Conquer Club

I can't even call Obama a fraud. He's exactly who I thought he was. It's America's fault for not knowing that in 2008. But that is neither here nor there. Assuming there won't be so many usueful idiots for him to use in 2012, it looks like he's going to be a one term president. So who would you like to see in the White House? That is what you're voting for but you can also say in the forum who you think it'll be.

No option for "I don't want Obama to lose" in 2012?

I really don't like the choices we have available:
Romney.... Meh. He might be tolerable. That's about the extent of it.
Bachman... Loud-mouthed idiot. Not a chance.
Palin........ A nicer version of Bachman. Not interested.
Pawlenty... He might be okay, and he seems fairly likeable, but he doesn't really stand out particularly well.
Gingrich.... Political has-been. His inability to remain committed to one woman (especially one in the hospital with cancer) doesn't inspire me about his ability to be committed to the good of the country.
Jindal....... His response to the State of the Union address really took this guy down a notch in my book. Whatever else he may be, he's not inspiring.
Bush........ Are we really ready for Bush III? I don't think we want to go down that road for a couple decades at least.
Watts...... Interesting possibility, but he's also something of a has-been. Will be tough to build his name recognition enough to give him any sort of a chance.
Paul........ I really like this guy (he's the only political candidate I've ever sent money to), but unfortunately most of the Republican party doesn't. He's also getting pretty old at this point. His son could be a good option in 2016 or 2020 assuming he wins his senate seat. We'll see.
Pence...... Who...? 'nuff said.
O'Reilly.... See "Bachman."

One other name that should be in the mix is Paul Ryan. If he doesn't run in 2012, put money on him as a serious contender in 2016.

InkL0sed wrote:No option for "I don't want Obama to lose" in 2012?

I didn't say that there aren't some useful idiots in his corner.

Doc_Brown wrote:I really don't like the choices we have available:
Romney.... Meh. He might be tolerable. That's about the extent of it.
Bachman... Loud-mouthed idiot. Not a chance.
Palin........ A nicer version of Bachman. Not interested.
Pawlenty... He might be okay, and he seems fairly likeable, but he doesn't really stand out particularly well.
Gingrich.... Political has-been. His inability to remain committed to one woman (especially one in the hospital with cancer) doesn't inspire me about his ability to be committed to the good of the country.
Jindal....... His response to the State of the Union address really took this guy down a notch in my book. Whatever else he may be, he's not inspiring.
Bush........ Are we really ready for Bush III? I don't think we want to go down that road for a couple decades at least.
Watts...... Interesting possibility, but he's also something of a has-been. Will be tough to build his name recognition enough to give him any sort of a chance.
Paul........ I really like this guy (he's the only political candidate I've ever sent money to), but unfortunately most of the Republican party doesn't. He's also getting pretty old at this point. His son could be a good option in 2016 or 2020 assuming he wins his senate seat. We'll see.
Pence...... Who...? 'nuff said.
O'Reilly.... See "Bachman."

One other name that should be in the mix is Paul Ryan. If he doesn't run in 2012, put money on him as a serious contender in 2016.

You might think your neighboor is the best guy for the job but this is about the most realistic options. If you don't like someone, just shrugging it off only ignores the reality of the situation. I did not like everyone that I posted, but that is who the front runners are at this point.

As for Paul, he'd probably be freaking awesome for the economy. But unfortunately he has his head up his ass when it comes to counter terrorism and until he grows a spine he's not going to be a serious contender.

Mitt - "Meh. He might be tolerable. That's about the extent of it." - Dude the guy kicks ass. He's not a meh type of guy. I'll grant you that I don't get too excited about any politician but in the scope of rooting for politicians he is not a meh guy. He freaking kicks ass and makes no apologies for being a real American.

Bachman is not a loud mouthed idiot. She's very knowledgable and she has values. And as far as politicians goes she's hot. That's a pretty big bonus when you think about it.

Pawlenty is very cooth. I lived in MN for much of his governorship. He knew who his enemies were and he avoided the head hunters at every turn. I think he's a decent politician but unfortunately he was swimming in 10,000 lakes of dems and his governorship had only mixed results. I would trust him but I'm not overly impressed with him is what I'm saying.

Gingrich like Guliani is an adulterer. When over half the country cheats anyways, I don't even factor that into the equation. And that his wife was sick makes no difference either. We are human and we get urges. I'm not condoning the behavior but let's get real. He's a smart savvy guy that understands efficiencies and is willing to preserve American values even if his own personal values have been out of whack at times. I'd vote for Gingich in a heartbeat. The man knows his stuff. But I don't know that he'd be a mainstream hit and he's not my favorite per se.

Jindal. I think it's hard to say. I think he's a shark but I could live with him being my shark. He'd get the country going again. And if the Middle East wants to keep warring with us, he'd show that it's not a Christian vs Muslim dillemma. It's a we're going to kill you before you kill us a-holes dillemma.

Watts is a bit of a has been but I'd say he's solid and he's the perfect example of why tea partiers aren't racist. They'd vote for him just as much as anybody.

Pence - Get used to the name. He won't likely win the nomination but it's very possible he'll be an x-factor in some of the primaries.

O'Reilly won't run. He probably never would run. He's not even republican and I don't think he necessarily wants to be. None the less, it's obvious that this guys is a rock. Americans would be dopey not to vote for him irregardless of their party.

I also forgot Huckabee. I don't hate Huck but I really hope he decides not to run.

I also skipped over Palin. I didn't buy the media drivel about her being an airhead although she certainly isn't all that sophisticated. I kinda thought she even gave McCain's campaign a boost and she exposed a lot of feminists and libs as frauds. And I think she could do an OK job but she kind of bugs me. Her personality just sort of grates on my nerves. I hope she doesn't win the nod. Oh and when I say her personality grates on my nerves, still not even half as much as Hillary does it to me, but yea.

Looks like I skipped over Jeb too. Personally I don't see Jeb ever running nor am I a huge fan of him personally. I would love to see him in the WH though. I would absolutely love it. To me, I could think of no better way of throwing the finger at the dishonest so-called elitists.

ViperOverLord wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:No option for "I don't want Obama to lose" in 2012?

I didn't say that there aren't some useful idiots in his corner.

Condescending much?

PS. Your opinions are roughly 21.6 times inferior to mine.

InkL0sed wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:No option for "I don't want Obama to lose" in 2012?

I didn't say that there aren't some useful idiots in his corner.

Condescending much?

PS. Your opinions are roughly 21.6 times inferior to mine.

You just said that your opinion is inferior all the same. I think it's good that you have at least something of a reality check. But yea I'll give you some credence to your assertion that I was being condescending. But I do have little respect for anybody that feels a need to support Obama. In most cases they are truly ignorant to be engaging in such a pursuit.

ViperOverLord wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:No option for "I don't want Obama to lose" in 2012?

I didn't say that there aren't some useful idiots in his corner.

Condescending much?

PS. Your opinions are roughly 21.6 times inferior to mine.

You just said that your opinion is inferior all the same. I think it's good that you have at least something of a reality check. But yea I'll give you some credence to your assertion that I was being condescending. But I do have little respect for anybody that feels a need to support Obama. In most cases they are truly ignorant to be engaging in such a pursuit.

BTW, I was not being condescending nearly as much as I was engaging in existentialism. The useful idiots are the ignorant masses that Lenin referred to as being neccessary for any communist revolution.

ViperOverLord wrote:
You just said that your opinion is inferior all the same. I think it's good that you have at least something of a reality check.

That'd be true if I had said "inferior as mine." As it stands, while I phrased it poorly, I said no such thing.

BTW, I was not being condescending nearly as much as I was engaging in existentialism. The useful idiots are the ignorant masses that Lenin referred to as being neccessary for any communist revolution.

Speaking of ignorance, you seem ignorant of the meaning of existentialism. Ironic.

You're still being condescending. It's OK when you merit it, like I do. Unfortunately, you don't. Sorry, you can't join the club.

InkL0sed wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:
You just said that your opinion is inferior all the same. I think it's good that you have at least something of a reality check.

That'd be true if I had said "inferior as mine." As it stands, while I phrased it poorly, I said no such thing.

BTW, I was not being condescending nearly as much as I was engaging in existentialism. The useful idiots are the ignorant masses that Lenin referred to as being neccessary for any communist revolution.

Speaking of ignorance, you seem ignorant of the meaning of existentialism. Ironic.

You're still being condescending. It's OK when you merit it, like I do. Unfortunately, you don't. Sorry, you can't join the club.

When you say that my opinion is 21.6 times more inferior than yours, that unequivocably states that your opinion is inferior to begin with.

Second off my reference to existentialism was appropriate. I was pointing to a general broader philosophy that envokes our collective and individual position within life. You are a useful idiot where as I am the one affected by that paramater. But just as I clearly understood your original meaning, so did you understand my meaning. As such I won't hold myself to a different account and I can call the exchange on that plane to be a draw. As for the political nature of the situation, I still have to claim that you're naive to support Obama and I challenge you to give me three good reasons why you would do so.

I think that somebody did this already in the "Uninformed Wishful Thinking 2012 Thread".


Perhaps this poll should just be merged with it?

King Doctor wrote:I think that somebody did this already in the "Uninformed Wishful Thinking 2012 Thread".


Perhaps this poll should just be merged with it?

Subjects repeat. I would imagine you are correct. That's OK.

ViperOverLord wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:
You just said that your opinion is inferior all the same. I think it's good that you have at least something of a reality check.

That'd be true if I had said "inferior as mine." As it stands, while I phrased it poorly, I said no such thing.

BTW, I was not being condescending nearly as much as I was engaging in existentialism. The useful idiots are the ignorant masses that Lenin referred to as being neccessary for any communist revolution.

Speaking of ignorance, you seem ignorant of the meaning of existentialism. Ironic.

You're still being condescending. It's OK when you merit it, like I do. Unfortunately, you don't. Sorry, you can't join the club.

When you say that my opinion is 21.6 times more inferior than yours, that unequivocably states that your opinion is inferior to begin with.

Second off my reference to existentialism was appropriate. I was pointing to a general broader philosophy that envokes our collective and individual position within life. You are a useful idiot where as I am the one affected by that paramater. But just as I clearly understood your original meaning, so did you understand my meaning. As such I won't hold myself to a different account and I can call the exchange on that plane to be a draw.

This is wrong on all counts, but I'm tired so I won't explain why. Trust me, if you can (who am I kidding?).

As for the political nature of the situation, I still have to claim that you're naive to support Obama and I challenge you to give me three good reasons why you would do so.

No

ViperOverLord wrote:Subjects repeat.

They do! Oh how they do!

Over and over and over and over and over again those subjects repeat themselves, like oily waves rising from a soiled lagoon. Always very loudly they come, very boldly, with a certainty that disguises their wishful nature. Yet they never seem to drag any kind of evidence or rational backing behind them. They repeat again and again, like some kind of angry tide, endlessly crashing against the beach of reason, thundering with impotent frustration against the pebbles of reality, but ultimately receding each evening back to the deep dark waters of the gulf of illogic.

Man, I'm not an Obama fan, but if that's the competition...yuck.

InkL0sed wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:
You just said that your opinion is inferior all the same. I think it's good that you have at least something of a reality check.

That'd be true if I had said "inferior as mine." As it stands, while I phrased it poorly, I said no such thing.

BTW, I was not being condescending nearly as much as I was engaging in existentialism. The useful idiots are the ignorant masses that Lenin referred to as being neccessary for any communist revolution.

Speaking of ignorance, you seem ignorant of the meaning of existentialism. Ironic.

You're still being condescending. It's OK when you merit it, like I do. Unfortunately, you don't. Sorry, you can't join the club.

You have added no value to this discussion. I said to name three good things about Obama and you can't do it. You are dismissed.

King Doctor wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:Subjects repeat.

They do! Oh how they do!

Over and over and over and over and over again those subjects repeat themselves, like oily waves rising from a soiled lagoon. Always very loudly they come, very boldly, with a certainty that disguises their wishful nature. Yet they never seem to drag any kind of evidence or rational backing behind them. They repeat again and again, like some kind of angry tide, endlessly crashing against the beach of reason, thundering with impotent frustration against the pebbles of reality, but ultimately receding each evening back to the deep dark waters of the gulf of illogic.

You talk prettier than a five dollar whore.

Frigidus wrote:Man, I'm not an Obama fan, but if that's the competition...yuck.

I think it's about half and half. Half are fairly worthy and half are meh. But hey at least your choice is not Obama or Hillary. Gag!

Mitt is solid though. If Republicans didn't have their heads up their _________, he would have handed Obama his ___ in 2008. Well maybe not. All the 5 year-olds showed up to vote in the 'historic election.' But I like him if he gets the nod in 2012.

Doc_Brown wrote:Watts...... Interesting possibility, but he's also something of a has-been. Will be tough to build his name recognition enough to give him any sort of a chance.

Oklahoma would be a "lock" though. <grin>

ViperOverLord wrote:You might think your neighboor is the best guy for the job but this is about the most realistic options. If you don't like someone, just shrugging it off only ignores the reality of the situation. I did not like everyone that I posted, but that is who the front runners are at this point.

Was the "neighbor" comment in reference to my suggestion of Paul Ryan? He's got a lot better name recognition nation-wide than does Mike Pence, though this morning I did recall that I've seen his name before, but I still can't recall any specifics about him unlike with Ryan. Ryan's "Roadmap" is very reminiscent of Gingrich's "Contract with America," and I think Republicans will do a lot better this fall and in 2012 if they unify around a message along those lines.

ViperOverLord wrote:As for Paul, he'd probably be freaking awesome for the economy. But unfortunately he has his head up his ass when it comes to counter terrorism and until he grows a spine he's not going to be a serious contender.

Ah. You're one of those guys that listened to all the spin about Paul "blaming America" and being part of the "9-11 truthers." In reality, he was advocating the same foreign policy that Bush did back in 1999 and 2000. It's too bad the former liberals turned the dominant foreign policy theory of the Republican party into neoconservativism. The traditional conservative position has its roots in libertarian thought, while the neoconservatives continue in the liberal Wilsonian thought. I guess it makes sense that if you don't really want the government to be any smaller but you also want it to be less intrusive in your life that you decide to make it more involved in foreign countries.

ViperOverLord wrote:Bachman is not a loud mouthed idiot. She's very knowledgable and she has values. And as far as politicians goes she's hot. That's a pretty big bonus when you think about it.

I give you Bachmann's level of knowledgeability: http://www.politifact.com/personalities ... tatements/

ViperOverLord wrote:Looks like I skipped over Jeb too. Personally I don't see Jeb ever running nor am I a huge fan of him personally. I would love to see him in the WH though. I would absolutely love it. To me, I could think of no better way of throwing the finger at the dishonest so-called elitists.

I lived in Florida for much of Bush's tenure as governor, and I'd be okay with him as president, all things being equal, and I think he would have done a better job than his brother. But we haven't had a great track record with that family in the White House, and I don't think the country would stand for another Bush. Regardless of Jeb's policies, if he was the nominee, he'd do about as well as a brother or son of Richard Nixon would have in 1976 or 1980.

Woodruff wrote:

Doc_Brown wrote:Watts...... Interesting possibility, but he's also something of a has-been. Will be tough to build his name recognition enough to give him any sort of a chance.

Oklahoma would be a "lock" though. <grin>

Heh. Very true. Gotta lock up those key swing states you know!

I'm going with Tim Pawlenty, who seems to agree with my own views on government.

EDIT - Saw Doc Brown's message. I'm also a big Paul Ryan fan. His comments in The Great Healthcare Debate were outstanding and some of his ideas are excellent.

With the exception of Dr. Paul, who is too old to be competitive (he's older than ol' Saxi isn't he?!), all of these are IDRP (Institutional Democrat-Republican Party) candidates.

Supporting any of them over Obama (or Obama over any of them) is akin to the scene in Moon Over Parador where the people are assembled in the square in front of dictator Alfonse Sims presidential palace chanting the names of the candidate they're supporting in the upcoming Paradoran presidential election: "RED SIMS!" ... "No! BLUE SIMS!" ... "No! Vote RED SIMS!"

They look down on these demonstrations and laugh. They don't care if Obama is president or Pence is president, as long as an IDRP candidate is sitting in the White House. You're gladiators in a ring. But, at the end of the day there's only one winner: Caesar.

I'm reminded of ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA8drfZwnXQ

Huckabee!

ViperOverLord wrote:You talk prettier than a five dollar whore.

It's just a shame that you debate worse than one...