constitution
5. He won't run. But I'd love it if he did.
6. John McCain - NO!! He's a moderate that stabs the conservatives in the back whenever he can.

b643246
03-15-2005, 09:48 PM
Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minn.

Saulbadguy
03-15-2005, 09:54 PM
Kris Kringle = historymann49

historymann49
04-04-2005, 03:44 PM
OK! Condi it is.

Mr. Kotter
04-04-2005, 06:27 PM
Kris Kringle = historymann49

I've seen Gunther Fan around some too, though lately....

Calcountry
04-04-2005, 06:53 PM
OK! Condi it is.Frankly, who gives a chit right now?

Its 2005! Get a life already! Lurch fuggin got his ass handed to him, its time to move on and live your life for a couple of fuggin years and worry about this chit in 2007, don't ya think?

Saulbadguy
04-04-2005, 06:59 PM
I've seen Gunther Fan around some too, though lately....
Yep. He is trying to confuse us. But, Historyman has the classic GF qualities that give him away.

1. Always uses some sort of icon to draw attention to his posts.
2. Only posts in his own threads.
3. Bumps his own threads when they have dropped due to inactivity, sometimes for a month.
4. Short sentence fragments.

alnorth
04-04-2005, 07:03 PM
I liked condi for a while, but since it is crystal clear she wont run (and becoming clear that she probably wouldnt win anyway) I'm now undecided.

Frist is beginning to interest me, but I'll wait to see the whole field emerge.

(Theres a good chance that I may move from Kansas to Iowa in the next year, so my political opinions might actually count for a change! I'd definitely travel to the caucus.)

Rausch
04-04-2005, 09:20 PM
I liked condi for a while, but since it is crystal clear she wont run (and becoming clear that she probably wouldnt win anyway) I'm now undecided.

Frist is beginning to interest me, but I'll wait to see the whole field emerge.

(Theres a good chance that I may move from Kansas to Iowa in the next year, so my political opinions might actually count for a change! I'd definitely travel to the caucus.)

http://www.nnbh.com/0316724556.jpg

Brock
04-05-2005, 08:25 AM
Doesn't matter. If the democrats are stupid enough to nominate Hillary, they will lose to a fencepost.

InChiefsHell
04-06-2005, 06:43 AM
Chiefman420,

I got to read your post in my email before you deleted it...What is the point indeed? For those who missed it, here is the part that came to me:
Chiefman420 wrote:

Are we conceding that we should just have 2 women run for president and get it over with? I've
voted democrat the last couple of cycles, and I believe the worst thing the Dems could do is
put a female on the ballot for president. It would just insure that the Republican party would
have another 2 term president. I won't go into my sexist rant, somehow I'm sure most of you can
think of good reasons to not elect females for president. However on the Candi Rice subject,
while most catagories of people fall in between parties, there is one catagory that doesn't.
Racists are all right wing. You nominate Candi Rice for the Presidency and I guarandamntee you
the Democrats will win. That may be f*cked up, but it doesn't make it any less true. However
for the record, I'd take Candi over Hillary any f*ckin day. I guess that's why I'm a rupublocrat

The bolded portion of the statement makes you a certified moron. Racists are all right wing? Have you ever heard of Robert Byrd? Try meeting half the old farmer types I know...rabid dems, and ayuh, they have some problems with the "colored" folks...

You're an idiot. I know you deleted this post, but sorry, I had to call you on that one...and its Condi Rice, twit...

bkkcoh
04-06-2005, 06:49 AM
The perception that the Clinton's new best friends are the Bush's doesn't hurt either. That's one thing I have to admit about the Clinton's, they are excellent at the game of politics.


I wouldn't put too much credence in the new found best-friend of Bush. That could hurt both parties base.

There are still a lot of differences between the 2 and to me it is almost like opposites attract.

RaiderH8r
04-06-2005, 10:46 AM
I wouldn't put too much credence in the new found best-friend of Bush. That could hurt both parties base.

There are still a lot of differences between the 2 and to me it is almost like opposites attract.
The best part about this Bush-41/Clinton thing is that the whole time Pres. Bush (43) is shafting Jimmy Carter. HA HA HA. First it was asking Clinton to do the Tsunami relief deal instead of Jimmy Car-duh and now Pres. Bush sponsors Clinton instead of Car-duh to attend the Pope's funeral. All the while Car-duh was the only President to receive the Pope at the White House and made no bones about his desire to attend. Pres. Bush shafts him....AGAIN. That's what you get for sitting in the Michael Moore Box at the Dem. Convention Jimmy....HA HA HA.

And how pissed would the dems be if Condi won? The first woman AND african american elected president in one fell swoop....and the Republicans did it! Oh they would absolutely go suicidal.

StcChief
04-06-2005, 11:27 AM
McCain / Condi

InChiefsHell
04-06-2005, 09:39 PM
McCain / Condi

ummm....no...please no...

carlos3652
04-06-2005, 09:58 PM
Guliani/Condi

Powell/Condi


I think Condi will be the first women elected vice president...

InChiefsHell
04-06-2005, 10:07 PM
Guliani/Condi

Powell/Condi


I think Condi will be the first women elected vice president...
Why do people keep saying Condi? She won't run folks. She has said that, and I think she means it. She would like to be the Commish of the NFL. Now THAT would be interesting.

Guliani might be a good choice. As far as veep goes, no idea.

alnorth
04-07-2005, 08:17 AM
If Guiliani runs and got the nomination, he would need an arch-conservative VP to have any chance at getting the conservatives to vote on election day. Perhaps our very own Senator Brownback, who has recently made noises about exploring a 2008 run, hes young and inexperienced enough to accept a VP slot, and our right wing definitely loves the guy. His drawback is he wouldnt come from a swing state.

People wanting a rock star VP, I dont believe a VP has ever made a difference on swing voters. Politically speaking, they are only useful as a "Favorite son" from a home state, and/or to keep multiple factions in the party happy. (Which meant Cheney carried no political benefit to Bush whatsoever)

Mr. Flopnuts
04-07-2005, 08:18 AM
Chiefman420,

I got to read your post in my email before you deleted it...What is the point indeed? For those who missed it, here is the part that came to me:
Chiefman420 wrote:



The bolded portion of the statement makes you a certified moron. Racists are all right wing? Have you ever heard of Robert Byrd? Try meeting half the old farmer types I know...rabid dems, and ayuh, they have some problems with the "colored" folks...

You're an idiot. I know you deleted this post, but sorry, I had to call you on that one...and its Condi Rice, twit...


Only a f*ckin idiot doesn't know who condoleeza rice is. Have you ever seen someone call trent green trint? Don't be f*ckin stupid. Seriously. As far as Candi goes, I'm tellin you like it or not. Go ahead and nominate her. She'll lose to anyone. You're telling me that Americans will vote for a black woman as president? LOL, they wouldn't vote for Colin Powell because he's black, you think they'll vote for Candi? It may be f*cked up, but folks it's true.

alnorth
04-07-2005, 08:21 AM
Only a f*ckin idiot doesn't know who condoleeza rice is. Have you ever seen someone call trent green trint? Don't be f*ckin stupid. Seriously. As far as Candi goes, I'm tellin you like it or not. Go ahead and nominate her. She'll lose to anyone. You're telling me that Americans will vote for a black woman as president? LOL, they wouldn't vote for Colin Powell because he's black, you think they'll vote for Candi? It may be f*cked up, but folks it's true.

No its not true, the preliminary polls showed that Powell was beating Clinton in a cakewalk. Now, more than likely the polls would have tightened up if he actually won the nomination, and perhaps Clinton may have made yet another comeback, but to say that Powell had no chance is simply ignorant.

The GOP didnt just pull his name out of a hat, they do have 1 or 2 pollsters working for them, ya know.

Mr. Flopnuts
04-07-2005, 10:25 PM
No its not true, the preliminary polls showed that Powell was beating Clinton in a cakewalk. Now, more than likely the polls would have tightened up if he actually won the nomination, and perhaps Clinton may have made yet another comeback, but to say that Powell had no chance is simply ignorant.

The GOP didnt just pull his name out of a hat, they do have 1 or 2 pollsters working for them, ya know.


Yeah, upon thinking further on this issue, it would be rather naive to assume there are no black candidates out there who could win the election, and I can tell you right now that I would vote for Colin. He seems to be more reasonable than most politcians. I just can't help but think that we sweep racism under the rug in this country. I truly feel that it's one of those things people just don't talk about out loud. I did see an interesting article in the Seattle Times in the last couple of days though showing avg. median wages for college educated women in this country. Believe it or not Asian women make the most followed by black women followed by white women. So f*ck, what do I know? I do know, that I don't think Condi has a prayer in a presidential election. We like to take baby steps with this whole equality thing. A black women would have one helluva climb to win a presidential nomination, let alone an election. Truly, it's kind of sad.

Hoover
04-08-2005, 11:41 AM
These are the Republicans who will run who have no chance at winning it all.

Bill Frist
Rudy
Pataki
Newt
Santourm

I think for Republicans to win they need to find a rock solid Governor, who is conservative on the issues, but doesn't come off as a social neo-con.

I like Governor Owens from Colorado. However his recent Divorce might cause some problem, but I don't think that will matter much.

Hoover
04-08-2005, 11:42 AM
The Democratic Nominee will be Bill Richardson from NM, Trust me. Best person they have.