When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
No, absolutely not, . . . your “trust but verify” is an absurd suggestion that doesn’t apply here. What you should do is make sure laws are not broken. This of course will be hard to accomplish by an Attorney General who doesn’t adhere to them.
I know that idiots such as the crowd currently encamped in the White House think that all businesses large and small should be overseen by a deep and vast network of bureaucrats sucking more taxpayer money, but that is beyond ridiculous.
The kind of thinking you bring to this discussion was applied in the USSR – the government didn’t trust its own people, . . . that worked out well in your view?
I honestly don’t know why we try to reason with you. Not only is your point of view skewed, but you continue to trumpet the same, tired rhetoric that has been shown to be false.
Now, I’ve posted links for several different news outlets in a handful of states discussing the FACT that public employee pensions are severely underfunded and that the liabilities for them are coming due. The states cannot afford them. Is your suggestion to raise taxes even more? Probably. But, we are discussing the WI situation and your assertion that the Gov. is only interested in breaking the unions, right? Yet, those links provide the knowledge and reason as to why they wish to limit collective bargaining to wages only.
If you like this arrangement, continue to vote republican. And try to remember not to complain when you meet up with the consequences yourself.
Your arrangement, as stated, is truly a warped view of the way things are. As for consequences, the only negatives I’ve ran into are the results of dem-sponsored legislation, both state and federal.
richard wheeler
12 years ago
J. R. You’re suggesting no oversight or regulation of business.Worked well at Enron,World Com,Countrywide By the time anyone realized laws had been broken the greedy bastards at the top had destroyed their companies.
You’re living in a fantasy world where everything is black or white. I worked with Mozillo.Lotta people in Clinton and Bush 2 Admins thought this guy a hero until the truth surfaced too late.
The logic in #53 seems to be beyond my capacities to decipher.
Surely you can’t mean what is inferred here, . . . on the other hand, there’s no predicting where and when common sense and simple reasoning escapes the mind, but I notice you’re looking for government (occupied by greed and idiocy) to mandate a cure for greed and stupidity. Perhaps it’s the hour, . . . yah, must be the hour.
@richard wheeler: True In 1996 Clinton got 49.2 to 40.4 for Dole and 8.4 for Perot.Again won by over 8 million. Obama’s vote total of 69,456,897 highest in history.RR 2nd highest in 1984.
Actually, if you want to consider all voters, as most lib/progs dearly love to think in popular vote instead of electoral college, Clinton lost popular vote by 1.89 mil.
Robert Dole 39,198,755
H. Ross Perot 8,085,402
Ralph Nader 685,297
Harry Browne 485,798
Other 420,024
Total % of votes who did *not* vote for Clinton – 48,874,776, or 50.77% of the voter turnout… which was low. Under 50%
As for da Zero, 61,963694 did not vote for Obama, or 47.13% of the population. Certainly no “mandate” there… High voter turnout, in comparison to Clinton ’96 … just under 60% of registered voters in 2008. How many were alive? Or felons? Who knows…. LOL
As far as “highest in history”… what a bogus claim with math, rich wheeler. But of course the number of votes would be higher. Population in the 80s was approx 236.5 mil. Approx in 2008 was 300 mil. Voter registration is apt to be higher simply because there are more US citizens. duh….
Voter turnout for both Reagan elections, 1980 and 1984, was not far below that of 2008. Reagan took the majority against all candidates in 1980 with 50.75 percent of all votes, and in 1984 with 58.77% in 1984. He took, respectively, 90.9% and 97.6% of electoral college in those elections. Obama, despite your wide eyed awe at numbers, took 67.8% of electoral college. This is even below Clinton’s 1996 performance…. not even a popular vote win… taking 70.5% of the electoral college.
Obama’s looking more like the empty suit he is in both your manipulation of numbers, as well as performance, eh?
So what was all that crap about “landslide” you’re trying to push? You need to find a less informed audience. t’aint gonna fly at FA.
richard wheeler
12 years ago
Mata You spin em your way I’ ll spin em mine.Obama’s pres. over 2-1 in E.C. which as everyone learned in 2000 is all that really matters.
Can’t wait till Iowa.
Skookum
12 years ago
Rich, Lt Col West is my favorite among the Rs. He is a natural leader that will not be giving giving pirates parking citations and a Hell’uva a speaker, who doesn’t need a teleprompter. I am interested in your opinion of the man’s man for prez. In my opinion, he has in spades the faults the Obama detractors find in The Won. He could be a very dangerous and frightening apparition for Dems.
At least you finally admitted to spinning the facts.
richard wheeler
12 years ago
A.C. Coming from someone who’s not sure the vote count was fair.Pleeze
Skooks I like West personally.It will be a very tough fight for the nom.and he’ll need to raise alot of Money since he doesn’t have the personal wealth of Romney or name recognition of Palin who can raise cash fast if she runs as I think she will.Huck will come in late cause he doesn’t want to give up his Fox job.As mentioned I believe Marco Rubio of Fla.a very good man, a great campaigner and a wonderful inspiring story will be the next Conservative PRES. in 2020 or POSSIBLY 2016.
I’ve met Obama and can ASSURE you he is very personable and doesn’t need a telepromter.
richard wheeler
12 years ago
Geez Mata if popular vote was decisive factor we would have escaped “w” for at least 4 years and probably forever.What a concept.
My favorite landslide 1964 LBJ 61.1% Goldwater 38.5%.Barry won only his home state of Ariz. and 5 Southern states rewarding him for his vote AGAINST the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
@richard wheeler: Geez Mata if popular vote was decisive factor we would have escaped “w” for at least 4 years and probably forever.What a concept.
You must be having an off reading day, rich. What did I say about the popular vote? Let me reiterate…
mata said comment #55: Actually, if you want to consider all voters, as most lib/progs dearly love to think in popular vote instead of electoral college, Clinton lost popular vote by 1.89 mil.
Thanks for biting on your dream scenario… the demolishment of the republic, and a replacement of democracy. But since you were quoting Obama’s vote plurality in the world of popular vote with your 8 mil, I figured I’d point out that the same Clinton election of ’96 you quoted was really a loss of a popular vote by over a million, and he had a higher percentage of the EC than your hero, da Zero.
‘splain that in the skewed view of your notion of “landslides”
@richard wheeler: You’d prefer largest Republican landslide (60%+ 49-1 E.C.)that re-elected “Tricky Dick ” in 1972?
Wrong again. That wasn’t the “largest Republican landslide”, which was 90.9% and 97.6% of the EC with Reagan election ’80 and ’84, as I already told you above. Do pay attention…. But thanks for again trying to work in that popular vote bit. “What a concept”…. LOL
BTW, who’s “A.C.”? Around here, we’d figure that was shorthand for Aye Chihauhua. No clue how you’d get to anticsrocks with that abbreviation. antics… rocks… two words of the English language, combined. And neither one begins with a “C”.
I’m never a stickler for deadlines… especially for Hallmark Holidays, anticsrocks. I’d be honored to be your Valentine… if not this year, I’m up for grabs next year! You make an ol’ broad’s heart smile. :0)
richard wheeler
12 years ago
MATA WOW Let’s start with Electoral College 1972 Nixon 520 Mc Govern 17
1980 Reagan 489 Carter 49
Agree higher to Reagan in 84 525-13
Nixon did get higher % of winner’s popular vote in 72 than RR in 80 or 84.
“The demolishment of the Rep. and replacement of Democracy” WHAT
You and anticsrocks a couple. Nice
To be cont. after church.
rich wheeler #42: ANTICSROCKS #39 Thanks for the extra mill. How bout 385-173 E.C. Dare we say LANDSLIDE.
rich wheeler #50: When I mention landslide re 08 always get a strong reaction.The real point is it wasn’t very close, particularly in electoral college, as suggested by minuteman and others.
You really brung this on your bad self, rich. Obama’s “landslide” in historic review remains a “landslide” only in those of you O’faithful, desperate to erase, or at best, spin history.
Even GHW Bush had 79.2%, handily beating Obama’s 67.8%. Even LBJ beat him with 90.3%. Hey, take heart… he looks good compared to Carter and his 55.2% EC win.
In the double headers (or more, in FDR’s case), Clinton had more EC in his results with 68.8% and 70.4% respectively. Reagan’s landslides, while his first wasn’t as high as the second, did have the two highest EC results for a GOP two termer consecutively. Ike comes in second there, with 83.2 and 86.1% for his first and second wins.
FDR makes Obama’s single inning “landslide” pathetically more than a pebble, kicked off the cliff… much like his policies. He had 88.9%, 98.5,% 84.6% and 81.4% for his for wins.
Nixon had only one run, and didn’t finish out the term for obvious history.
In case you’re missing the point, all of these I mention above, save Carter, have far higher EC numbers than Obama. Which is why you, desperate to attribute something unattributable to da Zero, start talking about popular vote numbers (and, of course, never mentioning voter turnout…). In every post, that is your repeated and parroted talking point. Why? That’s all you got…. but then you ignore what we easily pick up. Population growth translating to obviously more registered and eligible voters. duh
richard wheeler
12 years ago
Mata You’re rambling In #67 I disputed your claim that 1980 RR victory bigger tnan 72 Nixon victory in E.C. %.You changed the game to 2 term consecutively.How convenient.You ever ADMIT your wrong or do you just change parameters as needed?
Btw You said “Nixon had only one run”.You forget about 68 and 60?
I’m “rambling” rich? LOL No, I didn’t claim the “1980”RR victory was bigger. I said the Reagan landslide was the largest. I did not specify 1980 or 1984. In fact, allow me to repost my comments, since you are obviously suffering from not only a scroll up ability, but a short term memory ability.
mata said in comment #65: Wrong again. That wasn’t the “largest Republican landslide”, which was 90.9% and 97.6% of the EC with Reagan election ’80 and ’84, as I already told you above. Do pay attention…. But thanks for again trying to work in that popular vote bit. “What a concept”…. LOL
mata said comment #68: In the double headers (or more, in FDR’s case), Clinton had more EC in his results with 68.8% and 70.4% respectively. Reagan’s landslides, while his first wasn’t as high as the second, did have the two highest EC results for a GOP two termer consecutively.
Do, pray tell, point out where I ever singled out 1980? Remember, this all comes back to your original Obama “landslide” claim. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA Take your time. Take a vacation. We won’t miss your less than insightful comments until you figure it out…
I’ll tell ya what. I’ll make this SOOOOO simple that a 1st grader could answer it. Is 97.6 larger than 96%?
Fish in a barrel….. Consider your arse mounted above my woodstove.
richard wheeler
12 years ago
Mata I’ll make it even simpler.Did Nixon run once in 72 as you suggest in#68 or thrice (60,68 and 72) as we both know to be true? No offense,but prefer not to mount you in any room.
In #67 I AGREED RR’s 97.6% in 84 beat Nixon’s 96% in 72..Did you not suggest in #64 that RR’S 1980 90.9% win ALSO trumped Nixon’s 96% 72 win?
rich, you become tiresome with your distraction games. Are you suggesting you are comparing the ONLY Nixon stat you, yourself brought up, with his unsuccessful attempts as any sort of GOP record? Need to widen your net you have ensnared yourself in? And why would you now address Nixon’s unsuccessful attempts, save to backtrack on your own absurd and historically inaccurate claim that Obama won with any sort of “landslide”?
Ah, the smell of lib/prog desperation on a Sunday afternoon…..
So you’ve figured out that 97.6% is higher than 96%. Congratulations. Small achievement and baby steps for you which we shall celebrate.
BTW, if you prefer to engage in sexual innuendos, I suggest you take your gutter mind over to gay Jim’s thread. Your smut is not appreciated here. And I assure you, there is little about you that is appealing as a male in any sense.
No offense,but prefer not to mount you in any room.
No worries there dick, I heard she gave up baby food…
Old Trooper2
12 years ago
@ MataHarley, What Zac referred to as the Homo thread is a great disappointment to me. I have never in My Life seen such a display of Perpetual Hate, Discontent and Victim hood. Is this business going to be a Fixture here at FA? Just curious. In the old days the word Gay implied happiness.
What Folks, Consenting Adults, do in their bedrooms is none of my business. This “window dressing” appears to have nothing Conservative to offer. It does however raise the point of extra curricular protection for Folks that are already covered from discrimination By Existing Law.
As I informed B-Rob, We are All Special or No One is Special. I have noticed that changing the subject on this thread and others is an admission of defeat. Speculation and Poll Numbers need to be left to the Folks in Vegas that figure odds on anything.
richard wheeler
12 years ago
Mata Still refuse to admit you’re wrong on # of Nixon runs ( 2 of 3 successful btw).Seems you have a problem with acceptance.
You consider “mounting an arse over a woodstove” less severe than a romp? Sorry if you were offended.
rich, bozo… I never brought up Nixon’s lackluster attempts to become POTUS. In fact, I never brought up Nixon as any sort of GOP record at all. That is an onus on you. That you are incorrect that Nixon holds the “GOP” highest record isn’t my error… it’s yours. Your attempts at diversion to cover your own inadequate butt are amusing, and pathetic. I have nothing to admit I’m “wrong” on. You, on the other hand….. LOL
I will, however, accept your apology for your innuendos. I would say mine, immediately following the fish in a barrel statement, is an obvious allusion to taxidermy. If you are ignorant to that skill, then I apologize. Other than that, you need to go slide over to Jim’s thread and play out your own frustrations there.
Old Trooper, dang, I hope this isn’t the norm. I did my one and only comment on the original guest reader post on such nonsense. I have little tolerance for those that seek under every rock for ways to be a victim of class warfare, and place their entire value of self on their bedroom antics. I consider that stuff in the “do not need to know” category.
My apologies for this, rich… since you’re so fixated on Nixon, I was addressing his run you referred to in 72, not 68. So yes, he ran twice, and I in error in my comment about his one run. But only one was the “record” you claimed was the highest. Is that what you’re looking for?
Still a distraction, and nothing to do with your original tangent you desperately seek to avoid… that Obama was a landslide. Planning on returning to that soon with your mea culpas?
Old Trooper2
12 years ago
@ MataHarley…Amen to that. Jana sent me an email asking Me about it. I told her that walking through mine fields has some very predictable results. She knows where foals and calves come from so I will leave it at that. The last time My Mare Molly was bred, Jana was present and played her violin to make it more “productive” as She knew that the result would be Her Horse. Productive was Her word as it could not by any stretch of imagination be judged “romantic”.
I look at Mr. Jims offerings as a rant and neither productive or romantic. He could take a lesson from Nature.
Mata THANKS though actually he ran three times but who’s counting.
Landslides like beauty are in the eyes of the beholder.Truth be told I called it a landslide with tongue firmly in cheek.I was tired of folks like minuteman and others suggesting it was a squeaker or that SOME miscounted votes as you and others intimated might have made a difference.It certainly wasn’t close compared to 2004,2000,1976,1968.1960.
Zac
12 years ago
You know as far as Obama having won the election and why; I was living in the US during most of the Bush presidency, and I never thought I would see the day John Mcain would get the republican nomination. He served his country well during the Vietnam war and god bless him for that, but most republicans hated him prior to his running for president- even Limbaugh. All things considered, I don’t think he had the full support of every member of the tea party. Of course I don’t have data to back that up, but its a safe observation.
richard wheeler
12 years ago
ZAC You say most Republicans “hated”John McCain prior to his running for President.Pretty strong statement.You think Limbaugh “hated” Mac.Doubt it.It’s true he didn’t have Tea Party support as this loose knit Org. didn’t get rolling till after 08 election.
That was a great post O.T. sent you re. Ranger/Airborne training.Would be a great goal for any young man.
Semper Fi
@richard wheeler:
No, absolutely not, . . . your “trust but verify” is an absurd suggestion that doesn’t apply here. What you should do is make sure laws are not broken. This of course will be hard to accomplish by an Attorney General who doesn’t adhere to them.
I know that idiots such as the crowd currently encamped in the White House think that all businesses large and small should be overseen by a deep and vast network of bureaucrats sucking more taxpayer money, but that is beyond ridiculous.
The kind of thinking you bring to this discussion was applied in the USSR – the government didn’t trust its own people, . . . that worked out well in your view?
@Greg:
I honestly don’t know why we try to reason with you. Not only is your point of view skewed, but you continue to trumpet the same, tired rhetoric that has been shown to be false.
Now, I’ve posted links for several different news outlets in a handful of states discussing the FACT that public employee pensions are severely underfunded and that the liabilities for them are coming due. The states cannot afford them. Is your suggestion to raise taxes even more? Probably. But, we are discussing the WI situation and your assertion that the Gov. is only interested in breaking the unions, right? Yet, those links provide the knowledge and reason as to why they wish to limit collective bargaining to wages only.
Your arrangement, as stated, is truly a warped view of the way things are. As for consequences, the only negatives I’ve ran into are the results of dem-sponsored legislation, both state and federal.
J. R. You’re suggesting no oversight or regulation of business.Worked well at Enron,World Com,Countrywide By the time anyone realized laws had been broken the greedy bastards at the top had destroyed their companies.
You’re living in a fantasy world where everything is black or white. I worked with Mozillo.Lotta people in Clinton and Bush 2 Admins thought this guy a hero until the truth surfaced too late.
richard,
The logic in #53 seems to be beyond my capacities to decipher.
Surely you can’t mean what is inferred here, . . . on the other hand, there’s no predicting where and when common sense and simple reasoning escapes the mind, but I notice you’re looking for government (occupied by greed and idiocy) to mandate a cure for greed and stupidity. Perhaps it’s the hour, . . . yah, must be the hour.
Actually, if you want to consider all voters, as most lib/progs dearly love to think in popular vote instead of electoral college, Clinton lost popular vote by 1.89 mil.
Robert Dole 39,198,755
H. Ross Perot 8,085,402
Ralph Nader 685,297
Harry Browne 485,798
Other 420,024
Total % of votes who did *not* vote for Clinton – 48,874,776, or 50.77% of the voter turnout… which was low. Under 50%
As for da Zero, 61,963694 did not vote for Obama, or 47.13% of the population. Certainly no “mandate” there… High voter turnout, in comparison to Clinton ’96 … just under 60% of registered voters in 2008. How many were alive? Or felons? Who knows…. LOL
As far as “highest in history”… what a bogus claim with math, rich wheeler. But of course the number of votes would be higher. Population in the 80s was approx 236.5 mil. Approx in 2008 was 300 mil. Voter registration is apt to be higher simply because there are more US citizens. duh….
Voter turnout for both Reagan elections, 1980 and 1984, was not far below that of 2008. Reagan took the majority against all candidates in 1980 with 50.75 percent of all votes, and in 1984 with 58.77% in 1984. He took, respectively, 90.9% and 97.6% of electoral college in those elections. Obama, despite your wide eyed awe at numbers, took 67.8% of electoral college. This is even below Clinton’s 1996 performance…. not even a popular vote win… taking 70.5% of the electoral college.
Obama’s looking more like the empty suit he is in both your manipulation of numbers, as well as performance, eh?
So what was all that crap about “landslide” you’re trying to push? You need to find a less informed audience. t’aint gonna fly at FA.
Mata You spin em your way I’ ll spin em mine.Obama’s pres. over 2-1 in E.C. which as everyone learned in 2000 is all that really matters.
Can’t wait till Iowa.
Rich, Lt Col West is my favorite among the Rs. He is a natural leader that will not be giving giving pirates parking citations and a Hell’uva a speaker, who doesn’t need a teleprompter. I am interested in your opinion of the man’s man for prez. In my opinion, he has in spades the faults the Obama detractors find in The Won. He could be a very dangerous and frightening apparition for Dems.
@richard wheeler: You said:
At least you finally admitted to spinning the facts.
A.C. Coming from someone who’s not sure the vote count was fair.Pleeze
Skooks I like West personally.It will be a very tough fight for the nom.and he’ll need to raise alot of Money since he doesn’t have the personal wealth of Romney or name recognition of Palin who can raise cash fast if she runs as I think she will.Huck will come in late cause he doesn’t want to give up his Fox job.As mentioned I believe Marco Rubio of Fla.a very good man, a great campaigner and a wonderful inspiring story will be the next Conservative PRES. in 2020 or POSSIBLY 2016.
I’ve met Obama and can ASSURE you he is very personable and doesn’t need a telepromter.
Geez Mata if popular vote was decisive factor we would have escaped “w” for at least 4 years and probably forever.What a concept.
My favorite landslide 1964 LBJ 61.1% Goldwater 38.5%.Barry won only his home state of Ariz. and 5 Southern states rewarding him for his vote AGAINST the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
@richard wheeler: So your favorite landslide is the one that gave us a liberal leftist that did considerable damage to our economy and nation?
Interesting.
A.C. You’d prefer largest Republican landslide (60%+ 49-1 E.C.)that re-elected “Tricky Dick ” in 1972?
@richard wheeler: Why would I?
You must be having an off reading day, rich. What did I say about the popular vote? Let me reiterate…
Thanks for biting on your dream scenario… the demolishment of the republic, and a replacement of democracy. But since you were quoting Obama’s vote plurality in the world of popular vote with your 8 mil, I figured I’d point out that the same Clinton election of ’96 you quoted was really a loss of a popular vote by over a million, and he had a higher percentage of the EC than your hero, da Zero.
‘splain that in the skewed view of your notion of “landslides”
Wrong again. That wasn’t the “largest Republican landslide”, which was 90.9% and 97.6% of the EC with Reagan election ’80 and ’84, as I already told you above. Do pay attention…. But thanks for again trying to work in that popular vote bit. “What a concept”…. LOL
BTW, who’s “A.C.”? Around here, we’d figure that was shorthand for Aye Chihauhua. No clue how you’d get to anticsrocks with that abbreviation. antics… rocks… two words of the English language, combined. And neither one begins with a “C”.
@MataHarley: If it weren’t too late Mata, I’d be sorely tempted to ask you to be my valentine.
/blush
I’m never a stickler for deadlines… especially for Hallmark Holidays, anticsrocks. I’d be honored to be your Valentine… if not this year, I’m up for grabs next year! You make an ol’ broad’s heart smile. :0)
MATA WOW Let’s start with Electoral College 1972 Nixon 520 Mc Govern 17
1980 Reagan 489 Carter 49
Agree higher to Reagan in 84 525-13
Nixon did get higher % of winner’s popular vote in 72 than RR in 80 or 84.
“The demolishment of the Rep. and replacement of Democracy” WHAT
You and anticsrocks a couple. Nice
To be cont. after church.
You really brung this on your bad self, rich. Obama’s “landslide” in historic review remains a “landslide” only in those of you O’faithful, desperate to erase, or at best, spin history.
Even GHW Bush had 79.2%, handily beating Obama’s 67.8%. Even LBJ beat him with 90.3%. Hey, take heart… he looks good compared to Carter and his 55.2% EC win.
In the double headers (or more, in FDR’s case), Clinton had more EC in his results with 68.8% and 70.4% respectively. Reagan’s landslides, while his first wasn’t as high as the second, did have the two highest EC results for a GOP two termer consecutively. Ike comes in second there, with 83.2 and 86.1% for his first and second wins.
FDR makes Obama’s single inning “landslide” pathetically more than a pebble, kicked off the cliff… much like his policies. He had 88.9%, 98.5,% 84.6% and 81.4% for his for wins.
Nixon had only one run, and didn’t finish out the term for obvious history.
In case you’re missing the point, all of these I mention above, save Carter, have far higher EC numbers than Obama. Which is why you, desperate to attribute something unattributable to da Zero, start talking about popular vote numbers (and, of course, never mentioning voter turnout…). In every post, that is your repeated and parroted talking point. Why? That’s all you got…. but then you ignore what we easily pick up. Population growth translating to obviously more registered and eligible voters. duh
Mata You’re rambling In #67 I disputed your claim that 1980 RR victory bigger tnan 72 Nixon victory in E.C. %.You changed the game to 2 term consecutively.How convenient.You ever ADMIT your wrong or do you just change parameters as needed?
Btw You said “Nixon had only one run”.You forget about 68 and 60?
I’m “rambling” rich? LOL No, I didn’t claim the “1980”RR victory was bigger. I said the Reagan landslide was the largest. I did not specify 1980 or 1984. In fact, allow me to repost my comments, since you are obviously suffering from not only a scroll up ability, but a short term memory ability.
Do, pray tell, point out where I ever singled out 1980? Remember, this all comes back to your original Obama “landslide” claim. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA Take your time. Take a vacation. We won’t miss your less than insightful comments until you figure it out…
I’ll tell ya what. I’ll make this SOOOOO simple that a 1st grader could answer it. Is 97.6 larger than 96%?
Fish in a barrel….. Consider your arse mounted above my woodstove.
Mata I’ll make it even simpler.Did Nixon run once in 72 as you suggest in#68 or thrice (60,68 and 72) as we both know to be true? No offense,but prefer not to mount you in any room.
In #67 I AGREED RR’s 97.6% in 84 beat Nixon’s 96% in 72..Did you not suggest in #64 that RR’S 1980 90.9% win ALSO trumped Nixon’s 96% 72 win?
rich, you become tiresome with your distraction games. Are you suggesting you are comparing the ONLY Nixon stat you, yourself brought up, with his unsuccessful attempts as any sort of GOP record? Need to widen your net you have ensnared yourself in? And why would you now address Nixon’s unsuccessful attempts, save to backtrack on your own absurd and historically inaccurate claim that Obama won with any sort of “landslide”?
Ah, the smell of lib/prog desperation on a Sunday afternoon…..
So you’ve figured out that 97.6% is higher than 96%. Congratulations. Small achievement and baby steps for you which we shall celebrate.
BTW, if you prefer to engage in sexual innuendos, I suggest you take your gutter mind over to gay Jim’s thread. Your smut is not appreciated here. And I assure you, there is little about you that is appealing as a male in any sense.
@richard wheeler: You said to Mata:
No worries there dick, I heard she gave up baby food…
@ MataHarley, What Zac referred to as the Homo thread is a great disappointment to me. I have never in My Life seen such a display of Perpetual Hate, Discontent and Victim hood. Is this business going to be a Fixture here at FA? Just curious. In the old days the word Gay implied happiness.
What Folks, Consenting Adults, do in their bedrooms is none of my business. This “window dressing” appears to have nothing Conservative to offer. It does however raise the point of extra curricular protection for Folks that are already covered from discrimination By Existing Law.
As I informed B-Rob, We are All Special or No One is Special. I have noticed that changing the subject on this thread and others is an admission of defeat. Speculation and Poll Numbers need to be left to the Folks in Vegas that figure odds on anything.
Mata Still refuse to admit you’re wrong on # of Nixon runs ( 2 of 3 successful btw).Seems you have a problem with acceptance.
You consider “mounting an arse over a woodstove” less severe than a romp? Sorry if you were offended.
rich, bozo… I never brought up Nixon’s lackluster attempts to become POTUS. In fact, I never brought up Nixon as any sort of GOP record at all. That is an onus on you. That you are incorrect that Nixon holds the “GOP” highest record isn’t my error… it’s yours. Your attempts at diversion to cover your own inadequate butt are amusing, and pathetic. I have nothing to admit I’m “wrong” on. You, on the other hand….. LOL
I will, however, accept your apology for your innuendos. I would say mine, immediately following the fish in a barrel statement, is an obvious allusion to taxidermy. If you are ignorant to that skill, then I apologize. Other than that, you need to go slide over to Jim’s thread and play out your own frustrations there.
Old Trooper, dang, I hope this isn’t the norm. I did my one and only comment on the original guest reader post on such nonsense. I have little tolerance for those that seek under every rock for ways to be a victim of class warfare, and place their entire value of self on their bedroom antics. I consider that stuff in the “do not need to know” category.
My apologies for this, rich… since you’re so fixated on Nixon, I was addressing his run you referred to in 72, not 68. So yes, he ran twice, and I in error in my comment about his one run. But only one was the “record” you claimed was the highest. Is that what you’re looking for?
Still a distraction, and nothing to do with your original tangent you desperately seek to avoid… that Obama was a landslide. Planning on returning to that soon with your mea culpas?
@ MataHarley…Amen to that. Jana sent me an email asking Me about it. I told her that walking through mine fields has some very predictable results. She knows where foals and calves come from so I will leave it at that. The last time My Mare Molly was bred, Jana was present and played her violin to make it more “productive” as She knew that the result would be Her Horse. Productive was Her word as it could not by any stretch of imagination be judged “romantic”.
I look at Mr. Jims offerings as a rant and neither productive or romantic. He could take a lesson from Nature.
@MataHarley:
Oh no! 😛
Mata THANKS though actually he ran three times but who’s counting.
Landslides like beauty are in the eyes of the beholder.Truth be told I called it a landslide with tongue firmly in cheek.I was tired of folks like minuteman and others suggesting it was a squeaker or that SOME miscounted votes as you and others intimated might have made a difference.It certainly wasn’t close compared to 2004,2000,1976,1968.1960.
You know as far as Obama having won the election and why; I was living in the US during most of the Bush presidency, and I never thought I would see the day John Mcain would get the republican nomination. He served his country well during the Vietnam war and god bless him for that, but most republicans hated him prior to his running for president- even Limbaugh. All things considered, I don’t think he had the full support of every member of the tea party. Of course I don’t have data to back that up, but its a safe observation.
ZAC You say most Republicans “hated”John McCain prior to his running for President.Pretty strong statement.You think Limbaugh “hated” Mac.Doubt it.It’s true he didn’t have Tea Party support as this loose knit Org. didn’t get rolling till after 08 election.
That was a great post O.T. sent you re. Ranger/Airborne training.Would be a great goal for any young man.
Semper Fi