If the economy keeps improving . .

[risky biz]

. for three more years- what are the odds that the Democrats keep the
White House and the Republicans lose the House?

[Dave the Clueless]

On May 20 2013 1:31 PM, risky biz wrote:

> . for three more years- what are the odds that the Democrats keep the
> White House and the Republicans lose the House?

Looking at the Republican field I don't see them winning the White House
regardless of the economy.

Considering the Republican advantage in gerrymandering, I don't see them
losing the House regardless of the economy.

-------
JerryFOREX the retard thinks "Cornel Ronald West (born June 2, 1953) is an
American philosopher, academic, activist, author and prominent member of
the Democratic Socialists of America" is a right-winger! LOL! HAHAHAHAH!
What a moron!!!

[risky biz]

On May 20 2013 10:30 AM, Dave the Clueless wrote:

> On May 20 2013 1:31 PM, risky biz wrote:
>
> > . for three more years- what are the odds that the Democrats keep the
> > White House and the Republicans lose the House?
>
> Looking at the Republican field I don't see them winning the White House
> regardless of the economy.
>
> Considering the Republican advantage in gerrymandering, I don't see them
> losing the House regardless of the economy.

Both good points, I think, although I don't really know who the possible
Presidential candidates are for the Republicans. Just going by their poor
track record.

The Democrats will probably choose a white male in his 40's for their
candidate.

[mo_ntresor]

On May 20 2013 11:30 AM, Dave the Clueless wrote:

> > . for three more years- what are the odds that the Democrats keep the
> > White House and the Republicans lose the House?
>
> Looking at the Republican field I don't see them winning the White House
> regardless of the economy.
>
> Considering the Republican advantage in gerrymandering, I don't see them
> losing the House regardless of the economy.

i don't see anybody beating chris christie.

mo_ntresor

[risky biz]

Karnak has spoken. He's also projecting that we go "bankrupt" in 50 years.

[brattt]

I like Chris Christie = I also like Elizabeth Warren.

They seem to be the only 2 politicians not playing politics, but willing
to buck their party and call a spade a spade.

[mo_ntresor]

On May 20 2013 2:06 PM, brattt wrote:

> I like Chris Christie = I also like Elizabeth Warren.
>
> They seem to be the only 2 politicians not playing politics, but willing
> to buck their party and call a spade a spade.

1/256th cherokee is better than 0/256ths in my book.

mo_ntresor

[halfpastdead]

jenny craig will

*****************************************

I saw a bumper sticker about six months ago. It said: "Don't Mex with
Tejas".

---------------------------------------------------------------

[Clave]

"mo_ntresor" <amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:i86q6ax...@news.ezprovider.com...

LOL -- except perhaps any other Republican who runs against him in the
primaries.

Jim

[DELETETHIS]

Are they going to win back the senate too?

(that should crank up the level a few points)

[Travel A]

I get the "feeling," right now that is, that the Republican primaries
will revolve around Rand Paul v. Mitt Rubio.

Rick Santorum could be the "spoiler" again.

Christie and Jeb Bush's covers are blown to the point that the
Republican electorate of 75% conservatives will be polling against them
and they probably won't even get in.

The only ones who think conservatives like Jeb, are members of the Bush
family.

Paul Ryan is the poster boy for "loser."

The RINO Republican establishment needs the right phony who still has
bullshitting-ability in claiming to be a conservative, and they'll put
their money on him. Hard to tell if Rubio's amnesty reputation will
stick (because Rand Paul isn't a "hardliner" against "a path to
citizenship," either), and knock him out of a Republican primary
consideration, too.

Both Sarah and Huckabee (speaking of bullshitting ability with Huckabee)
could run, and really set-up another chaotic "plurality primary."

There may be some surprises, like Governors Nikki Haley or Susanna
Martinez running if their states' economies are impresssive.

Oh. Susan, could you give an example of when fauxcahontas ever "bucked
her party"?

[popinjay999]

On May 20, 1:06 pm, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>
> I like Chris Christie = I also like Elizabeth Warren.
>
> They seem to be the only 2 politicians not playing politics, but willing
> to buck their party and call a spade a spade.

Y'know, Susan, I hired you to help coordinate, not be a comedian.

[TruthSeeker]

On 20/5/13 9:17 PM, Travel A wrote:
> I get the "feeling," right now that is, that the Republican primaries
> will revolve around Rand Paul v. Mitt Rubio.
>
> Rick Santorum could be the "spoiler" again.

If the Republicans nominate Santorum or any other "social issues" or
"family values" wingnut, it won't matter who the Democratic nominee is,
the Democrats will win easily. They will really be the "party of stupid"
if they do that.

I was a Republican for many years. But I'd vote for Hillary over
Santorum. If it was Santorum vs. Biden I'd vote for the Libertarian
candidate.

> Christie and Jeb Bush's covers are blown to the point that the
> Republican electorate of 75% conservatives will be polling against them
> and they probably won't even get in.

Christie is probably the strongest candidate the Republicans could run
at this time. If Christie isn't conservative enough for the party, the
Republicans are doomed to be a permanent minority.

If the Republicans ever want to occupy the White House again, they have
to learn that "Conservative" does not mean ramming the '50s family
sitcom "values" down everyone's throat.

> The RINO Republican establishment needs the right phony who still has
> bullshitting-ability in claiming to be a conservative, and they'll put
> their money on him. Hard to tell if Rubio's amnesty reputation will
> stick (because Rand Paul isn't a "hardliner" against "a path to
> citizenship," either), and knock him out of a Republican primary
> consideration, too.

If Rand Paul or Rubio want to be President they need to run for Governor
of their State and get some executive experience. We've seen how well
the last two Senators elected President have fared.

> Both Sarah and Huckabee (speaking of bullshitting ability with Huckabee)
> could run, and really set-up another chaotic "plurality primary."

You pegging your hopes on slim thread there.

> There may be some surprises, like Governors Nikki Haley or Susanna
> Martinez running if their states' economies are impresssive.

Or someone else not being discussed yet. It's still three years away.
Who was predicting that Obama would be the 2008 Democratic nominee in 2005?



--
TruthSeeker

"On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."

[popinjay999]

On May 20, 9:25 pm, TruthSeeker <TruthSee...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:

>
> If the Republicans ever want to occupy the White House again, they have
> to learn that "Conservative" does not mean ramming the '50s family
> sitcom "values" down everyone's throat.
>

Joe, for a long time now I've sensed some sort of disconnect between
you and me that I could not quite put my finger on. But I've finally
figured it out. You're a fucking idiot.

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

Often times he is, yes.

However, when he actually posts something insightful and you call him an
idiot, Peepee, one begins to wonder about you.

The neoconservative horseshit that Romney and Palin stand for socially is
costing them loads of votes, including mine

[Clave]

"popinjay999" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:74289a7d-1b97-4041...@fz1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

K00kFight!!!

[popinjay999]

On May 20, 10:02 pm, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
wrote:

>
> The neoconservative horseshit that Romney and Palin stand for socially is
> costing them loads of votes, including mine

I think you may be confused about the term "neo-conservative". But I
promise, I'm not going to argue with you about it.

[popinjay999]

On May 20, 10:06 pm, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:

>
> K00kFight!!!


He's not even a real k00k. I am the real mc coy.

[Clave]

"popinjay999" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

news:d0580f78-59d2-4f46...@g5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com...

> On May 20, 10:06 pm, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> K00kFight!!!
>
>
> He's not even a real k00k.

Not really for you to say.

> I am the real mc coy.

You overestimate yourself.

Jim

[Pepe Papon]

The Democrats will nominate Elizabeth Warren.
--

Pepe Papon

[Pepe Papon]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 13:06:48 -0700, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid>

Marco Rubio could be an interesting candidate.
--

Pepe Papon

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

Wow! Pepe is drunk tonight

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

Ok.
Wanna split a pizza?

[brattt]

Yep - I am so sick of politicians just playing politics. I said years
ago, here on RGP, that I want a President that will stand up for what he
believes in. No one is going to be elected that I agree with on every
single thing. Just have the chutzpah to do what he:she has said they
will.

[mo_ntresor]

On May 21 2013 2:07 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:

> > The Democrats will nominate Elizabeth Warren.
>
> Wow! Pepe is drunk tonight

she will lose HUGE.

mo_ntresor

[Mossingen]

"mo_ntresor" wrote in message news:i86q6ax...@news.ezprovider.com...

_____________________________________-



I'll take that action. Christie is getting the buzz now, but I doubt he can
carry it through. Hillary will likely run again and she has more political
clout than he does. Plus, I doubt he can get his weight under control and
people will hold it against him, unfair as that may be. The surgery might
help in the short term, but he's got to make some drastic changes in that
regard.

[Mossingen]

"popinjay999" wrote in message
news:aede3778-b5f5-4cf0...@ua8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

_________________________



I don't know much about Christie, but she's right about Elizabeth Warren. I
know you probably think she's a communist plant, but she's extremely
intelligent and understands government better than you do. She's from
Oklahoma City and taught law at Harvard. What more do you want?

[mo_ntresor]

On May 21 2013 9:08 AM, Mossingen wrote:

> I don't know much about Christie, but she's right about Elizabeth Warren. I
> know you probably think she's a communist plant, but she's extremely
> intelligent and understands government better than you do. She's from
> Oklahoma City and taught law at Harvard. What more do you want?

gee, another lawyer who can't add, just what the country needs!

mo_ntresor

[mo_ntresor]

On May 21 2013 9:05 AM, Mossingen wrote:

> I'll take that action. Christie is getting the buzz now, but I doubt he can
> carry it through. Hillary will likely run again and she has more political
> clout than he does. Plus, I doubt he can get his weight under control and
> people will hold it against him, unfair as that may be. The surgery might
> help in the short term, but he's got to make some drastic changes in that
> regard.

it's a long process, but he's the front-runner. hillary's old but
formidable. neither's close to guaranteed a party nomination. if the
denominators nominate a fool like warren, it won't matter who republicans
nominate.

mo_ntresor

[mo_ntresor]

On May 21 2013 9:16 AM, mo_ntresor wrote:

> gee, another lawyer who can't add, just what the country needs!

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/13/poll_finds_support_for_elizabeth_warrens_balanced_approach/

"Beyond tax increases for the wealthy, she has called for the elimination
of many agriculture and oil subsidies, cuts to defense and an end to the
war in Afghanistan (which costs about $2 billion a week) while leaving
Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security untouched."

leaving medicare, medcaid, and ss untouched?

LOFL.

you lawyers are astounding.

mo_ntresor

[popinjay999]

On May 21, 8:08 am, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
> "popinjay999"  wrote in message
>
> news:aede3778-b5f5-4cf0...@ua8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
>
> On May 20, 1:06 pm, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I like Chris Christie = I also like Elizabeth Warren.
>
> > They seem to be the only 2 politicians not playing politics, but willing
> > to buck their party and call a spade a spade.
>
> Y'know, Susan, I hired you to help coordinate, not be a comedian.
>
> _________________________
>
> I don't know much about Christie, but she's right about Elizabeth Warren.

How is she right about Elizabeth Warren? When does "she buck her
party"? When she goes FARTHER to the Left than the party does? And
when has she called a spade a spade? Doesn't than mean being honest?
She's a lying, phony, true democrat.

[risky biz]

What part of "tax increases for the wealthy, she has called for the

elimination of many agriculture and oil subsidies, cuts to defense and an

end to the war in Afghanistan (which costs about $2 billion a week)" don't
you like?

If you don't think that's an electable platform you're the one who's
astounding. It would be a breath of freah air.

[ChrisRobin]

On May 21 2013 3:36 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:

> The Democrats will nominate Elizabeth Warren.

That would be the closest thing to sanity the Democratic Party has done in
recent memory, which is why it will never happen.

[risky biz]

Mathematician Mo. LOL. Not to mention basic facts that are so screwed up
it's like science fiction.

[mo_ntresor]

On May 21 2013 10:08 AM, risky biz wrote:

> > leaving medicare, medcaid, and ss untouched?
>

> What part of "tax increases for the wealthy, she has called for the
> elimination of many agriculture and oil subsidies, cuts to defense and an
> end to the war in Afghanistan (which costs about $2 billion a week)" don't
> you like?
>
> If you don't think that's an electable platform you're the one who's
> astounding. It would be a breath of freah air.

you truly are dumber than a stump.

mo_ntresor

[Travel A]

"Truthseeker" you're so far off it's laughable.

You've developed a family values hatred, obviously due to your growing
gay "rights" obsession.

Stating that Chris Christy, who's basically and obviously a liberal is
the best for the Repulbican party, is just plain stupid and clueless.

Also, you're ridiculous comment in another thread about the ACLU doing
so much good for the country is just brain-freeze idiocy. You like the
ACLU because they're for gay "rights."

You're an imbecile.

[Travel A]

Lol, it doesn't get any more left than Fauxcahontas. Saying that she
doesn't "play politics and just says what she means" is off the charts
in clueless.

Also, we''ll be hearing quite a lot from the left about how great
Christie or Jeb would be for the Republican party (chortle).

Thanks for your concern, "left," appreciate it :-).

[brattt]

You sure are hung up on her saying she has a wee bit of Indian blood. My
own family had always claimed to have some black blood, which on the
surface is ridiculous because we are really pale whites. However on
ancestry.com I found that a relative a brazillian years ago was listed as
mulatto.

And I think that Christie would be a great choice - I also like Jeb but he
would have to change his last name and put a mask on.

[popinjay999]

On May 21, 1:29 pm, nine...@webtv.net (Travel A) wrote:

>
> Also, you're ridiculous comment in another thread about the ACLU doing
> so much good for the country is just brain-freeze idiocy.

Could anyone tell me what thread this is in? I have got to see this
idiocy.

[brattt]

*sigh*

[popinjay999]

I want to see the exact context. Is it something fairly innocent? Or
is it something totally idiotic? I'm having serious doubts as to
Truthseeker's mental stability.

I assume you do know the communist history of the ACLU, correct?
*sigh* back at you.

By the way, if you know what thread it's in, it is your duty to inform
me.

[brattt]

On May 21 2013 6:20 PM, popinjay999 wrote:

> By the way, if you know what thread it's in, it is your duty to inform
> me.

*sigh*

[risky biz]

Your magnitude of your inability to support your incoherently expressed
opinions is exceeded only by the dull, meaningless repetitiveness of your
uncouthness.

[TruthSeeker]

On 21/5/13 5:03 AM, brattt wrote:

> Yep - I am so sick of politicians just playing politics. I said years
> ago, here on RGP, that I want a President that will stand up for what he
> believes in. No one is going to be elected that I agree with on every
> single thing. Just have the chutzpah to do what he:she has said they
> will.

Never happen. Fifty years ago a country song had the lyrics,

"When a President walks through the White House door,
And does what he said he'd do,
Then I'll be drinkin' that free Bubble-Up
And eatin' that rainbow stew."

Some people really believed that Obama was going to be different.



--
TruthSeeker

"On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."

[popinjay999]

Oh. duh THAT thread. I apologize, assistant coordinator, you're
doing a fine job, carry on. Nevermind me, I have issues.

[TruthSeeker]

I'm not for "gay rights." I'm for HUMAN rights. Including human beings
who happen to be black, female, gay, Muslim, white, male, lesbian,
Hindu, Latino, Arab, or any of the other many permutations found among
human beings.

> You're an imbecile.

[TruthSeeker]

Uh, she did. "sigh" is the name of the thread.

[popinjay999]

On May 21, 6:02 pm, TruthSeeker <TruthSee...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:

>
> Uh, she did.  "sigh" is the name of the thread.
>

I just said that. Old much?

[popinjay999]

On May 21, 6:00 pm, TruthSeeker <TruthSee...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:

>
> I'm for HUMAN rights.  Including human beings
> who happen to be black, female, gay, Muslim, white, male, lesbian,
> Hindu, Latino, Arab, or any of the other many permutations found among
> human beings.
>

What if the black, female, gay, Muslim, white, male, lesbian, Hindu,
Latino, or Arab person owns a business or property? Do they STILL
have any rights?

[brattt]

On May 21 2013 7:58 PM, popinjay999 wrote:


> I have issues.

sigh

[TruthSeeker]

Why would owning a business or property have any affect on your rights?
That neither gets you special ones nor diminishes the ones everyone has.

[Travel A]

Still waiting for Susan's example of Fauxcahontas "bucking her party."

..well?

..waiting

[Travel A]

"Truthseeker" you're so far off it's laughable.
You've developed a family values hatred, obviously due to your growing
gay "rights" obsession.

Stating that Chris Christy, who's basically and obviously a liberal is

the best for the Republican party, is just plain stupid and clueless.

Also, you're ridiculous comment in another thread about the ACLU doing
so much good for the country is just brain-freeze idiocy. You like the
ACLU because they're for gay "rights."

You're an imbecile.

[Travel A]

On May 21, 6:00�pm, TruthSeeker <TruthSee...@nof-nspam.us>
wrote:

"I'm for HUMAN rights. �Including human beings who happen to be

black, female, gay, Muslim, white, male, lesbian, Hindu, Latino, Arab,
or any of the other many permutations found among human beings."

Popinjay wrote:
"What if the black, female, gay, Muslim, white, male, lesbian, Hindu,
Latino, or Arab person owns a business or property? Do they STILL have
any rights?"

I wrote:
Crapseeker is just throwing-out a weasel dance-around with this "I'm for
human rights" Bullshit; thinking that it cloaks him in a certain
unassailable dignity or something. Crapseeker has been going more and
more left by the idiotic post. Don't be surprised if all of a sudden
Crapseeker and Clavey, together, start ganging up on you someday.

As you know, I'm a master of perception, and believe me, it's totally
the gay "rights" "thing" with Crapseeker, and he doesn't want to admit
it. Don't take the bait with this newfound "I'm for human rights" smoke
screen. Ya know, like who isn't; it's a lame strawman.

The constitution already provides equal protection for all citizens.
Crapseeker wants special, fabricated "rights" for gays, but won't admit
it. He's "right there" with the left, but is so much of a hypocrite that
he's now weaseling around calling himself a Libertarian and humanitarian
as a lame "cover." Crapseeker should find a nice retard forum where they
don't know blatantly obvious bullshit when they see it.

Note how Crapseeker has lately taken-on a certain condescending air of
superiority toward conservatives. Crapseeker's of a "higher calling" now
(chortle).

I mean, Crapseekeer's always been an irritating muthafucka, anyway, but
this is nails on the blackboard irritating.

[popinjay999]

On May 21, 8:50 pm, nine...@webtv.net (Travel A) wrote:

>
> Crapseeker is just throwing-out a weasel dance-around with this "I'm for
> human rights" Bullshit; thinking that it cloaks him in a certain
> unassailable dignity or something. Crapseeker has been going more and
> more left by the idiotic post. Don't be surprised if all of a sudden
> Crapseeker and Clavey, together, start ganging up on you someday.
>
> As you know, I'm a master of perception, and believe me, it's totally
> the gay "rights" "thing" with Crapseeker, and he doesn't want to admit
> it. Don't take the bait with this newfound "I'm for human rights" smoke
> screen. Ya know, like who isn't; it's a lame strawman.
>
> The constitution already provides equal protection for all citizens.
> Crapseeker wants special, fabricated "rights" for gays, but won't admit
> it. He's "right there" with the left, but is so much of a hypocrite that
> he's now weaseling around calling himself a Libertarian and humanitarian
> as a lame "cover." Crapseeker should find a nice retard forum where they
> don't know blatantly obvious bullshit when they see it.
>
> Note how Crapseeker has lately taken-on a certain condescending air of
> superiority toward conservatives. Crapseeker's of a "higher calling" now
> (chortle).
>
> I mean, Crapseekeer's always been an irritating muthafucka, anyway, but
> this is nails on the blackboard irritating.

Lie-Seeker has been on the gay rights bandwagon since at least the
time when his great buddy, abortion-advocate Patti Beadles, posted a
thread on RGP opposing California's Prop.8 which would have banned gay
marriage. Her thread announced that it would be unconstitutional and
violate the 16th Amendment. Yes, the 16TH Amendment. You can't make
this shit up.

[Pepe Papon]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:54:25 -0600, TruthSeeker
<Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:

>
>Some people really believed that Obama was going to be different.

You misspelled "hoped".

HTH
--

Pepe Papon

[Pepe Papon]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 04:03:51 -0700, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid>

wrote:

>Yep - I am so sick of politicians just playing politics. I said years
>ago, here on RGP, that I want a President that will stand up for what he
>believes in. No one is going to be elected that I agree with on every
>single thing. Just have the chutzpah to do what he:she has said they
>will.

I know what you mean. I thought about voting for Ron Paul even though
I think he's dead wrong on some important issues because at least he
seemed to be a man of principle. That was before his white
supremacist newsletter was exposed.
--

Pepe Papon

[VegasJerry]

On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:20:20 PM UTC-7, popinjay999 wrote:
> On May 21, 4:12 pm, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > On May 21 2013 5:33 PM, popinjay999 wrote:
> >
> > > On May 21, 1:29 pm, nine...@webtv.net (Travel A) wrote:
> >
> > > > Also, you're ridiculous comment in another thread about the ACLU doing
> > > > so much good for the country is just brain-freeze idiocy.
> >
> > > Could anyone tell me what thread this is in? I have got to see this
> > > idiocy.
> >
> > *sigh*
>
>
>
> I want to see the exact context. Is it something fairly innocent? Or
> is it something totally idiotic? I'm having serious doubts as to
> Truthseeker's mental stability.

.
.> I assume you do know the communist history of the ACLU, correct?

I assume you do know the slavery history of our own government, correct?

[VegasJerry]

On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:54:25 PM UTC-7, TruthSeeker wrote:
> On 21/5/13 5:03 AM, brattt wrote:
>
> > Yep - I am so sick of politicians just playing politics. I said years
> > ago, here on RGP, that I want a President that will stand up for what he
> > believes in. No one is going to be elected that I agree with on every
> > single thing. Just have the chutzpah to do what he:she has said they
> > will.
>
> Never happen. Fifty years ago a country song had the lyrics,
>
> "When a President walks through the White House door,
> And does what he said he'd do,
> Then I'll be drinkin' that free Bubble-Up
> And eatin' that rainbow stew."

.
.> Some people really believed that Obama was going to be different.

He isn't?

[Tim Norfolk]

On Monday, May 20, 2013 12:31:19 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
> . for three more years- what are the odds that the Democrats keep the
> White House and the Republicans lose the House?

My opinion is that the latter is unlikely, given the gerrymandering.

[TruthSeeker]

You know, you two guys are as far out in la-la land on the Right as
fffurken and Clave are on the Left. And what all four of you have in
common is intolerance for any view that deviates in any small part from
your own, and a need to throw vicious invective at those who aren't in
full agreement with your extreme partisan ideologies.

[Travel A]

God! he sounds like Fauxcahontas now.

[popinjay999]

On May 22, 6:24 pm, TruthSeeker <TruthSee...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:

>
> You know, you two guys are as far out in la-la land on the Right as
> fffurken and Clave are on the Left.  And what all four of you have in
> common is intolerance for any view that deviates in any small part from
> your own, and a need to throw vicious invective at those who aren't in
> full agreement with your extreme partisan ideologies.
>

"Extremism, in the defense of liberty, is no vice. And moderation, in
the pursuit of justice, is no virtue. You dumb mutherfucker."

-- Paul Popinjay, RGP, May 22, 2013

[Mossingen]

"mo_ntresor" wrote in message news:1ofs6ax...@news.ezprovider.com...

On May 21 2013 9:08 AM, Mossingen wrote:

> I don't know much about Christie, but she's right about Elizabeth Warren.
> I
> know you probably think she's a communist plant, but she's extremely
> intelligent and understands government better than you do. She's from
> Oklahoma City and taught law at Harvard. What more do you want?

gee, another lawyer who can't add, just what the country needs!

mo_ntresor

____________________________


Running the government entails understanding how government works, not being
an accountant. I think you drastically underestimate Elizabeth Warren. I
doubt she has a chance at the presidency, but she's a formidable intellect
and should be a force in the Senate.

[popinjay999]

On May 23, 9:31 am, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:

>
> Running the government entails understanding how government works, not being
> an accountant.  I think you drastically underestimate Elizabeth Warren.  I
> doubt she has a chance at the presidency, but she's a formidable intellect
> and should be a force in the Senate.

Nobody is doubting her intellect and efficiency, and THAT'S the
problem. When we say she's a left-wing loon, we don't literally mean
she's a loon. Geez, James, can't you read between the lines?