Sam is just PERPLEXED at how to attack women, now that the libs have realized they need to convince Hillary's supporters to vote for the man that threw their woman's hopes and dreams under the same bus that sits atop Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan. HO HO HO
^ I didn't read this post - I suppose it would be too much for me to expect that the panicky "Hail Sarah" pass inspired him to take the bet
GOP - 2000 2005 Dems - waiting. For the sustainability of the country, hopefully it'll be a while before they get a chance.
Oh, it's a GLORIOUS DAY when the libs have had their momentum from the Sermon on Mount Ignoramus be completely and utterly destroyed by the brilliant choice of a strong woman on the Republican ticket. What ever will the libs do? They are caught with their own t*tties twisted now that they must suffer the indignity of restraining their attacks on this strong woman (Palin) while also kissing up to the hairy armpits of Hillary supporters. HO HO HO
I did not report this post for obvious trolling, which I could have done. It is off topic, and geared to steer conversation away from the topic of 2nd generation affirmative action moves by the GOP. Take the Bet
Whats even more awesome is how you haven't posted one thing in support of Palin, or her actions or stances on issues, since she became the pick. You, obviously, have been gnawing on your fist in anger at McCain for flubbing it so badly.
Sorry I am talking about the Party of Nixon Reagan and Rove - you are discussing the Party of Lincoln. (died in the 60's cause of the negroes - sad but true).
A serious point that sets apart Rice/Powell is that htey would have been otherwise serious candidates for SOS due to their resumes apart from race/gender. You simply cannot say the same for Thomas or Palin.
See, I just don't understand this. The "sustainability of the country"? I know where you stand, issue wise, and I very much respect that. But can you honestly sit there and say, after the last 28 years, that democrats are a bigger threat to "the sustainability of the country" than republicans? Do I need to post the spending numbers for the 1 millionth time? I appreciate that you're looking forward to a sea change in the GOP, and that would be welcome by everyone but the most wealthy, if it happens. Until then, your statement doesn't seem to have any evidence from the last three decades. Quite bluntly, looking at the numbers, it looks like the GOP has been hell bent on bankrupting the country, particularly under Reagan and Bush II, until it could never be made sustainable again.
The stock answer from a regular Republican is that they're not "real republicans" becuase they spend too much money. I don't really understand how much more "real" that they can get - these guys implemented everything that GOP says it stands for.
The debt is the tail of the elephant of our financial crisis. The liabilities for entitlements are 5 times the current debt. W probably did the most damage to sustainability, but Clinton's raids on the Social Security trust fund did much more damage than HW's or Reagan's defecits.
thanks as usual for another thoughtful answer to my question, weslinder. We can agree on the Bush I at least. I'm not sure we will find common ground comparing Clinton versus Reagan's damage to the long term financial health of USA. Now go enjoy your convention and get off the computer! You have some schmoozing to do.
