+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: The Kyra Memorial Spin Room (/forum-540.html)
+---- Thread: Obituary (/thread-233115.html)
Pages: 1 2
Obituary - Machiavelli - 03-06-2007 04:54 PM
Personal Information
Name: The Republican Party
Place and date of birth:Ripon, Wisconsin 1850
Cause of Death:George W. Bush
Spouse
- georgia_tech_swagger - 03-06-2007 05:12 PM
There's this guy named Rudy Giuliani.
He's going to destroy the Dems in 2008.
He'll be labeled a Republican, even if he's much more Libertarian / non religious right Republican like GW Bush.
You should become familiar with him.
He'll be your next President.
- OUGwave - 03-06-2007 06:02 PM
georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:There's this guy named Rudy Giuliani.
He's going to destroy the Dems in 2008.
He'll be labeled a Republican, even if he's much more Libertarian / non religious right Republican like GW Bush.
You should become familiar with him.
He'll be your next President.
I'll believe it when I see it.
I have a feeling that those giving him such a huge lead in the polls haven't yet been made aware of the tumultuousness in his personal life over the last 8 years.
We tend not to knowingly elect leaders who are estranged from their children and tell their wives they are divorcing them in a live press conference.
If the evangelicals don't are willing to compromise on policy -- they may just end up being flat creeped out by the guy, and feel like he doesn't really represent their values.
In steps Romney, who while has waffled in the past, clearly supports their position now -- and he has the family life and history that reflects their values.
If the GOP social conservative base is still in the mood to compromise in 6 months, they'll be far more to make their compromise on Romney, in my opinion.
People forget, that in a splintered primary, its not theoretical poll support that matters, its the organizational power of the campaign that matters. And evangelicals are far more organized in this regard than libertarians.
Case in point, Romney's victory in the CPAC straw poll. Splintered poll, nobody coalescing any comprehensive support. Romney wins because he organizes more supporters to come to the conference on his behalf than any other candidate. I'm not saying that this is reflective of a primary exactly -- though it is reflective of a caucus -- but it illustrates the power of organization, where I think 8 months from now, Romney will have a huge advantage.
- BleedsHuskieRed - 03-06-2007 06:20 PM
georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:There's this guy named Rudy Giuliani.Yes he will.
He's going to destroy the Dems in 2008.
He'll be labeled a Republican, even if he's much more Libertarian / non religious right Republican like GW Bush.
You should become familiar with him.
He'll be your next President.
Re: Obituary - ShoreBuc - 03-06-2007 07:26 PM
[quote="Machiavelli"]Personal Information
Name: The Republican Party
Place and date of birth:Ripon, Wisconsin 1850
Cause of Death:George W. Bush
Spouse
Re: Obituary - Ninerfan1 - 03-06-2007 08:40 PM
[quote="Machiavelli"]Personal Information
Name: The Republican Party
Place and date of birth:Ripon, Wisconsin 1850
Cause of Death:George W. Bush
Spouse
- Machiavelli - 03-06-2007 08:53 PM
Bush has set you guys back to the Nixon years. One day you'll wake up from this punch drunken stupor and realize this. It makes you wonder why anyone would go for a second term. He has done far more damage to the Republican paty than you can even fathom. Watch how those statistics Shorebuc had reverses over the next decade. I really don't think you even have a clue how bad this is going to be for you on the right. It's going to be a far different party going forward.
Your party is trumpeting a three timed married, pro-gun control, pro choice president.
- Ninerfan1 - 03-06-2007 09:14 PM
Machiavelli Wrote:Bush has set you guys back to the Nixon years. One day you'll wake up from this punch drunken stupor and realize this. It makes you wonder why anyone would go for a second term. He has done far more damage to the Republican paty than you can even fathom. Watch how those statistics Shorebuc had reverses over the next decade. I really don't think you even have a clue how bad this is going to be for you on the right. It's going to be a far different party going forward.
Your party is trumpeting a three timed married, pro-gun control, pro choice president.
That's precious. Now how bout you answer my question.
- Tulsaman - 03-06-2007 09:51 PM
Ninerfan1 Wrote:That's precious. Now how bout you answer my question.
a question my my, that would imply there is logic in the spin room. ;-)
- RobertN - 03-06-2007 10:01 PM
georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:He'll be labeled a Republican, even if he's much more Libertarian / non religious right Republican like GW Bush.
Dude, the man has CONVERSATIONS with God!
- T-Monay820 - 03-06-2007 10:33 PM
RobertN Wrote:georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:He'll be labeled a Republican, even if he's much more Libertarian / non religious right Republican like GW Bush.
Yeah, its called prayer. Try it sometime.
- Jesterondirt - 03-07-2007 10:14 AM
Machiavelli Wrote:statisticscome on, the only statstics that Liberal/Dems pay attention to are ones created by Liberal/Dems. If I was given an assignment and told to poll 1000 people about their wages, and put together information on what the average person makes in that city, I could either A: Poll 1,000 of the wealthiest people in the city and make it look great or B: poll the poorest area of the city and make it look horrible.
- GrayBeard - 03-07-2007 10:15 AM
bleed blue and gold Wrote:Machiavelli Wrote:statisticscome on, the only statstics that Liberal/Dems pay attention to are ones created by Liberal/Dems. If I was given an assignment and told to poll 1000 people about their wages, and put together information on what the average person makes in that city, I could either A: Poll 1,000 of the wealthiest people in the city and make it look great or B: poll the poorest area of the city and make it look horrible.
Or C, make up the numbers that suit your agenda.
- ShoreBuc - 03-07-2007 10:53 AM
Machiavelli Wrote:Bush has set you guys back to the Nixon years. One day you'll wake up from this punch drunken stupor and realize this. It makes you wonder why anyone would go for a second term. He has done far more damage to the Republican paty than you can even fathom. Watch how those statistics Shorebuc had reverses over the next decade. I really don't think you even have a clue how bad this is going to be for you on the right. It's going to be a far different party going forward.
Your party is trumpeting a three timed married, pro-gun control, pro choice president.
Simply factually incorrect
Bush took power in 2000 with 221 Republicans in the HOR. Today the Republican party has 202 in the HOR for a net loss of 19.
Nixon took power in 1968 with 192 Republicans in the HOR and left office with 144 for a net loss of 48 seats.
The Republicans have 58 more seats in the HOR today then they did when Nixon left office.
Bush came to power with 50 Republicans in the Senate and today they have 49. Nixon came in power with 43 and left with 39.
Today the Republicans have 11 more Senators then when Nixon left office.
Just wanted to point out that while your comparison might make sense to you, there is no empirical data to back up your theory.
Throw in the fact that the Democrats won the election on an unpopular war and not their agenda. They also gained seats by running conservative candidates. Only a matter of time until the liberal leadership of Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Frank etc.. turn off the American electorate and they vote more conservatives into office.
If the Democrats get Hillary elected in 2008 she may have the same effect on the House, Senate, Governorships and state legislators that her husband had.
- JTiger - 03-08-2007 01:47 PM
georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:There's this guy named Rudy Giuliani.
He's going to destroy the Dems in 2008.
He'll be labeled a Republican, even if he's much more Libertarian / non religious right Republican like GW Bush.
You should become familiar with him.
He'll be your next President.
No way in hell he gets the nomination with 3 marriages, being pro-gun control, pro-abortion and pro-civil union. That guy is more liberal than I am.
- georgia_tech_swagger - 03-08-2007 01:51 PM
JTiger Wrote:georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:There's this guy named Rudy Giuliani.
He's going to destroy the Dems in 2008.
He'll be labeled a Republican, even if he's much more Libertarian / non religious right Republican like GW Bush.
You should become familiar with him.
He'll be your next President.
No way in hell he gets the nomination with 3 marriages, being pro-gun control, pro-abortion and pro-civil union. That guy is more liberal than I am.
The south is, in general, a good decade or more behind the rest of the country socially. Probably over a half century behind the rest of the world socially. It's not suprising he's more liberal socially. But please -- there's a difference between being "liberal" and "liberal socially". Rudy is very conservative fiscally -- and he'd do wonders for this country fiscally. It just happens I also agree with him socially... as do most Libertarians (which is, by definition, being fiscally conservative and socially liberal).
- JTiger - 03-08-2007 02:05 PM
georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:JTiger Wrote:georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:There's this guy named Rudy Giuliani.
He's going to destroy the Dems in 2008.
He'll be labeled a Republican, even if he's much more Libertarian / non religious right Republican like GW Bush.
You should become familiar with him.
He'll be your next President.
No way in hell he gets the nomination with 3 marriages, being pro-gun control, pro-abortion and pro-civil union. That guy is more liberal than I am.
The south is, in general, a good decade or more behind the rest of the country socially. Probably over a half century behind the rest of the world socially. It's not suprising he's more liberal socially. But please -- there's a difference between being "liberal" and "liberal socially". Rudy is very conservative fiscally -- and he'd do wonders for this country fiscally. It just happens I also agree with him socially... as do most Libertarians (which is, by definition, being fiscally conservative and socially liberal).
You fail to realize that the base of the republican party is the south. Without the south NO republican can win POTUS. That is a fact.
- GGniner - 03-08-2007 02:12 PM
Rudy's social "liberalism" is far different than any Democrat. He is atleast claiming anyway, that he will not appoint activist judges to push this type of liberalism through judicial fiat like the Democrats are doing. He actually understands federalism.
- OUGwave - 03-08-2007 03:09 PM
GGniner Wrote:Rudy's social "liberalism" is far different than any Democrat. He is atleast claiming anyway, that he will not appoint activist judges to push this type of liberalism through judicial fiat like the Democrats are doing. He actually understands federalism.
Indeed. I like the way he his ex-wife had to get a restraining order to keep him from bringing that homewrecker into their home for quickies and nightcaps.
This guy is worse than Clinton! [/i]
- RocketAlum - 03-12-2007 08:19 PM
Hey GTS
Is this the man that is gonna be the next president? Check out the pictures at the bottom.
http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=177555