AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 11, 2012 14:27:55 GMT -5
The Tea Party has faded since the August debt deal fiasco. They might be revived by the new budget proposal. Obama’s 2013 budget proposal launches election-year debate
By Lori Montgomery, Published: February 10
President Obama will send Congress a 2013 spending plan that would raise taxes on the rich and pump nearly $500 billion into new transportation projects over the next decade, launching an election-year debate over the budget that promises starkly different visions for managing government debt and the sluggish economy.
As they prepare to face voters in November, neither the president nor congressional Republicans are expected to roll out many new or potentially painful prescriptions for slowing the rise of the $15 trillion national debt. After failing repeatedly last year to forge a bipartisan consensus, few in either party see much point in trying again now.
Instead, Obama will on Monday reprise recommendations he unveiled last fall that seek to reduce borrowing by more than $3 trillion over the next decade while spending more in the short term to bring down persistently high unemployment.
The president’s blueprint calls for reductions in spending on federal health programs and the military, a small raise for federal workers and more than $1.5 trillion in new taxes on corporations, hedge-fund managers and the wealthy, in part through the expiration of the George W. Bush-era tax cuts on annual incomes of more than $250,000.
Obama also has called for changes to the tax code that would require households earning more than $1 million a year to pay at least 30 percent of their income in federal taxes, but senior administration officials said Friday that the blueprint will provide no additional details on how such a levy would be structured.
To achieve his debt-reduction goal, Obama would rely on an accounting maneuver that permits him to claim about $850 billion in savings over the next decade by ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a move Republicans have rejected as a gimmick. Obama would use a portion of those savings to finance new road and rail projects, rather than dedicating the full sum to lower deficits. Full article is here: www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obamas-2013-budget-proposal-looks-to-tame-national-debt/2012/02/10/gIQALfaC5Q_story.html?tid=pm_business_popAmazing. It's like Obama has a political mis-calculator he uses to make decisions. You really want to pick a fight over the budget in an election year after you run up $4 trillion in new debt? It's like picking a fight with Catholic voters on the one ObamaCare issue the regime consistently denied would be an issue-- government dictating healthcare down to the patient level. I've never seen a more tone deaf, narcissistic, arrogant leader in the United States at any level.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 11, 2012 14:36:06 GMT -5
The Tea Party has faded since the August debt deal fiasco. They might be revived by the new budget proposal. Obama’s 2013 budget proposal launches election-year debate
By Lori Montgomery, Published: February 10
President Obama will send Congress a 2013 spending plan that would raise taxes on the rich and pump nearly $500 billion into new transportation projects over the next decade, launching an election-year debate over the budget that promises starkly different visions for managing government debt and the sluggish economy.
As they prepare to face voters in November, neither the president nor congressional Republicans are expected to roll out many new or potentially painful prescriptions for slowing the rise of the $15 trillion national debt. After failing repeatedly last year to forge a bipartisan consensus, few in either party see much point in trying again now.
Instead, Obama will on Monday reprise recommendations he unveiled last fall that seek to reduce borrowing by more than $3 trillion over the next decade while spending more in the short term to bring down persistently high unemployment.
The president’s blueprint calls for reductions in spending on federal health programs and the military, a small raise for federal workers and more than $1.5 trillion in new taxes on corporations, hedge-fund managers and the wealthy, in part through the expiration of the George W. Bush-era tax cuts on annual incomes of more than $250,000.
Obama also has called for changes to the tax code that would require households earning more than $1 million a year to pay at least 30 percent of their income in federal taxes, but senior administration officials said Friday that the blueprint will provide no additional details on how such a levy would be structured.
To achieve his debt-reduction goal, Obama would rely on an accounting maneuver that permits him to claim about $850 billion in savings over the next decade by ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a move Republicans have rejected as a gimmick. Obama would use a portion of those savings to finance new road and rail projects, rather than dedicating the full sum to lower deficits. Full article is here: www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obamas-2013-budget-proposal-looks-to-tame-national-debt/2012/02/10/gIQALfaC5Q_story.html?tid=pm_business_popAmazing. It's like Obama has a political mis-calculator he uses to make decisions. You really want to pick a fight over the budget in an election year after you run up $4 trillion in new debt? It's like picking a fight with Catholic voters on the one ObamaCare issue the regime consistently denied would be an issue-- government dictating healthcare down to the patient level. I've never seen a more tone deaf, narcissistic, arrogant leader in the United States at any level. The Tea Party has faded since the August debt deal fiasco. They might be revived by the new budget proposal. Obama’s 2013 budget proposal launches election-year debate
By Lori Montgomery, Published: February 10
President Obama will send Congress a 2013 spending plan that would raise taxes on the rich and pump nearly $500 billion into new transportation projects over the next decade, launching an election-year debate over the budget that promises starkly different visions for managing government debt and the sluggish economy.
As they prepare to face voters in November, neither the president nor congressional Republicans are expected to roll out many new or potentially painful prescriptions for slowing the rise of the $15 trillion national debt. After failing repeatedly last year to forge a bipartisan consensus, few in either party see much point in trying again now.
Instead, Obama will on Monday reprise recommendations he unveiled last fall that seek to reduce borrowing by more than $3 trillion over the next decade while spending more in the short term to bring down persistently high unemployment.
The president’s blueprint calls for reductions in spending on federal health programs and the military, a small raise for federal workers and more than $1.5 trillion in new taxes on corporations, hedge-fund managers and the wealthy, in part through the expiration of the George W. Bush-era tax cuts on annual incomes of more than $250,000.
Obama also has called for changes to the tax code that would require households earning more than $1 million a year to pay at least 30 percent of their income in federal taxes, but senior administration officials said Friday that the blueprint will provide no additional details on how such a levy would be structured.
To achieve his debt-reduction goal, Obama would rely on an accounting maneuver that permits him to claim about $850 billion in savings over the next decade by ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a move Republicans have rejected as a gimmick. Obama would use a portion of those savings to finance new road and rail projects, rather than dedicating the full sum to lower deficits. Full article is here: www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obamas-2013-budget-proposal-looks-to-tame-national-debt/2012/02/10/gIQALfaC5Q_story.html?tid=pm_business_popAmazing. It's like Obama has a political mis-calculator he uses to make decisions. You really want to pick a fight over the budget in an election year after you run up $4 trillion in new debt? It's like picking a fight with Catholic voters on the one ObamaCare issue the regime consistently denied would be an issue-- government dictating healthcare down to the patient level. I've never seen a more tone deaf, narcissistic, arrogant leader in the United States at any level. I've never seen a more tone deaf, narcissistic, arrogant leader in the United States at any level. Oh no? Then try reading entry #18. The narcissistic arrogance expressed is practically pathological.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 11, 2012 14:43:27 GMT -5
I don't think the Tea Party is going anywhere. They may not have the rallies like before or even use the name but the Tea Party was just a big umbrella under which many conservatives expressed their concerns and frustrations with big government. Those feelings and the people with them are not going away even if the title "Tea Party" does. do you think the GOP will co-opt them, then? They keep trying. In all the analysis of the NV primary, there was certainly a lot of gloating that Romney got the conservative, and TEA Party voters so that was supposed to be the end of that discussion. All the talk of conservatives looking for an alternative to Romney was supposed to have been relegated to mythology. As it turns out, that wasn't necessarily the case. The ascendant conservative movement is a deeply rooted revival of fundamental Americanism. It's doctrines are found in the founding documents of The United States itself. And as a result, if there's ever a serious debate- not whether or not to, but how to return to our founding princples, then the TEA Party quite literally cannot lose. If instead, we fall victim to revisionist history, bogus arguments, and emotional appeals- then we will abandon the American ideal for tyranny. And it's really not far fetched to think we'll lose this war in the long run. After all, despotism is the historical norm. A few hundred year long spasm of liberty and natural rights aren't likely to change the entire course of human history without a vigilant, well-educated, ferocious minority willing to stand guard night and day against tyranny for all time. If we falter, it will not surprise me.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 11, 2012 14:45:12 GMT -5
#18 is very simple-- here, I'll boil it down for you: conservatives are right, and you are wrong. It's not "arrogant" if it's true.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 11, 2012 14:58:05 GMT -5
... The ascendant conservative movement is a deeply rooted revival of fundamental Americanism. It's doctrines are found in the founding documents of The United States itself. And as a result, if there's ever a serious debate- not whether or not to, but how to return to our founding princples, then the TEA Party quite literally cannot lose. If instead, we fall victim to revisionist history, bogus arguments, and emotional appeals- then we will abandon the American ideal for tyranny. ... The problem is that the "fundamental Americanism" that the "ascendant conservative movement" believes in is itself "revisionist history, bogus arguments, and emotional appeals". There is no actual time/place to which we can "return to" in which the "founding principles" were more than words on paper. We are actually closer to those principles today than the days when our founding fathers owned other human beings, indigenous populations were slaughtered, and women were banned from participating fully in public life.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 11, 2012 15:02:07 GMT -5
it seems that way to me. if Romney wins the nomination, and it is very likely he will, and loses in the election, they can say that the reason he didn't win is that he is not a TP'er. they will maintain political clout. the only way they lose clout is if Romney wins. does anyone see it differently? Interesting idea but I think it's more likely that conservatives in general would state that, if Romney lost the general election, that he won because he wasn't a true conservative rather than a Tea Partier. For better or worse, the GOP system where whoever wins the most votes get every single electoral vote (I think some states might have an acception) and allowing non Republicans to vote (again, some exceptions), often mean that the more conservative candidates tend to split the vote while the more moderate candidate wins the primary. It is what it is but in general a party needs a candidate close enough to the right/left to secure the base before seeming more moderate in the general to win the independents. If Obama is able to be painted as the socialist extremist that he is (tough to do with so much of the MSM protecting him), than a more moderate GOPer might win the day. Then again, history shows otherwise as the general election is littered with the failed candiacies of GOP moderates like McCain, Ford, and Dole. Older, stodgy, and moderate Republicans do not beat younger, charismatic, and left wing Democrats like Obama, Clinton, and Carter. Reagan was far more moderate than anyone running this year.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 11, 2012 15:09:18 GMT -5
It's simply untrue. People point to the bailout of Harley Davidson, Chrysler (the first time) and the TRA of 1986 as evidence that Reagan was a tax-raising, big spending, 'moderate' but that's just rubbish. Reagan terrorized Democrats AND the GOP establishment for 16 years.
I can't continue a discussion with anyone that thinks the Declaration is just words on paper. It's pointless.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 11, 2012 15:20:22 GMT -5
... I can't continue a discussion with anyone that thinks the Declaration is just words on paper. It's pointless. ... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men* are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ... *except those that I own
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 11, 2012 15:23:16 GMT -5
#18 is very simple-- here, I'll boil it down for you: conservatives are right, and you are wrong. It's not "arrogant" if it's true. your belief that it is that simple is, indeed, arrogant at best. or ignorant at worst.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 11, 2012 15:35:00 GMT -5
it is absolutely true. he was a pragmatist, not a revolutionary. he was not terribly dogmatic, either. and he was populist. a wonderful communicator. he was different than any of the guys running in the GOP right now in most, if not all of those ways.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 11, 2012 15:40:02 GMT -5
do you think the GOP will co-opt them, then? They keep trying. In all the analysis of the NV primary, there was certainly a lot of gloating that Romney got the conservative, and TEA Party voters so that was supposed to be the end of that discussion. All the talk of conservatives looking for an alternative to Romney was supposed to have been relegated to mythology. Romney polled almost identically in 2008 (when the TP didn't exist) to this year. the TP was not a factor in NV.As it turns out, that wasn't necessarily the case. The ascendant conservative movement is a deeply rooted revival of fundamental Americanism. It's doctrines are found in the founding documents of The United States itself. And as a result, if there's ever a serious debate- not whether or not to, but how to return to our founding princples, then the TEA Party quite literally cannot lose. If instead, we fall victim to revisionist history, bogus arguments, and emotional appeals- then we will abandon the American ideal for tyranny. And it's really not far fetched to think we'll lose this war in the long run. After all, despotism is the historical norm. A few hundred year long spasm of liberty and natural rights aren't likely to change the entire course of human history without a vigilant, well-educated, ferocious minority willing to stand guard night and day against tyranny for all time. If we falter, it will not surprise me. you are such a drama queen, Paul. seriously. the world will not end if Gingrich is not elected. the Tea Party is not permanent. and both liberals AND conservatives have guarded against tyranny. nobody owns that.
|
|
beenherebefore
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 3, 2012 17:07:23 GMT -5
Posts: 761
|
Post by beenherebefore on Feb 11, 2012 15:58:34 GMT -5
DJ posted: "if Romney wins the nomination, and it is very likely he will, and loses in the election, they can say that the reason he didn't win is that he is not a TP'er. they will maintain political clout.
the only way they lose clout is if Romney wins.
does anyone see it differently? "
Imo, that's part of what happened with Mr. McCain last time around, I also think that after seeing the result, i.e. Mr. O's approach to government, hopefully, many conservatives finally 'get it' that this cannot happen again.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 11, 2012 17:14:38 GMT -5
DJ posted: "if Romney wins the nomination, and it is very likely he will, and loses in the election, they can say that the reason he didn't win is that he is not a TP'er. they will maintain political clout. the only way they lose clout is if Romney wins. does anyone see it differently? " Imo, that's part of what happened with Mr. McCain last time around, I also think that after seeing the result, i.e. Mr. O's approach to government, hopefully, many conservatives finally 'get it' that this cannot happen again. The lesson was with McCain, and will be with Romney that voters are not interested in Obama Lite. Period.
|
|
beenherebefore
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 3, 2012 17:07:23 GMT -5
Posts: 761
|
Post by beenherebefore on Feb 11, 2012 17:18:29 GMT -5
And some of will vote for anyone but Mr. O. A non vote for the Republican nominee is a vote for Mr. O. Period.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 11, 2012 17:36:03 GMT -5
DJ posted: "if Romney wins the nomination, and it is very likely he will, and loses in the election, they can say that the reason he didn't win is that he is not a TP'er. they will maintain political clout. the only way they lose clout is if Romney wins. does anyone see it differently? " Imo, that's part of what happened with Mr. McCain last time around, I also think that after seeing the result, i.e. Mr. O's approach to government, hopefully, many conservatives finally 'get it' that this cannot happen again. Santorum is running really strong right now. i said on the Gingrich thread that i thought he was the only one that could catch Mitt, but i really didn't believe it. i believe it, now. dude is on fire.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 11, 2012 17:36:51 GMT -5
And some of will vote for anyone but Mr. O. A non vote for the Republican nominee is a vote for Mr. O. Period. i never think that way when i vote. i vote for the candidate i want, not against the one i don't.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 11, 2012 17:37:49 GMT -5
You asked for thoughts. If you knew it all- why ask?
|
|
beenherebefore
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 3, 2012 17:07:23 GMT -5
Posts: 761
|
Post by beenherebefore on Feb 11, 2012 17:42:16 GMT -5
I always have voted for the person who I thought would do the least amount of damage, the only one I voted for because I thought he would do the most amount of good was Ronald Reagan.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 11, 2012 18:53:26 GMT -5
You asked for thoughts. If you knew it all- why ask? to inspire conversation. it worked fairly well. i got a whole page of posts out of you.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 11, 2012 18:55:40 GMT -5
I always have voted for the person who I thought would do the least amount of damage, the only one I voted for because I thought he would do the most amount of good was Ronald Reagan. when was the last time you voted Democrat, been- jooc? if it is too personal, don't answer.
|
|
diamonds
Senior Member
Not as Tame as I Look!!
Joined: Feb 8, 2011 11:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 3,522
|
Post by diamonds on Feb 11, 2012 19:09:53 GMT -5
>>>Santorum is running really strong right now. i said on the Gingrich thread that i thought he was the only one that could catch Mitt, but i really didn't believe it.
i believe it, now. dude is on fire. >>>
dj: Wasn't that my prediction from the beginning? ;D
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 11, 2012 19:11:59 GMT -5
>>>Santorum is running really strong right now. i said on the Gingrich thread that i thought he was the only one that could catch Mitt, but i really didn't believe it. i believe it, now. dude is on fire. >>> dj: Wasn't that my prediction from the beginning? ;D diamonds!!!! how are you hon!? yes, it was. can i ask you WHY you thought it would go this way? i have been wondering.
|
|
beenherebefore
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 3, 2012 17:07:23 GMT -5
Posts: 761
|
Post by beenherebefore on Feb 11, 2012 19:20:57 GMT -5
I voted for Al Gore in 2000.
|
|
beenherebefore
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 3, 2012 17:07:23 GMT -5
Posts: 761
|
Post by beenherebefore on Feb 11, 2012 19:22:16 GMT -5
Santorum is the most socially conservative of the group, we'll see whether he has 'stayng power'. I don't think So, but if I'm wrong, it won't be the first time.
|
|
diamonds
Senior Member
Not as Tame as I Look!!
Joined: Feb 8, 2011 11:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 3,522
|
Post by diamonds on Feb 11, 2012 19:40:11 GMT -5
Hey dj: Just been going through a lot of stuff lately, but wanted to see some of my friends... You ask me why I felt that way about Santorum? Generally, I have a good read of people and from the beginning, I thought for a politican he was the most honest with no arrogance about him. The more he campaigned the stronger he has become and has the "fire". Of course none of them are perfect on every stance but he has the least baggage and has covered a lot of ground. Doesn't have the money like the othes, but he is everywhere. I'm not as smart as you, lol, but I seem to have a certain good common sense, and I like his natural presence and that reaches to the middle class.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 11, 2012 19:40:19 GMT -5
Santorum is the most socially conservative of the group, we'll see whether he has 'stayng power'. I don't think So, but if I'm wrong, it won't be the first time. this is Santorum's second trip to the circus. he got a nice bounce after Iowa, and was polling SECOND for exactly ONE DAY in January (the 9th). this is another huge bounce for him. people were lined up to see him at CPAC. he has a lot of young voter enthusiasm, and- let's face it- he LOOKS like what you want in a conservative: young, good looking, family guy with clean cut, happy smiling kids. i dunno. he might last a bit. but i suspect he is going to have a lot of trouble in the blue states.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 11, 2012 19:42:00 GMT -5
Hey dj: Just been going through a lot of stuff lately, but wanted to see some of my friends... You ask me why I felt that way about Santorum? Generally, I have a good read of people and from the beginning, I thought for a politican he was the most honest with no arrogance about him. The more he campainged the stronger he has become and has the "fire". Of course none of them are perfect on every stance but he has the least baggage and has covered a lot of ground. Doesn't have the money like the othes, but he is everywhere. I'm not as smart as you, lol, but I seem to have a certain good common sense, and I like his natural presence and that reaches to the middle class. stop it diamonds. you are every bit as smart as me. i think everyone here is smart. even Paul. but seriously. you really called this one. he has absolutely surprised me. and i am still astounded that he didn't surprise you.
|
|
diamonds
Senior Member
Not as Tame as I Look!!
Joined: Feb 8, 2011 11:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 3,522
|
Post by diamonds on Feb 11, 2012 20:05:15 GMT -5
dj: In the beginning he was having shakey debates, but he blossomed and caught fire. Now, don't laugh at this or him, but he reminds me how Forest Gump did all that walking and just kept going. He has perserverence to reach for that gold ring. I love that and it is what we believe in, "due diligence and it pays off". To me he is like one of the people, a brother, a neighbor, a regular guy that is down to earth. Well, he's my guy but going up against the Chicago Machine Man. Barry, is going to be a tough one. The dirt will come out in full force I suspect. I may have to sign off as it says error on bottom of my page and I cannot see the quote or modify box, but hope to be back.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:39:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2012 20:08:11 GMT -5
Oh my... I mean, i'd love if Santorum got the nomination, but you don't actually think he'll win the election do you ....
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Feb 11, 2012 20:11:44 GMT -5
Oh my...Oped - have not seen you in so long!! Hope you're doing well and good to see you here. As for Santorum - he sucks. I'm a Ron Paul follower.
|
|