Palin for President in 2012!!

[JDFP]

I love the Republican way of electing people... If they failed in 2000!(Mccain) Lets try again in 08! If they failed in 08!(Romney) Lets try again in 12! The party of Rich old White men is nothing but a boys club, every time you fail. The party goes for the guy who lost too the guy who won(or lost) Let's see... it worked in 60' Nixon vs. 68' Nixon, Reagan in 76' vs. 80' Reagan, and probably times before that but I'm far beyond too damn lazy too look it up right now. In response to your comment on the Republican Party being an "Old White Men" party, that would be a bit like me calling the Democratic Party a party of "Jews, Blacks, and Hispanics" -- but I can't say that, because it would be 'racist', Anti-Semitic, or Anti-Diversity of me to say such a terrible thing, so how dare I even say such words! Amazing how you can claim things on one side of the fence, but to claim things on the opposite side of the fence automatically makes you either anti-Semitic, racist, or 'anti-diversity'. I guess that's just the American way. After-all, I'm part of the Republican Party, and we only care about rich white people, right?... j.p.

[Publius]

I love the Republican way of electing people... If they failed in 2000!(Mccain) Lets try again in 08! If they failed in 08!(Romney) Lets try again in 12! Neither of those guys was nominated the first time around. If you want to see an example of the party actually putting a candidate forward, losing, and trying again with the same guy, there's no better example than William Jennings Bryan, Democratic presidential nominee in 1896, 1900, and 1908. Never won. The next best example is Adlai Stevenson, another Democrat, who got pounded by Eisenhower in '52 and came back for more in '56. The only one on the Republican side is Thomas Dewey. He lost to FDR in '44, which was a forgone conclusion. Then he was nominated to run against Truman in '48, but he actually had a shot at winning that one.

[BillyRay]

After-all, I'm part of the Republican Party, and we only care about rich white people, right?.... See? You DO get it!

[darth los]

Yep, religion sure can get ugly... just look at the Crusades and the Inquisition! Nobody accepts the Spanish Inquisition! - 2D Nothing causes more stryfe than politics and religion and it seems as if we have the double whammy here. ---------- Post added at 01:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:32 PM ---------- See? You DO get it! Well, as a minority observing the GOP's behavior that's exactly what it looks like. And for the record, the tea baggers can't stand republicans either, they just like them better than the dems. The lesser of 2 evils if you will.

[BillyRay]

Well, as a minority observing the GOP's behavior that's exactly what it looks like. Hell, as the Whitest guy you'll probably ever meet that's exactly what it looks like...

[krakenslayer]

Let's see... it worked in 60' Nixon vs. 68' Nixon, Reagan in 76' vs. 80' Reagan, and probably times before that but I'm far beyond too damn lazy too look it up right now. In response to your comment on the Republican Party being an "Old White Men" party, that would be a bit like me calling the Democratic Party a party of "Jews, Blacks, and Hispanics" -- but I can't say that, because it would be 'racist', Anti-Semitic, or Anti-Diversity of me to say such a terrible thing, so how dare I even say such words! Amazing how you can claim things on one side of the fence, but to claim things on the opposite side of the fence automatically makes you either anti-Semitic, racist, or 'anti-diversity'. I guess that's just the American way. After-all, I'm part of the Republican Party, and we only care about rich white people, right?... j.p. I think his point was more that the Republican party is overwhelmingly, almost exclusively white (obviously not entirely), whereas the Democratic party is more "diverse". He's calling out a lack of "diversity" not a surfeit of it. Therefore it's not "anti-diversity". If there was an almost all-black party, for example, I don't think it would be hailed as "anti-diversity" to call it an all-black party. If anything, it would be "pro-diversity", by suggesting they should allow in more white members. I'm not taking sides here, it's just that I think Exatreides point was slightly mis-interpreted.

[Tricky]

You mean Obama isnt going to get re-elected? But I thought he was the second coming & that people were hysterically crying with joy when he won the last election? I said from the start he was just another spiv like Tony Blair was to the UK...

[darth los]

You mean Obama isnt going to get re-elected? But I thought he was the second coming & that people were hysterically crying with joy when he won the last election? I said from the start he was just another spiv like Tony Blair was to the UK... Well, he might be unpolpular with some demographics but he's still the president. And if you want to know how difficult it is to unseat an incumbentpresident just look at the 04' election. With the amount of fuck ups and lies the Bush administration had up until that point (the worst terrorist attack on American soil happened on his watch for christ's sake) and the man still got re-elected. So take that for what it's worth. Never underestimate Black Jesus !

[Tricky]

Well, he might be unpolpular with some demographics but he's still the president. And if you want to know how difficult it is to unseat an incumbentpresident just look at the 04' election. With the amount of fuck ups and lies the Bush administration had up until that point (the worst terrorist attack on American soil happened on his watch for christ's sake) and the man still got re-elected. So take that for what it's worth. Never underestimate Black Jesus ! Dude I know how you feel, we're having great difficulty trying to get rid of this thoroughly incompetant & traitorous Labour government we've been stuck with for the past 12 years! The longer they stay in power, the more they keep quietly changing the voting rules making it extremely difficult to get rid of them! If labour manage to win the election this year, then the UK is all but finished

[Publius]

Well, he might be unpolpular with some demographics but he's still the president. And if you want to know how difficult it is to unseat an incumbentpresident just look at the 04' election. With the amount of fuck ups and lies the Bush administration had up until that point (the worst terrorist attack on American soil happened on his watch for christ's sake) and the man still got re-elected. So take that for what it's worth. Never underestimate Black Jesus ! Or look at the '44 election. FDR had allowed the Pearl Harbor attack, which killed a bigger percentage of U.S. citizens than 9/11, with a lot more warning, but was still re-elected. A better comparison is probably Bill Clinton. Look at early 1995, more than halfway into his first term. Republicans had just taken control of both houses of Congress for the first time in decades, his approval ratings were in the tank, and practically every day the Rush Limbaugh show was playing parody songs about Clinton being a one-termer. But then he shifted to the center and worked with the Republicans to cut the deficit, and the economy turned around, while the Republicans nominated a weak candidate (Dole) in 1996. As a result he was handily re-elected. Obama is barely a year into his first term. So yeah, it's way too early to start guessing at his re-election chances.

[LouCipherr]

[bassman]

Lou wins the image of the year award. Not only is it funny....it's VERY easy to look at. You're my hero, lou.

[darth los]

Or look at the '44 election. FDR had allowed the Pearl Harbor attack, which killed a bigger percentage of U.S. citizens than 9/11, with a lot more warning, but was still re-elected. A better comparison is probably Bill Clinton. Look at early 1995, more than halfway into his first term. Republicans had just taken control of both houses of Congress for the first time in decades, his approval ratings were in the tank, and practically every day the Rush Limbaugh show was playing parody songs about Clinton being a one-termer. But then he shifted to the center and worked with the Republicans to cut the deficit, and the economy turned around, while the Republicans nominated a weak candidate (Dole) in 1996. As a result he was handily re-elected. Obama is barely a year into his first term. So yeah, it's way too early to start guessing at his re-election chances. It's interesting how it's the economy more than anything that decides these things. It's also fair to point out that this seems to almost exclusively happen to Democratic presidents. Not to offend anyone but it seems as if the reps believe that no democratic administration is legitimate (we saw it with Clinton and Carter as well) and that they are right on every issue and therefore only they know what's best for the country. Anything that deviates from that is considered an attack on the American way of life.

[LouCipherr]

Lou wins the image of the year award. Not only is it funny....it's VERY easy to look at. Thank you, thank you... no autographs please, just throw money.

[JDFP]

Not to offend anyone but it seems as if the reps believe that no democratic administration is legitimate (we saw it with Clinton and Carter as well) and that they are right on every issue and therefore only they know what's best for the country. Anything that deviates from that is considered an attack on the American way of life. Of course we're right, we're called the "RIGHT" wing for a reason. As far as the election of Obama goes, sure he's legitimate, but I attribute a great deal of his being elected to the continual downward spiral in our education system -- especially amongst younger voters. Take from that what you will. Democrats believe what they believe to be the "right" thing as well, otherwise they wouldn't try to push down our throats a highly flawed Health Care Bill that the majority of people don't want anyway because they think they know what the American people should really want. And cheat at it too (Reconciliation, ahem, as well as making some 'interesting' court-appointees -- because otherwise it won't ever get passed). And it is anti-American to deviate from our rightful way of thinking. Because otherwise you're, well, wrong. j.p.