Magox Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 You're going to go absolutely ballistic when he gets re-elected. You won't be able to comprehend how such a thing could happen. Welcome to my 2004. that was funny Gene!! hehe Having said that,If Romney wins and chooses Rubio as his VP selection, I will give anyone here 2 to 1 odds, that Romney wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 (edited) I thought their was no way George W Bush was going to be re-elected in 2004. Never doubt the power of incumbancy especially with the weak and strange GOP field of candidates. Thing was the dims nominated a traitor. He served in Vietnam , you know. Looks like they nominated one in 2008 too Edited August 14, 2011 by Wacka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted August 14, 2011 Author Share Posted August 14, 2011 that was funny Gene!! hehe Having said that,If Romney wins and chooses Rubio as his VP selection, I will give anyone here 2 to 1 odds, that Romney wins. Wow, you are so confident! But you are also an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 But you are also an idiot. Says the idiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GelMibson Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 Wow, you are so confident! But you are also an idiot. Are you actually Cousin Itt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 that was funny Gene!! hehe Having said that,If Romney wins and chooses Rubio as his VP selection, I will give anyone here 2 to 1 odds, that Romney wins. too many contingencies..i'll take 2;1 on romney being prez in 2012 regardless of running mate or who actually is nominated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 too many contingencies..i'll take 2;1 on romney being prez in 2012 regardless of running mate or who actually is nominated We may have a bet, lets see how things shake out, and if Romney wins and selects Rubio and he accepts, We'll make that wager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 (edited) I thought their was no way George W Bush was going to be re-elected in 2004. If the Democrats had run a real candidate, he wouldn't have. And I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans repeated that error this year. We may have a bet, lets see how things shake out, and if Romney wins and selects Rubio and he accepts, We'll make that wager. Lest you forget, you already have a Romney bet outstanding. I know I have it here somewhere... EDIT: Still on the board: I've held on to this avatar for two years now. With all the hilarity at OBD and with all the opportunities to create one for the purposes of messing with people here, it's been very very difficult. If Mitt Romney: (1)Wins the GOP Nomination. AND Becomes President in 2012 I'll gladly let you choose my avatar and avatar caption, granted I'm given the same authority of yours (PICTURE AND CAPTION) if Mitt Romney: (2)Wins the GOP Nomination AND Receives less votes than Barack Obama in the 2012 election. Edited August 14, 2011 by DC Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 (edited) If the Democrats had run a real candidate, he wouldn't have. And I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans repeated that error this year. Lest you forget, you already have a Romney bet outstanding. I know I have it here somewhere... EDIT: Still on the board: I'm doubling down on a similar bet Even though the wording on that bet,I'm not real comfortable wih, it should be who wins the elections not who gets the most votes. Edited August 14, 2011 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 We may have a bet, lets see how things shake out, and if Romney wins and selects Rubio and he accepts, We'll make that wager. that's what i thought. we don't have a bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 that's what i thought. we don't have a bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Thing was the dims nominated a traitor. He served in Vietnam , you know. Looks like they nominated one in 2008 too As opposed to skipping out on the war entirely because of his influential daddy? I'm no huge fan of Kerry, but that criticism seemed pretty much manufactured to me. It's not surprising to me that you fell for the smear campaign - a lot of sheeple did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Hedd Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 (edited) If the Democrats had run a real candidate, he wouldn't have. And I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans repeated that error this year. Lest you forget, you already have a Romney bet outstanding. I know I have it here somewhere... EDIT: Still on the board: Kerry was superior to Bush in every quantifiable measure that exists_ and even some that don't. Just as Obama is vastly superior to the tossers that the republican party has shat out this election cycle. Edited August 15, 2011 by Bishop Hedd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Kerry was superior to Bush in every quantifiable measure that exists_ and even some that don't. That's great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 That's great. In fairness, it's like saying Kerry smells better than a turd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Hedd Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Not just Kerry either. I'm sure if the democrats had chosen anybody that person would have been infinetely superior to Bush, even a used car salesman like Edwards. Unfortunately we found that out the hard way as Bush turned out to be the worst president in anyones lifetime. One thing Bush was better at tho was a wearing a cod piece on a big boat with a big banner behind him. No one could ever beat him at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 (edited) Not just Kerry either. I'm sure if the democrats had chosen anybody that person would have been infinetely superior to Bush, even a used car salesman like Edwards. Unfortunately we found that out the hard way as Bush turned out to be the worst president in anyones lifetime. One thing Bush was better at tho was a wearing a cod piece on a big boat with a big banner behind him. No one could ever beat him at that. Wait a second: you are talking "worst President in lifetime"....with Obama in office right now? Are you kidding? It's already a lock that Bush goes down in history as better than Obama. In pure "got things done", lead the country, etc. terms...Obama is easily the worst President of my lifetime. Obama is such a good leader that his entire senior staff has turned over, along with most of his cabinet. If Obama isn't re-elected how is he better than Bush? Objectively now, 9/11 response/economy handling alone means Bush has better results. Bush, pound for pound was a better leader than Obama. Don't believe me? Ask how conservatives feel about Bush's leadership...then ask liberals about Obama's. If they are being honest, it's no contest. If you can't even lead your own party, how does that make you better than a guy who lead the entire country into 2 wars and effectively won both? Obama is such a good leader that he got 0 Democrats to vote for his budget. That's Andrew Johnson-level ineffective. Don't forget, we are talking history here, and the emotion tends to get swept aside, leaving only results. The narrative is already forming: "Bush would be remembered as a lot worse of a President had Obama not followed him". Just think, 100 years from now, students will be learning...nothing...about Obama, just as we basically teach nothing about Franklin Pierce today. Obama and Crispus Attucks. Two "first black man to..." guys that nobody but people like DC_Tom, myself, and whoever is asked a trivia question for money, will ever really know or care about. And, there ain't jack schit you can do about it. :lol: EDIT: Unless Obama pulls a 180 and becomes instantly pragmatic, Jackie Robinson, rightly, will be remembered as accomplishing more than Obama by far. Edited August 15, 2011 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Hedd Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Wait a second: you are talking "worst President in lifetime"....with Obama in office right now? Are you kidding? It's already a lock that Bush goes down in history as better than Obama. In pure "got things done", lead the country, etc. terms...Obama is easily the worst President of my lifetime. Obama is such a good leader that his entire senior staff has turned over, along with most of his cabinet. If Obama isn't re-elected how is he better than Bush? Objectively now, 9/11 response/economy handling alone means Bush has better results. Bush, pound for pound was a better leader than Obama. Don't believe me? Ask how conservatives feel about Bush's leadership...then ask liberals about Obama's. If they are being honest, it's no contest. If you can't even lead your own party, how does that make you better than a guy who lead the entire country into 2 wars and effectively won both? Obama is such a good leader that he got 0 Democrats to vote for his budget. That's Andrew Johnson-level ineffective. Don't forget, we are talking history here, and the emotion tends to get swept aside, leaving only results. The narrative is already forming: "Bush would be remembered as a lot worse of a President had Obama not followed him". Just think, 100 years from now, students will be learning...nothing...about Obama, just as we basically teach nothing about Franklin Pierce today. Obama and Crispus Attucks. Two "first black man to..." guys that nobody but people like DC_Tom, myself, and whoever is asked a trivia question for money, will ever really know or care about. And, there ain't jack schit you can do about it. :lol: EDIT: Unless Obama pulls a 180 and becomes instantly pragmatic, Jackie Robinson, rightly, will be remembered as accomplishing more than Obama by far. Christmas at Tux? You know you were a lot more coherent when you were drunk in Philly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 In fairness, it's like saying Kerry smells better than a turd. No, it's like saying that electoral votes aren't a measurable. But even better was measuring according to measurables that don't exist. That was just classic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Thing was the dims nominated a traitor. He served in Vietnam , you know. Looks like they nominated one in 2008 too have you never even heard of the pentagon papers? kerry wasn't one of the traitors that lied to the american people about vietnam. guess they left that out of your coloring book history text. i'm still astonished that the swift boat disinformation program worked. the lesson: never overestimate the intelligence of the american public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts