Ha, great point. Let's hope not. So little time and so little to pick from. Now that Cain is blowing up I'm at a loss. Can we draft somebody?
Same old shit, different day.I'm still hoping for a Perry comeback but that seems unlikely.
The latest Cain accuser seems to be a bit on the unhinged side.It's odd that the news media is spending so much effort into looking at alegations of a candidate's possible wrong doing while completely ignoring the crap of the sitting president who they never vetted at all.Larry Sinclair admitted to doing coke lines and engaging in oral sex with Senator Obama and the media ignored it completely even after the guy filed a lawsuit stating that the Obama campaign was threatening him and using intimidation tactics to shut him up.Not denials from the campaign...threats!And, if Herman Cain was a sexual harrasser who was cheating on his wife, I would think the democrats would be hailing the guy as their perfect presidential model.
So little time and so little to pick from. Now that Cain is blowing up I'm at a loss. Can we draft somebody? Let me ask you all a question: Didn't you know at the outset of this GOP race that there was NO ONE worthy of ascending to the presidency among that pack of GOP hopefuls? Wasn't it crystal clear that 'none of the above' would have been a better choice than the 9 who stood together at the endless set of debates?I suppose it all comes down to the rigid ideology of the right-wing of your party. The GOP has tilted seriously to the right, yet America is just right of center.Those GOP hopefuls, then, were forced to appeal to the far-right side of the party because it is that side that shows up for primaries and caucuses. Mainstream Americans who watched those debates came away from them in shock at the vile and inhumane statements made by those candidates- statements that would never fly with mainstream Americans. Each one tired to throw more raw meat at the right-wingers than his opponent and the feeding frenzy was disgusting.The GOP's only hope of beating Obama in the general election is to draft someone at the Convention in Tampa. This was done in the GOP successfully in 1952 when Eisenhower was drafted when Taft thought he'd sewn up the nomination. But, of course, that was your grandfather's GOP- nothing like today's GOP. That Republican Party was center-right, a far tilt from your party today.So, gentlemen, you truly do have a conundrum on your hands, but one of your own making. And since you created the imbalance, it is yours to deal with.
What? Eisenhower was drafted? You continue to prove you are a dipshit.
You continue to prove you are a dipshit.I'd be very careful who you call a 'dipshit.' Sorry to say, Tenth, but you haven't proven yourself to be any kind of historical genius.I'll let the 'history major' tell you a few things about the 1952 GOP convention and how it proceeded to shift away from the favorite, Taft, to Eisenhower.
Hey, asshole. Don't tell me who to call a dipshit.Eisenhower wasn't drafted. Going in to the convention, he and Taft were virtually tied. Drafted would mean he wasn't even running, and the party nominated him anyway.Taft was never a clear favorite, so your whole argument is shit, cause you're a dipshit.Go away.
Tenth- your anger blinds you to reality. I know that you must be awfully angry with your present personal financial situation which, by the way, begs the question why you depend on the GOP to help you through this tough time in your life.But, back to the other point of your anger- your political ideology. It's too bad that you kept trying to find an alternate to Romney through that awful lineup of candidates. It was clear to me and to anyone who did not have much interest in the outcome of the GOP race that there was nobody there worth betting on. That's why Paladin suggested a 'draft.' You seem not to understand the concept of 'draft' in the political sense of the term. After the primaries and caucasus, there will be convention votes pledged to certain candidates. Even dullards like Bachmann, Perry and Cain might have delegates casting their votes on the first vote for them, even if a major candidate has already emerged.In 1952, Taft was looking like he's take the nomination, but some in the GOP didn't like his ideals and schemed behind closed doors to get Eisenhower to run as a Republican. Truman wanted Eisenhower to run as a Democrat but Eisenhower would not commit to a political party because he was still affiliated with the military.It wasn't until March of 1952 that Eisenhower decided to toss his hat into the ring. In fact, his name was entered into the New Hampshire primary without his permission.Try Googling 'draft Eisenhower' and see what you can find out.
I would not count out Cain or Perry yet. The people HAVE NOT SPOKEN and only the liberal lapdog media and the bobbleheads are trying to pick our candidates! BTW, your troll mud douche is almost as dumb as Ivan on my site!
BTW, your troll mud douche is almost as dumb as Ivan on my site! Is a 'troll,' Anti, someone who offers a different point of view? Are you not man enough to listen or tolerate another point of view? Must you only surround yourself, Anti, with like-minded, high-fivers?If so, you are the dumbass, not I.
Tenth, That's why I don't publish Mud_PILE's absurd remarks on my blog. He never contributes anything of value, he won't stay on topic, he won't answer direct questions, and his sole purpose is to piss you off. The worst part is that in real life, he's would give you a wide berth. He's hiding behind the internet - he's a coward and he knows it.
Mr. Mudd,Perhaps you and your liberal friends who got us in to this nightmare by voting to "Feel good" can come up with someone to draft to replace him? You would agree he is weak and wrecking destruction upon us, wouldn't you? You would admit that electing the "tan man" experiment has failed, correct? Perhaps you can scour through that long list of god-like Democrats waiting in the wings for Obama to drop out? Maybe Barney or Nancy? How about since you and/or your ilk created this mess you fix it then?
Mud,How's that echo-chamber located between your ears working? You're a dumbass dipstick of a troll because you simply show up to piss off, disrupt, and argue without contributing one iota of substance.In other words, you're a legend in your own mind, which is about the extent of it.
Hello all- I have been very busy lately with family and holiday stuff. I have not had time to comment, or even post on my own blog. But this post deserves some attention.TGP- I'm sorry to do this to you, but Mud is right.....According to wikipedia, which is where Mud seems to get all of his info. You know wikipedia, right? The on-line encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit. Anyway, here it is..."Movements to draft five-star general Dwight D. Eisenhower to run as a candidate for President of the United States appeared in both the Democratic and Republican parties in 1948 and again during 1951. Eisenhower did his best to ignore them, but Henry Cabot Lodge entered Eisenhower in the 1952 New Hampshire Republican primary without the general's authorization. Eisenhower won all the Republican delegates and defeated Senator Robert Taft of Ohio, who had campaigned intensively in the state, by a vote of 50% to 38%. Eisenhower told a reporter, "Any American who would have that many other Americans pay him that compliment would be proud or he would not be an American", and announced his candidacy the next day. He defeated Adlai Stevenson — himself drafted as the Democratic nominee — in November 1952."So, sorry TGP, but Mud was correct on this one.But don't go getting all happy with yourself just yet Mud, because....................................................................................................................................
Johnny,Not the way Mud tells it. Stay tuned for my "version" of the truth in the next day or two.
Here is the greatest part of the 1952 elections. According to the very same wikipedia."Unpopular incumbent President Harry S. Truman decided not to run, so the Democratic Party instead nominated Governor Adlai Stevenson II of Illinois"I wasn't alive to know exactly what happened, but I think our current President could learn something here. He should realize that he is in over his head. He needs to come to the realization that he is nothing more than an opportunistic, bag of shit. But most importantly, someone needs to tell him that it wouldn't be the first time, a U.S. President chose to step down.Mud- You were right, the 1952 election has taught me alot. Now, someone call Obama and tell him that Chicago needs his community organizing skills.
Johnny,Did you finally get your island?Some old family friends from Arkansas told me they were tickled to death when Slick Willie decided to move to New York instead of retiring back home. Surely you don't want the BECS coming back to Chicago.
TGP- You're a prick. I got shit to do, and now you have me ranting:)No, unfortunately I do not have my island yet. But I'm making a decent penny on American Airlines stock, so I'll have to check the prices.1st- We'll take him. I never heard of a President going backwards into the Senate. 2nd- With the way our state is attacking corruption, there's no doubt that some states Att. would love to prosecute that piece of shit.3rd- There is no doubt in my mind, that he will relocate somewhere else. He's not from here, and I'm willing to bet he won't come back here.4th- As I stated previously, I've been too busy to comment on blogs. So I will attempt to kill two birds with one stone. Even though I will be back in full swing with-in a few days.Mud & NON- The greatest thing about having a wife, whose Godfather is one of the best Police Superintendents in Chicago history, is the information. Information that you will not receive from wikipedia. You two voted for a down right, selfish, piece of shit. If you don't believe me, take this into account.During the '08 Democratic primarys, Chicago Unions were backing? Not the Senator from their home state, nope. That's right, they all endorsed Clinton. Even the Unions know how much of a jerk-off Obama is.
Johnny,1) Johnson went back to the Senate for Tennessee in 1869.2) Blago needs a cell mate.3) My guess would have been Moscow thirty years ago, but today, I'm guessing Caracas.4) If you can kill those two birds (Mud and Jeff), I'll provide all the stones you need.
Johnny, The thing that blew Truman and the Democrats (Socialists, Progressives, Liberals, whatever) out of power in 1952 was that everyone became aware of how the Traitor Party had been coddling Communists.
Well, well, gentlemen, quite a lot of stuff posted here after my comment. None of it worthwhile, of course, but rather, the usual whining nonsense that is expected from a group of frustrated horse-betters whose nag fades on the final turn.I could analyze each inartful statement, line by line, but the analysis would surely be lost on each of you and a waste of my time.The common denominator of each is that you are pissed that Obama will probably be serving his second term as he takes the Oath in January 2013. As wounded and vulnerable as he is, your party offered the American people a gaggle of goons to replace him. A burlesque show, as I wrote on my blog.That's what pisses you off, isn't it? The GOP has tilted so far to the right [thanks to people like you] that it needed to serve up that array of clowns to appease the angry, red meat eaters [like you.] And each of the clowns fell, one by one, tripping over their own foibles.You know that, of course. So, what's left for the losers, other than to deride and debase the other side? Go ahead, get all of your anger out. Go ahead, it's cathartic and good for your health because you don't want that anger and angst to build up and contribute to your physical ill health.
Paladin writes of electing the "tan man" I didn't know that John Boehner had tossed his hat in the political ring! Great news for the GOP- at least Boehner has some brains between his ears.Wow! Boehner for Prez!!!
I think the "Tan man" some people are referring to is Alan West.West and Rubio would be an unstoppable ticket.
Mud,Paladin is referring to your President, Mr. "Half" Black.You're a dick.
BTW muddy, a second term of Owe-bama would finnish the democrat party off once and for all as well as the country's credit.Since Dec 31 2010, your boy racked up $1,085,283,342,168.25 (thats almost 1.1 trillion)in new debt in 11 months.At that rate, Obama is just a luxury we can't afford!Gun sales are also up and surpassed the last 1 day record of sales set back in Nov of 2008 with a 35% increase last friday.Looks like the preppers are getting ready in case Owe-bama is given 4 more years to finnish the country off.
Mud- To be honest, The idea that Obama may serve a second term does not piss me off.The common denominator? People who voted for him in '08. They refuse to admit that he is incapable of this position. They will never ask for his resignation. And they (along with yourself)seem to have the attitude of, give him four more years.That is the very fabric of a PILE. The refusal to admit when you are wrong.
Paladin is referring to your President, Mr. "Half" Black.My President? Who's yours? I have a suggestion for you, Tenth. I haven't seen one of your infamous polls lately.Here's an idea. Why don't you do a poll here on your blog to see what is the favorite racial epithet of the bloggers who post comments here. It would be lots of fun."Tan Man" would, naturally, be one of the choices. I've heard many during my lifetime and I'll bet you have too.Now that your black candidate is out of the presidential race, you and your posse could really unload with their 'favorite' racial slurs, because after noon today, they would only refer to the President.Go ahead; it could be very interesting.
Tenth, I guess since Mud_PILE lost the religion debate on the other threads he's stooped to race baiting again - that is Liberal (Democrat, Socialist, Progressive, whatever) Debate 101. Hey Mud_PILE - do you subscribe to the one drop rule? Why is Barack Obama "black?" You shouldn't look at the world through your racist blinders. We don't care what color Obama is - he's incompetent, Anti-American, and an utter buffoon. Sort of like you. Notice that no one here on your favorite blogs has ever asked you what color you are. It's because we don't care. We don't view the world through the prism of racism. You would still be stupid if you were yellow with pink stripes. Race only matters to racists like you.
CS,"Race" is the only thing the left has in this pony show.Back in 07' - '08 all muddy was concerned with was "the first black president".Credentials? Bah!Experience? a Non-issue!Competence? Ha!Accomplishments? Who cares?Shady past? No biggie!Obama's only credential for muddy was that he was black and, he was giddy in the hope that a black president would somehow be a slap in the face to white people.Anyone who dared disagree, was either called a racist or, was accused of disagreeing only on racial grounds.It was all the left had back then, and after 1 term, it's all they still have since he can't possibly run on his record as president.So, get used to it. Anything you say will be fed through muddy's "it has to be racist" mindset that can amazingly find racism in any topic he wants it to.Usually, if you're being called a "racist" by a liberal, it's just their way of trying to change the subject when they've run out of canned answers.
Cs, the resident 'historian' here on this blog, asks this insipid question:do you subscribe to the one drop rule? Why is Barack Obama "black?" Perhaps you slept through your 'many' American history classes, CS. Rather than giving you the correct answer, a good 'teacher' would challenge you to tell us all a little more about the 'one drop rule.'The non-historians among us are curious about that phrase. What did that mean, where did it originate, and how did it affect the laws in the Southern states?Please, keep your answer under 200 words and, I must caution you not to use inappropriate language in your essay. You know how prone you are to scattering insults throughout the papers you've presented to the class.Go ahead, and while you are working on that, I'll hunt up the 'religion threat' to see what brilliant retorts have been posted there.
Mud_PILE, It is really very simple - to Democrats of the Southern States race was an all consuming issue - just as it is for you. There were methods of classifying people that we would find an abomination today. My point is that you engage in that very same classification today - you are a racist - it is all consuming to you. No one here cares what color you are and they don't care what color Barack Obama is - the arguments that we have made continue to be based on a logical and reasoned approach to government, economics, and human nature. You cannot say the same for your baseless and unsupported accusations. The only thing that you have "taught" me since you drifted into my life is how disgusting, vile, and hateful a human being can really be.
Professor Mud,No one in the rest of the class needs further explanation of the "one drop rule." However, we have all asked you repeatedly to explain yourself, to no avail. Please consider other vocational options. Teaching does not suit you.
CS writes, disgusting, vile, and hateful a human being can beSorry, CS, I instructed you NOT to include your usual set of insults in your term paper.Tisk, tisk.Cs states, It is really very simple - to Democrats of the Southern States race was an all consuming issue Democrats of the Southern states. Hmm. Were those the racist Dixiecrats that were purged from the Democratic Party and joined the Republican Party?My, my, telling only 1/2 of the historical facts again, CS.Tisk, tisk.
Mud,You have absolutely no business accusing anyone of only using half the facts. If it weren't for the humorous entertainment we get from your blatherings, I'd enable moderation and cast you into the waste bin of the interwebs.How did someone as old as you get such a warped version of history? I think you ate too many magic mushrooms or purple sugar cubes in the 60's. Your brain is oatmeal.
Mud_PILE, That's an interesting accusation and one that I have defeated before. One simple measure is to examine the record of the Democrats and Republicans that voted for or against the second Civil Rights Act (1964). The first was passed by Republicans in 1866. All of the Democrats who filibustered against and indeed voted against the Civil rights Act of 1964 died Democrats except one - Strom Thurmond. Thurmond apologized and left the Party of racism and joined the Party of equality. However that doesn't tell the entire story. With Democrats filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R) came to the rescue, broke the filibuster by Democrats and ultimately 80% of Republicans and 60% of Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But that doesn't tell the entire story. The Republicans who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 all provided sound reasons for doing so. Most maintained that the additional law wasn't necessary or that it went too far in some areas. However the Democrats that voted against it all continued to express hateful and nasty racist comments and of course the only member of the Ku Klux Klan was Democrat Robert Byrd. Al Gore's daddy remained an unapologetic racist until he died. In short, the Republicans enabled the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to pass and voted for it in higher percentages than their Democrat foes. The Dixiecrat to Republican mythology is just that - myth. Mud_PILE - those are what one calls "facts" while your hateful screed is virtually always wrong. It is a measure of a liar or a careless ideologue.At any rate - you are no historian. Would you like another lesson?
If it weren't for the humorous entertainment we get from your blatherings, I'd enable moderation and cast you into the waste bin of the interwebs.Moderation? Do you mean like the Common Sense blog?I don't give a damn whether you moderate your blog or not; that's your choice. The trouble with that is you will only get one side of the story, 1/2 of the facts, 50% of the Truth.Yet, most folks on the Right side of the political spectrum wallow in the half. That makes people like Common Sense happy; he can post any nonsense he chooses to and no one will challenge him on it. It's a win-win for the bloke and reduces his stress level.Sadly, when he comes over here to TenthGenerationPatriot, he has come to realize that he has a real fight on his hands because he can't get away with the stuff he posts on his own blog. You can see his anger and frustration with each comment he makes after mine. Each one of his comments about me contains an insult- the usual tactic of a person who is both frustrated and outwitted.Go ahead and moderate, Tenth. It will make life so much easier for CS.
Mud_PILE, You are a scream - " . . . he has a real fight on his hands . . ." - if you think that you are a "real" anything, you live in a dream world. You must not have ever been in a "real fight" if you think that you are putting up a fight. You can't dispute the facts, so you irritate - that's what you are - an irritant. You give yourself far too much credit. Remember "lone wolf?" Is that really how you see yourself? You need professional psychiatric help. Try producing a fact for a change. We aren't "fighting" rather I am exposing your hypocrisy. Liberals (democrats, progressives, socialists, whatever) have a race-based ideology that is bankrupt - all your denials to the contrary are bankrupt as well. Even your knucklehead echo chamber members recognize how foolish they look over here - that's why they generally stay away. That's also why you moderate your blog. You can't handle the truth (with apologies to Col Jessep).
...see what I mean, Tenth? Old CS gets his BP up when he comes to this blog and reads my stuff.Better be careful, fatty, because with your poor physical condition, you are very susceptible to stroke or heart attack.Lose some weight, your head first, then you'll feel much better and may live longer.
Holy Cow....... What a post. If you want proof of racism, you need to look no further than Chicago, and their black community. Who has kept them down and desperate? I'll give you 2 guesses, but you probably only need 1. And it hasn't been for years. It's been for decades.
Mud_PILE, You give yourself far too much credit - I assure you that my blood pressure is fine. Since you have never landed a punch (using your "real fight" analogy) I don't experience anger so much as disgust with you. I like to think of you as that little, skinny, incontinent old man that I encountered on the campaign trail. Twitching with anger, spittle on his lips, urine seeping from his Depends, and high-pitched voice cracking with the effort. That's the mental picture I have of you when I read your posts. It elicits mirth in me - not anger. Honestly, you don't make me mad - you inspire pity.
Mud,If I enable moderation, people here will only get half the facts? So you are under the delusion that you provide facts? I don't believe I can recall a single fact you have offered in defense of any of your spiels. In fact, when specifically asked to provide facts, you dodge and cast insults. You are pathetic.