Oh...never mind....

Bill Clinton claims he personally witnessed voter suppression in Vegas... (Drudge)

And, he saw black churches being burned in Vegas...and he did not have sex with that woman...and he never inhaled...and....

Looks like the polls were way wrong in Vegas, just like New Hampshire.

Apparently the voters have taken on the tactics of the politicians.

Saying one thing but doing another.

Do you think your guy Thompson got enough votes to stay in, or is he toast?

He apparently pulled enough votes in SC to tip the election to McCain, so you can't say he was irrelevant at least.

I don't know what Conservatives can do now.

Just stay home I guess. (but I feel yer pain, Terri. I really do....)

shermangeneral wrote:Looks like the polls were way wrong in Vegas, just like New Hampshire.

Apparently the voters have taken on the tactics of the politicians.

Saying one thing but doing another.

Do you think your guy Thompson got enough votes to stay in, or is he toast?

He apparently pulled enough votes in SC to tip the election to McCain, so you can't say he was irrelevant at least.

I don't know what Conservatives can do now.

Just stay home I guess. (but I feel yer pain, Terri. I really do....)

I won't stay home--not in May or November. I will vote for the most pro-life candidate in May and then vote against Hillary in November.

Well it would make it easier if you could believe they will do what they say.

But you can't, so that adds a wild card.

Romney says he will do a lot, and for me personally if he would do those things he would be my logical choice.

But he is, as McCain says, the "candidate of change".


Who do you see as the "most pro life" candidate?

Do you base that on them saying "I am pro-life"?

p.s. does anybody know how Romney would refinance those mortgages?

http://africa.reuters.com/business/news/usnBAN031939.html

He says he would but the article does not say how or under what terms.

shermangeneral wrote:Well it would make it easier if you could believe they will do what they say.

But you can't, so that adds a wild card.

Romney says he will do a lot, and for me personally if he would do those things he would be my logical choice.

But he is, as McCain says, the "candidate of change".


Who do you see as the "most pro life" candidate?

Do you base that on them saying "I am pro-life"?

p.s. does anybody know how Romney would refinance those mortgages?

http://africa.reuters.com/business/news/usnBAN031939.html

He says he would but the article does not say how or under what terms.

There are no pro-life Democrats. So, I will vote for anyone other than a Democrat.

It looks to me like Thompson, Giuliani and Edwards are all dead. Perhaps Fox and CNN should stop inviting them to debates? Or wouldn't it be better if they just stopped telling us who is a "serious candidate" and who is worthy of our consideration?

Well it would make it easier if you could believe they will do what they say.

But you can't, so that adds a wild card.

There is one candidate in the running, a Republican candidate, with a 30 year track record of always doing what he says he will do. Perhaps you and Keli should both take a closer look at that candidate.

Just a suggestion.

I have looked at him Steph.

And I like him.

Plus I agree with him on International Relations.

But he is not for economic justice or any kind of re-distribution of wealth.

He is for law of the jungle on economic matters like we had before Teddy Roosevelt came along and took on the robber barons.

He and his supporters have a pollyann attitude about human nature and greed which I do not share.

shermangeneral wrote:I have looked at him Steph.

And I like him.

Plus I agree with him on International Relations.

But he is not for economic justice or any kind of re-distribution of wealth.

He is for law of the jungle on economic matters like we had before Teddy Roosevelt came along and took on the robber barons.

He and his supporters have a pollyann attitude about human nature and greed which I do not share.

Why don't you seek to redistribute the wealth of Edwards, Kennedy, Clinton, et al Democrats??

Now Terry, you know very well that Sherm is only referring to "Republican robber barons", ...... him excluding Jay Rockefeller of course, ...... the richest one of all.

And Sherm doesn't want to redistribute Jay's wealth ....... because that would mean giving part of it back to the "poor folks" in WV from whose backs and labors whence it came.

shermangeneral wrote:I have looked at him Steph.

And I like him.

Plus I agree with him on International Relations.

But he is not for economic justice or any kind of re-distribution of wealth.

He is for law of the jungle on economic matters like we had before Teddy Roosevelt came along and took on the robber barons.

He and his supporters have a pollyann attitude about human nature and greed which I do not share.

shermangeneral,
I believe that you are a trucker. IF you are, why don't you share your earnings with other less fortunate truckers--redistribute your own wealth?

"Why don't you seek to redistribute the wealth of Edwards, Kennedy, Clinton, et al Democrats??"

Well Terri I do.

Why would you assume otherwise?

I believe they do as well.

Far as I know they all favor a more progressive tax system that would distribute the bounty and blessings more equitably.