Tom Tancredo
in [Golf]
|
From: Carbon on 10 Feb 2010 18:13 On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 06:59:13 -0500, William Clark wrote: > In article <4b722746$0$30937$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > >> I actually want Palin to get the Republican nomination. However, 2012 >> is a long way away and there isn't much chance that she'd be able to >> fool the true believers long enough to make it happen. It's too bad, >> because she would have zero chance of winning the election. > > Fact is the TEA party convention drew far fewer people than > anticipated, and even with Fox News cheerleading it for all it was > worth, it was pretty much a bust for anyone other than the loony right > rednecks. And it appears the tea party movement has morphed into a for-profit organization seeking to milk its gullible supporters for money. $500+ to watch the dingbat read notes of her hand! Geez, what a racket.
From: Carbon on 10 Feb 2010 18:19 On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 07:07:22 -0500, BAR wrote: > In article <4b722746$0$30937$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... >> On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:46:19 -0600, bknight wrote: >>> On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:39:17 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> >>> wrote: >>>>On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:02:37 -0600, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: >>>> >>>>> You know Jack, I might be willing to discuss this with Mike, or >>>>> Ketchum, or another conservative, but you, and a couple of others >>>>> here are so inane with the ultra-right messages that I won't waste >>>>> my time. Of all the posts that you've delivered here for instance >>>>> the one about Palin possibly being elected president renders you >>>>> certifiable insane. >>>> >>>> Right now, the polls show that she's the leading contender for the >>>> Republican nomination. I'd gladly vote for her over Obama. >>> >>> That figures. You have no common sense. >> >> I actually want Palin to get the Republican nomination. However, 2012 >> is a long way away and there isn't much chance that she'd be able to >> fool the true believers long enough to make it happen. It's too bad, >> because she would have zero chance of winning the election. > > Why? Are you going to be registered to vote by ACORN? Are you going to > help someone meet their daily quota numerous times? I win again.
From: Carbon on 10 Feb 2010 18:30 On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:53:39 -0800, John B. wrote: > On Feb 9, 9:39 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:02:37 -0600, bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote: >> >>> You know Jack, I might be willing to discuss this with Mike, or >>> Ketchum, or another conservative, but you, and a couple of others >>> here are so inane with the ultra-right messages that I won't waste >>> my time. Of all the posts that you've delivered here for instance >>> the one about Palin possibly being elected president renders you >>> certifiable insane. >> >> Right now, the polls show that she's the leading contender for the >> Republican nomination. I'd gladly vote for her over Obama. > > Right now, the polls have no predictive value whatsoever. That is certainly true. And if Palin is serious about running for the Republican nomination she'll somehow have to fool people for another two years. It's hard to imagine her making it that long without finding a way to torpedo her own boat.
From: Carbon on 10 Feb 2010 18:43 On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 23:07:50 -0800, dene wrote: > "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > news:4b722885$0$30937$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >> On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:59:47 -0500, BAR wrote: >>> In article <4b71f275$0$4941$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, >>> nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... >>>> On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 23:09:32 -0800, dene wrote: >>>>> <bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:a2p1n551rk6l1347r88pr3qlrmrk7cbpsn(a)4ax.com... >>>>>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 03:46:50 GMT, assimilate(a)borg.org wrote: >>>>>>> On 8-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jury is still out on Palin. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In what respect, Bill? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> she is still active and could serve in public office again. >>>>>> >>>>>> If the GOP has any possibility of winning in '12 it sure won't be >>>>>> with her on the ticket. >>>>> >>>>> Agree....for now, but look how many dismissed Ronald Reagan as a B >>>>> movie star. Somehow...he turned out ok. She could evolve into a >>>>> serious contender but as it stands now, she has zippo chance of >>>>> becoming our next President in 2012. >>>> >>>> That is very hard to imagine. Palin is a dull normal, unfit for >>>> high office even as a Republican. I just can't see her fooling >>>> enough voters to win a national election. >>> >>> Whom did you vote for in November of 2008 for POTUS? >> >> I win. > > No....you got fooled. I thought Obama was going to beat Hillary back when nearly everyone assumed she would win. I knew if he got the nomination he would beat whoever the Republicans nominated. And then of course McCain picked the dingbat and "solved" the financial crisis, and by then the inevitable was obvious to everyone. I also said that Obama is more of a pragmatic centrist than either the right or left realizes, that the far left would feel betrayed even as the center right found they could work with him. From where I sit, I'm one of the few who didn't get fooled.
From: David Laville on 10 Feb 2010 19:14
On 09 Feb 2010 03:48:20 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips: > >"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 >percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but >Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the >Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the >South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and >become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding >from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable >arrangement with the local Democrats." Very clever Carby, make sure to use only what you want people to see so it supports your argument. This is what you didn't include in that first sentence: "Although the phrase "Southern strategy" is often attributed to former Richard Nixon strategist turned liberal political commentator Kevin Phillips, he did not originate it,[1] but merely popularized it.[2] In an interview included in a 1970 New York Times article, he touched on its essence:" Tell us Carby, the person who always demands "objectivity", why did you leave out that little piece of information that identified Phillips as a liberal? I'll ask you again, name this masses of racist migrating over to the republicans. David Laville G.S.E.M. The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor |