April 14, 2010
— Jack M. Is this significant? Could be. Might indicate he isn't planning on running in 2012 as he likes raking in the Fox cash more than remaining in his "home turf". Might mean he is running because he wants to claim a more electorally important/delegate rich home state. Could mean neither option.
I don't care, really. I just wanted to type that headline.
Posted by: Jack M. at
12:47 PM
| Comments (96)
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.
Maybe he'll wait to start his campaign until Florida.
It worked for Rudy.
Ugh--I can't believe we even treat this guy seriously.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at April 14, 2010 12:52 PM (B+qrE)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at April 14, 2010 12:52 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: fozzy at April 14, 2010 12:53 PM (ccEuN)
Posted by: lorien1973 at April 14, 2010 12:53 PM (IhQuA)
Posted by: EC at April 14, 2010 12:53 PM (iWj1i)
Posted by: THE SAVE GUAM PROJECT at April 14, 2010 12:53 PM (ngD76)
Posted by: Waterhouse at April 14, 2010 12:53 PM (rOd1g)
It's not the end of the world... parties have losers and phonies succeed because great men can't survive in politics for long.
I think we need to admit that inexperience is less important that leadership capability and knowing what's right. Sucks, because of course Obama's inexperience is obviously a huge problem.
Paul Ryan. If you haven't heard him talk, give him a shot.
Sarah Palin ain't bad or anything. I'd happily replace Obama with her, but Paul Ryan is everything we hoped Fred Thompson would be.
Posted by: Chunky at April 14, 2010 12:57 PM (dUOK+)
Posted by: Jack M. at April 14, 2010 12:59 PM (Ncr1R)
Posted by: Michael Rittenhouse at April 14, 2010 12:59 PM (2QFX4)
Posted by: Rev. Bill Spooner at April 14, 2010 01:00 PM (kJXs1)
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at April 14, 2010 01:01 PM (svVYR)
Posted by: fozzy at April 14, 2010 01:01 PM (ccEuN)
Posted by: SlaveDog at April 14, 2010 01:01 PM (H6Jyg)
Posted by: joncelli at April 14, 2010 01:03 PM (RD7QR)
Posted by: alexthechick at April 14, 2010 01:03 PM (8WZWv)
Posted by: SlaveDog at April 14, 2010 01:03 PM (H6Jyg)
Classic statist. Raise taxes, move somewhere else.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at April 14, 2010 01:07 PM (mR7mk)
Oh? Is that an issue anymore?
Posted by: SlaveDog at April 14, 2010 05:03 PM (H6Jyg)
28Like Obama had any experience?
Posted by: Lemon Kitten at April 14, 2010 05:03 PM (0fzsA)
And how is that experiment working out for you?
Posted by: fozzy at April 14, 2010 01:08 PM (ccEuN)
Posted by: fozzy at April 14, 2010 05:04 PM (ccEuN)
George McFly?
Posted by: Jim in San Diego at April 14, 2010 01:09 PM (F09Uo)
There must be something seriously wrong with my wiring, cause I really like the guy.
Don't hate the playa, hate the game, yo.
Posted by: Max Power, WTF? at April 14, 2010 01:09 PM (q177U)
Damn, me too. Why all the hating, everyone?
Posted by: Maurice Clemmons at April 14, 2010 01:12 PM (svVYR)
Dat playa, couldn't get his ass-hat self out of the race when it was obvious he would never get the nomination, securing ultra squishy (now with extra placid flavor) McCain as our....still hurts me to remember it....nominee.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at April 14, 2010 01:13 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at April 14, 2010 01:15 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: ArizonaHaole at April 14, 2010 01:15 PM (THLN4)
Posted by: exdem13 at April 14, 2010 01:17 PM (lYKj1)
That's why God invented Clint Eastwood or somebody like him like in High Plains Drifter.
Posted by: robotgossip at April 14, 2010 01:17 PM (EiH7n)
This was a straight up poem, with like 20 stanzas, and you also attached a pic of the victim female blogger that you were serenading. It was fucking epic, and I would be sad to learn that all those words were lost...in time...like tears in rain.
Posted by: EC at April 14, 2010 01:17 PM (iWj1i)
I wish he would just fuck off and take his Hee Haw act with him.
Posted by: Uniball at April 14, 2010 01:20 PM (27iEn)
Posted by: spidly at April 14, 2010 01:20 PM (Q+4X0)
Fuck him forever.
Posted by: The War Between The Undead States at April 14, 2010 01:20 PM (svVYR)
Posted by: Samuel Adams at April 14, 2010 01:21 PM (nxUYP)
Posted by: ArizonaHaole at April 14, 2010 05:15 PM (THLN4)
He granted clemency to a man who later raped a child and then murdered 4 cops. He is unelectable. If he is the nominee, then the Dems could run a Nancy Pelosi / Harry Reid ticket and win.
Posted by: fozzy at April 14, 2010 01:21 PM (ccEuN)
Hee-Haw heard that and looks pissed.
Posted by: oblig. LIVE FROM TV HEBBIN at April 14, 2010 01:22 PM (x7Ao8)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 14, 2010 01:23 PM (fhx4g)
He needs everyone to love him so he won't do enough to fix things.
Posted by: Buzzsaw at April 14, 2010 01:24 PM (tf9Ne)
He's Bill Clinton with a Bible instead of floozies. Except a bit more totalitarian.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at April 14, 2010 01:24 PM (mR7mk)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at April 14, 2010 01:24 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: fozzy"
This ignored my point, for some reason. Why? Anyone with a brain realizes that Romney is a democrat and a liar and a big fan of huge entitlements, huge spending, health insurance mandates, and ... lying to us about his views.
And Huckabee... I won't even address him, he's clearly wrong.
But they have executive experience. Tons of experience.
As I said, my argument is that we have to admit that experience is MUCH less important than leadership and clarity on our nation's problems. Please find me someone who is up to Paul Ryan's level on this. PLEASE. If they have executive experience, I will be delighted. Sarah Palin's a good potential compromise, because she clearly 'gets it' while having some leadership experience.
But I suspect the people asking for experience want a lot more than Palin offers.
Instead of vaguely naming criteria you think are necessary, please just be honest and name your best candidate. If you have no candidate, then admit you can't beat Paul Ryan. If you do have one, and his name is Romney, just give it up. He's a terrible candidate. Romney ruined Massachusetts, and his success was with a corrupt olympics... and frankly it wasn't that impressive.
I want someone who can clearly and consistently articulate the problem with our nation's entitlement culture. I do not want someone who clearly changes their views over and over again as public opinion changes. That's disgusting to me.
Not trying to be an asshole. Please, go ahead and tell me who the credible candidates are to challenge Paul Ryan (and I don't even think Ryan will bother running... he's an example of my point).
As I said, the GOP has a problem with Romney and Baptist Romney (Huckabee) leading.
Posted by: Chunky at April 14, 2010 01:25 PM (dUOK+)
Well, that would be your first mistake. Might get 30% of the vote in '12. Didn't the bible say something about the anti-christ taking on different forms?
Huckabee is a nanny-state piece of shit hypocritical liar.
Posted by: Samuel Adams at April 14, 2010 01:25 PM (nxUYP)
Posted by: some wench at April 14, 2010 01:26 PM (uJBct)
Our nation is out of money and is screwing up foreign policy. That's what matters. huckabee is a progressive.
Posted by: Chunky at April 14, 2010 01:27 PM (dUOK+)
Posted by: exceller at April 14, 2010 01:30 PM (jx2Td)
He isn't.
Huckabee is about Huckabee.
Posted by: Uniball at April 14, 2010 01:30 PM (27iEn)
Sure Huckabee made mistakes and the issue with the criminal is hard to swallow, but that was one life, how many lives are damaged by Romneycare?
I refuse to defend Huckabee's action with the child rapist, while at the same time, I still believe he is more tolerable to social conservatives like myself and others. I'm voting for the guy not named Obama in 2012 but it would be easier if it was someone I respected. Right now aside from my fellow Texan Rick Perry and Huckabee, there is no one I really like in the GOP for 2012. I'll pull the lever, but might throw up a bit in my mouth while doing it if my vote is for Romney or Ryan or someone else who doesn't meet the criteria
Posted by: ArizonaHaole at April 14, 2010 01:43 PM (THLN4)
Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at April 14, 2010 01:50 PM (IoUF1)
Here's my post on Politico regarding Huck-a-buck.
I just love it when the dweebs chime in with derision about Huck's move to lessen the tax impact, knowing well they would make the same change if it were possible. The problem: it's difficult moving the double-wide.
Posted By: Cisco | April 14, 2010 at 04:42 PMPosted by: Fish at April 14, 2010 01:50 PM (M5t+h)
Posted by: ArizonaHaole at April 14, 2010 01:51 PM (THLN4)
Just when I think I've heard it all.
Posted by: The War Between The Undead States at April 14, 2010 01:57 PM (svVYR)
Posted by: T at April 14, 2010 01:58 PM (z9Awt)
Posted by: HeyWheresBarry at April 14, 2010 01:58 PM (gQLr2)
I think Romney will be formidable in the primary, but he lost to Mccain because he's not exactly the best politician.
I just don't understand why anyone would support someone who has claimed completely opposite paramount principles based on what is most convenient.
Everyone is entitled to change their mind, but to some extent, this is pretty ridiculous.
See you in 2012... I don't know exactly who will run and beat Romney. Hell, I strongly supported Romney myself when it was him or Mccain or Huckabee. But we're in serious trouble if this is our best candidate.
Not because Romney can't beat Obama. Obama's a disaster. But because Romney will also be a disaster. He's not good at business, doesn't understand the economy, and he's a fair weather republican. He inherited a lot of wealth and he's good at posing as a financial genius, but that's a myth.
Personally, I no longer think Palin is running, so it might be Huck versus Romney. That's the ugly reality.
But let's depart from ugly reality for a moment. Paul Ryan is simply a lot smarter than Romney. He's a better leader. He expresses himself on the economy much more intelligently. He's not afraid of being upstaged all the time and he's not a phoney. Romney has more experience, however some of that experience is extremely embarrassing. Experience is not a primary reason to elect a leader. Convictions are most important, and experience can back that up. IF you reject Ryan because he's not running, obviously I have to accept that's reasonable. But if you honestly prefer Romney to Ryan, you're probably deeply misguided.
Posted by: Chunky at April 14, 2010 02:06 PM (dUOK+)
Actually both creationists and Mormons willfully ignore facts. Native Americans are not genetically descended from Israelites............Game Over Mormons. At least with creationism, a day could equal a billion years.
Anyway, I'll vote for Not Obama, just don't get what people have against the former governor of Arkansas, I can think of lots of Republicans that have done far more to earn this level of scorn that get a free pass........Again Romneycare is modified Obamacare and Romney is proud of what he did to Massachusetts..........That's disturbing
Posted by: ArizonaHaole at April 14, 2010 02:07 PM (THLN4)
Posted by: Chunky at April 14, 2010 02:08 PM (dUOK+)
Posted by: ArizonaHaole at April 14, 2010 02:11 PM (THLN4)
It's like someone who is really into post-impressionism beating up on someone for liking modern art.
Posted by: Uniball at April 14, 2010 02:16 PM (27iEn)
Posted by: ArizonaHaole at April 14, 2010 02:19 PM (THLN4)
I believe it is possible to have a conservative candidate that doesn't have these problems that still can be successful on the national level. Besides Sara Palin (media has trashed her image), and Fred Thompson (yawn) I don't think we've seen him/her yet.
Posted by: Schlippy at April 14, 2010 02:25 PM (xm1A1)
No, but you throw out something that is obviously not a fact (Indians being descendants of Israelites), while believing in other silly stuff such as man walking on water, miracles, the flood, Adam and Eve, raising someone from the dead and on and on and on.
It's just silly ArizonaHaole.
Evangelicals don't have the market cornered on truth, no one does.
Posted by: Uniball at April 14, 2010 02:26 PM (27iEn)
How the hell do you loose a set of golden tablets that were revealed only 150 years ago? Or have a 'revelation' that oops, god doesn't really live on the moon with his seven wives.
Posted by: Schlippy at April 14, 2010 02:28 PM (xm1A1)
Posted by: ArizonaHaole at April 14, 2010 02:32 PM (THLN4)
It's all the same to me. Big deal, you can locate archeological evidence, but you can't prove actual shit happened. Locating a spot and proving something happened are two completely different things.
Shit, Paul is as much of a sham artist as old Joe. Did Paul ever meet or listen to Jesus? No, just claimed to have an experience, same with old Joe.
Half the New Testament is written by a guy who had zero exposure to Jesus.
Just saying Mormons have as much claim as evangelicals/mainstream Christians, no difference.
It comes down to taste, upbringing, and influence, nothing more nothing less.
Posted by: Uniball at April 14, 2010 02:35 PM (27iEn)
You don't believe in Jesus and Peter walking on water, miracles, Jesus raising himself from the dead, the flood?
Isn't the resurrection a key component to Christianity?
Posted by: Uniball at April 14, 2010 02:39 PM (27iEn)
Perhaps. I'm just saying some religions are definately easier to say "oh feck you, that's bullshit" than others. Mormons, scientologists, Branch davidians, etc etc I will laugh in their face whereas traditional Christians I can defend.
As to the Bible's authors, it's a pretty amazing book whether you're religious or not. Written by 88 authors over a period of thousands of years, and yes, you can find things with it, and it is an accurate account of a great deal of history (Torah / Old Testament goes back at least 5000 years I think). True or not, other religious texts don't hold a candle to it, for one thing because most other texts were written by one guy and his buddies, whereas the Bible spans a conspiracy of men over a long period of time from very different backgrounds, be they a Roman soldier (Paul) to a lawyer (Luke) to a fisherman (Matthew) to kings (David, Solomon) to slaves (Moses).
Shrug, yes I went to religion school, but am myself agnostic.
Posted by: Schlippy at April 14, 2010 02:50 PM (xm1A1)
Posted by: Funny, huh? at April 14, 2010 03:00 PM (SBIko)
The major difference between Christianity and the other religions you cited is time, time and political power.
Other than that, meh, they be the same to me.
No denying that there is some interesting stuff in the Bible, I have read it a number of times, and enjoy reading books about early Christianity. I just get a kick out of when evangelicals, who believe so strongly that they are right (where else have we seen this mindset) blast a newer religion because they believe so strongly that the other religion is wrong.
It's silly.
Having said that I have a tremendous respect for Christianity, the teachings, and Christian history. I just don't get the wretched self righteousness that comes with so many evangelicals.....including Fuckabee.
Posted by: Uniball at April 14, 2010 03:07 PM (27iEn)
My last pick of all would have been Juan McShamnesty.
Quite annoying.
Posted by: Schlippy at April 14, 2010 03:17 PM (xm1A1)
Fuckabee has never met a government program he his fauxpopulism didn't looooove.
Posted by: pottymouth at April 14, 2010 03:21 PM (Glxw+)
Some of you are missing the Huckabee forest for the Christian trees. I have met the man and as a man, he is slimy and conniving.
I was at the Coumbia, SC GOP debate in 2008 and watched him, and listened to him.
He and Duncan Hunter, both (and only) came over from the debate to FairTax rally, across the street. Hunter knew some things about the FT and was politely supportive. Huck knew nothing about it, and said so, but (and I loosely quote) said, "But whatever could get all you people to travel this far and produce such an impressive crowd must be great!" He met and greeted, afterwards and conveyed the same, whatever this FT stuff was, he wanted some.
Unfortunately, he became identified as a FT supporter and candidate, but he never learned anything about it and he spread nonsense about the proposed legislation in future debates and apppearances that is considered factual, always winging it. That's what he does and is.
He's an opportunist with a folksy tale and no real compunction to stick with facts, or do heavy lifting. If he saw, especially during that campaign, a large group wearing Nikes and black sweatsuits, he would have seen ground troops and donations, then claimed to be waiting for the aliens.
It was the avaricious gleam in his eye and his complete and continuing insincerity that I found defining. Two years later and he is still working the same sideshow act for all it is worth. I happen to support the idea of the FT, but don't hold it against people that do not. However, I have a special disdain for fakes. Huckabee is a fake, to his core, and he knows it. He seems to drift through life amazed that some people will reliably fall for his act.
Don't fall for his act.
Posted by: Cjrun at April 14, 2010 03:40 PM (thWJh)
Posted by: Snorty McBrearty at April 14, 2010 03:50 PM (+76J/)
Posted by: Guy Dudebro at April 14, 2010 03:53 PM (/PdK/)
Romney seems to be a good honorable family guy, like a lot of mormons. I think his religion is just damn irrelevant, though I think South Park nailed the reasons it's goofy. Huckabee is not a reasonable proxy for his religion, though.
Posted by: Chunky at April 14, 2010 04:04 PM (dUOK+)
Posted by: Jones at April 14, 2010 05:09 PM (JL3qV)
That's huckin' filarious Jones!
Posted by: Dork B. at April 14, 2010 04:07 PM (6XsXA)
Posted by: richard mcenroe at April 14, 2010 04:50 PM (SPF0t)
Posted by: cackfinger at April 14, 2010 05:08 PM (TUBcJ)
Posted by: section9 at April 14, 2010 05:40 PM (H6lGz)
Posted by: Rewrite! at April 14, 2010 08:49 PM (d7Px0)
Posted by: Imprudent Speculator at April 15, 2010 06:03 AM (oPPsv)
Is this (Suzanne Sena poem) what you were looking for? Google site search, ie site:ace.mu.nu suzanne sena jack m
Posted by: Jay in Ames at April 15, 2010 09:06 AM (UEEex)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.3144 seconds, 224 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Vic at April 14, 2010 12:49 PM (QrA9E)