2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

[dxmnkd316]

Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

Either way, he'll end up going senile early in his term. Reagan was bad enough, we dodged a bullet on McSame, and now people want to elect another old coot?

Yeah, and that old piece of **** FDR. Man, these old people make such ****ty presidents...

 

[leswp1]

Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

Ron Paul?, you may not like him but his IQ is hardly football score like

Agreed. I may not follow all his logic but he can at least sound coherent. I think he didn't live there long enough for it to count.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

No prob.

 

[Rover]

Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

This is not a "birther" matter, notwithstanding your fervant hopes. Releasing his transcripts (all of them, not just Harvard Law) would accomplish exactly what releasing Perry's transcripts did. No more, no less.

So, again, what do you hope to learn? I personally could care less about Obama, Perry, Romney, Gingrich, or Huntsman's transcripts. Bachmann and Cain's might be amusing however.... (as they're both bat chit crazy)

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

Yeah, and that old piece of **** FDR. Man, these old people make such ****ty presidents...

FDR was 51 when he was elected and 63 when he died.

 

[Rimbaud]

Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

FDR was 51 when he was elected and 63 when he died.

Facts have no place in an argument!

 

[Rover]

Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

This is very interesting. Although its just one poll of course, it seems that the GOP campaign is actually making the party more unfavorable to the electorate.

http://www.people-press.org/2011/12/06/nomination-race-hurting-gop-but-not-helping-obama/

Of particular interest is the independents seeing that Dems and GOP'ers are probably going to vote their party. 20% of Indy's think worse of Obama since the GOP campaign started, which makes sense. But, 29% think worse of the Republicans. Yikes. Then 10% feel better about the GOP, but 14% feel better about Obama. I always thought the purpose of a campaign was to improve your favorables while bringing down the other guys. It would be one thing if any of these candidates were starting out with a reservior of good will, but I haven't seen any evidence of that.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

Thought experiment.

This just struck me:

What happens if (when) Gingrich comes unglued before Iowa? What does the GOP do if Paul actually wins IA and finishes second in NH? Do they fly into Romney's waiting arms or do they actually go through Round 2 with one of the Recycled Anti-Romneys?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

Gingrich and Romney. The GOP is a ffffing joke.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

FDR was 51 when he was elected and 63 when he died.

As I'm sure you're aware, the problem with Roosevelt was that he was a dead man walking in '44 and that fact was carefully covered up by Democrats and their pals in the media. Doubtful he could get away with that today. Those late photos showed an obviously unwell person, which would raise questions today.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

So, again, what do you hope to learn? I personally could care less about Obama, Perry, Romney, Gingrich, or Huntsman's transcripts. Bachmann and Cain's might be amusing however.... (as they're both bat chit crazy)

Probably nothing. On the other hand, shouldn't the Sun King be held to the same standards as the governor of Texas? You're free to be indifferent to the transcripts if you chose. But your dual standard here is rather blatant. Presidential candidates release their tax returns, why not transcipts? Especially since Obama's alleged academic accomplishments are such a critical part of his biography. And assertions of his academic superiority are issued by the MSM hourly.

 

[walrus]

Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

Gingrich and Romney. The GOP is a ffffing joke.

Then again, so is Obama

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

Then again, so is Obama

Partisanship aside, what makes you think so? I'm really disappointed with Obama (though for reasons which I would think would make you like him more -- on almost everything important he's governed either center* or even center-right), but I wouldn't call him a "joke." IMHO Dubya was a joke (albeit one in very bad taste) and Quayle was, each in the sense of being obvious intellectual lightweights who probably shouldn't even have been trusted with running a corner store let alone the country, but other than that I wouldn't call any President or VP since the 19th century a joke. (FWIW I wouldn't call Romney a joke either; Gingrich I don't think is a joke, he's the sort of Grand Guignol candidate that would clean up in virtually any Gubernatorial race -- I can't see him as president but, meh, we've had far worse.)

* thinking about it, maybe that's not quite correct. What Obama really has been is the consummate Establishment president, like Bush Senior was or, better example, Gerald Ford. His governance isn't left or right, it's just Status Quo. It's particularly galling because he ran as the Anti-Establishment candidate -- everybody does but he even more than usual. It's as if George McGovern had been elected and morphed into Nixon right there on the dais as he took the oath.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

Partisanship aside, what makes you think so? I'm really disappointed with Obama (though for reasons which I would think would make you like him more -- on almost everything important he's governed either center* or even center-right), but I wouldn't call him a "joke." IMHO Dubya was a joke (albeit one in very bad taste) and Quayle was, each in the sense of being obvious intellectual lightweights who probably shouldn't even have been trusted with running a corner store let alone the country, but other than that I wouldn't call any President or VP since the 19th century a joke. (FWIW I wouldn't call Romney a joke either; Gingrich I don't think is a joke, he's the sort of Grand Guignol candidate that would clean up in virtually any Gubernatorial race -- I can't see him as president but, meh, we've had far worse.)

* thinking about it, maybe that's not quite correct. What Obama really has been is the consummate Establishment president, like Bush Senior was or, better example, Gerald Ford. His governance isn't left or right, it's just Status Quo. It's particularly galling because he ran as the Anti-Establishment candidate -- everybody does but he even more than usual. It's as if George McGovern had been elected and morphed into Nixon right there on the dais as he took the oath.

Tell Boeing that Obama doesn't govern from the left. And reread Andy Stern's op-ed about how wonderful things are in China. Stern is a major union goon and has visited the WH over 50 times. And there's the little matter of using every trick in the book to pass legislation that requires Americans to buy something many (most?) of them don't want. Obama is completely in thrall to the unions. That's only "status quo" if you're George Meany.

 

[Rover]

Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

As I'm sure you're aware, the problem with Roosevelt was that he was a dead man walking in '44 and that fact was carefully covered up by Democrats and their pals in the media. Doubtful he could get away with that today. Those late photos showed an obviously unwell person, which would raise questions today.

Talking to people who remember those days, it was well known to the public that Roosevelt would probably not survive throughout his term. He himself was said to be aware of this. However, would you truly expect the public to switch Presidents in the middle of the worst war in world history? Knowing the GOP's long record of appeasment and isolationism in those days, electing Dewey most likely would have been a disaster.

 

[walrus]

Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

Partisanship aside, what makes you think so? I'm really disappointed with Obama (though for reasons which I would think would make you like him more -- on almost everything important he's governed either center* or even center-right), but I wouldn't call him a "joke." IMHO Dubya was a joke (albeit one in very bad taste) and Quayle was, each in the sense of being obvious intellectual lightweights who probably shouldn't even have been trusted with running a corner store let alone the country, but other than that I wouldn't call any President or VP since the 19th century a joke. (FWIW I wouldn't call Romney a joke either; Gingrich I don't think is a joke, he's the sort of Grand Guignol candidate that would clean up in virtually any Gubernatorial race -- I can't see him as president but, meh, we've had far worse.)

* thinking about it, maybe that's not quite correct. What Obama really has been is the consummate Establishment president, like Bush Senior was or, better example, Gerald Ford. His governance isn't left or right, it's just Status Quo. It's particularly galling because he ran as the Anti-Establishment candidate -- everybody does but he even more than usual. It's as if George McGovern had been elected and morphed into Nixon right there on the dais as he took the oath.

The status quo is what needs to hit the road, its what got us in this mess

Here is an example, Obama makes GE ceo the job czar, what does GE do with its XRAY division, move it to China after 100 years in Wisconsin. What the F kind of Job Czar is that, we can move our jobs overseas but keep your jobs here?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/ge.asp

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

FDR was 51 when he was elected and 63 when he died.

Considering the average life expectancy was only 62 in 1940, I think that's **** near on par with someone being elected at 72-75 today. Man, I guess the fact-axe swings both ways...

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

Talking to people who remember those days, it was well known to the public that Roosevelt would probably not survive throughout his term. He himself was said to be aware of this. However, would you truly expect the public to switch Presidents in the middle of the worst war in world history? Knowing the GOP's long record of appeasment and isolationism in those days, electing Dewey most likely would have been a disaster.

It is utter nonsense to suggest that it was "well known that Roosevelt would probably not survive throughout his term." The "people who would remember those days" are completely wrong. Millions of Americans were only vaguely aware that Roosevelt was crippled, let alone that he was dying. And you conveniently overlook the fact that a Roosevelt withdrawal wouldn't automatically result in a Dewey victory. The Democrats would have nominated somebody and the campaign would largely be along the lines of "finishing the dying president's conduct of the war." And electing Dewey would have made virtually no difference in the outcome of the war anyway--in it's closing months, with victory in sight. It's fatuous nonsense to suggest his isolationism before the war (and I believe you're confusing Dewey with Willkie) would have made any significant difference. Was he going to call off Operation Overlord? Ridiculous. Was he going to give Japan a pass after Pearl Harbor and the Bataan death march? Je le doute. And if Roosevelt knew he would be unable to serve out his term, by what twisting of logic do you approve of his fraud? Forgive me, but your post and the "facts" it adduces, is delusional.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

Talking to people who remember those days, it was well known to the public that Roosevelt would probably not survive throughout his term. He himself was said to be aware of this. However, would you truly expect the public to switch Presidents in the middle of the worst war in world history? Knowing the GOP's long record of appeasment and isolationism in those days, electing Dewey most likely would have been a disaster.

1. In the grand scheme of things who gives a rip?
2. Why do you even bother in general with him?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

1. In the grand scheme of things who gives a rip?
2. Why do you even bother in general with him?

It's a good thing most Americans have slightly higher standards for historical accuracy than you.