Sarah and Romney Tied
Travel
This poll tells us:
The Republican conservative vote is split between multiple candidates,
(Sarah being one) and she's still in first place. As conservative
candidates drop out, Sarah will pick up the votes.
Romney has the moderate market cornered, but he does poorly among
conservatives, (which is the majority of Republican primary voters).
I can't see how Paw-linty fits in. He competes for Romney's moderate
vote. The best Pawlint can do is win the Iowa caucus, but then still
can't take New Hampshire away from Romney. Romney polled so bad in
South Carolina the last time round that he dropped out and went
straight to Florida. The-lint-of- paws won't beat Sarah in South
Carolina, anymore than he can beat Romney in New Hampshire.
They'll (the other candidates) run out of money, quick, after the Iowa
Caucus: Romney will win New Hampshire, Sarah will win South Carolina,
then it's Nevada (where Sarah's given some big, rally speeches). The
other candidates can't hang in.
It looks good for Sarah.
.
VegasJerry
And the Democrats.....
_______________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Dutch
"Travel" <nin...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:b3e17d98-1a22-4f6a...@r17g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
She'll have a big advantage as prospective president, she can see Russia
from her house!
DDawgster
> http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/
>
> This poll tells us:
>
> The Republican conservative vote is split between multiple candidates,
> (Sarah being one) and she's still in first place. As conservative
> candidates drop out, Sarah will pick up the votes.
WHAT AN INTERESTING , TWISTED LITTLE WORLD YOU LIVE IN !!
>
> Romney has the moderate market cornered, but he does poorly among
> conservatives, (which is the majority of Republican primary voters).
>
> I can't see how Paw-linty fits in. He competes for Romney's moderate
> vote. The best Pawlint can do is win the Iowa caucus, but then still
> can't take New Hampshire away from Romney. Romney polled so bad in
> South Carolina the last time round that he dropped out and went
> straight to Florida. The-lint-of- paws won't beat Sarah in South
> Carolina, anymore than he can beat Romney in New Hampshire.
>
> They'll (the other candidates) run out of money, quick, after the Iowa
> Caucus: Romney will win New Hampshire, Sarah will win South Carolina,
> then it's Nevada (where Sarah's given some big, rally speeches). The
> other candidates can't hang in.
>
> It looks good for Sarah.
>
>
> .
"Glaciers advance and recede, just like the tides, only a little
> slower."
Alim
exhibiting the results of The Great State of Texas public education
-----
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
BillB
"Travel" <nin...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:b3e17d98-1a22-4f6a...@r17g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> It looks good for Sarah.
All indications are that Sarah Palin is not going to run.
fffurken
> All indications are that Sarah Palin is not going to run.
Of course she's not going to fucking run!
This is good publicity though.
DDawgster
oh no not that briar patch brear Fox
"Glaciers advance and recede, just like the tides, only a little
> slower."
Alim
exhibiting the results of The Great State of Texas public education
-----
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
brewmaster
> On Jun 2 2011 4:25 PM, Travel wrote:
>
> > http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/
> >
> > This poll tells us:
> >
> > The Republican conservative vote is split between multiple candidates,
> > (Sarah being one) and she's still in first place. As conservative
> > candidates drop out, Sarah will pick up the votes.
> >
> > Romney has the moderate market cornered, but he does poorly among
> > conservatives, (which is the majority of Republican primary voters).
> >
> > I can't see how Paw-linty fits in. He competes for Romney's moderate
> > vote. The best Pawlint can do is win the Iowa caucus, but then still
> > can't take New Hampshire away from Romney. Romney polled so bad in
> > South Carolina the last time round that he dropped out and went
> > straight to Florida. The-lint-of- paws won't beat Sarah in South
> > Carolina, anymore than he can beat Romney in New Hampshire.
> >
> > They'll (the other candidates) run out of money, quick, after the Iowa
> > Caucus: Romney will win New Hampshire, Sarah will win South Carolina,
> > then it's Nevada (where Sarah's given some big, rally speeches). The
> > other candidates can't hang in.
> >
> > It looks good for Sarah.
> >
> >
> > .
>
> oh no not that briar patch brear Fox
LOL
She's not going to run, she's going to sick the tea partiers on one of the
other candidates who won't win. The real republican candidates (Chris
Christie, Mitch Daniels) will run in 4 years when they don't have to face
a virtually guaranteed incumbent winner.
>
>
> "Glaciers advance and recede, just like the tides, only a little
> > slower."
>
> Alim
> exhibiting the results of The Great State of Texas public education
______________________________________________________________________
VegasJerry
She's just making money for herself. Idiots like Travel willl send her
money. Then she'll have somebody write another book for her. Travel will
send her more money. Then the GOP will give her money NOT to run, but to
stump for whoever does run. She'll get even richer.
We have GOT to find some way to get HER to run. It would be hilarious. The
jokes would be unending.
Jerry 'n Vegas
The real republican candidates (Chris
> Christie, Mitch Daniels) will run in 4 years when they don't have to face
> a virtually guaranteed incumbent winner.
>
> >
> >
> > "Glaciers advance and recede, just like the tides, only a little
> > > slower."
> >
> > Alim
> > exhibiting the results of The Great State of Texas public education
_____________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
Travel
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's what they said about Ronald Reagan.
Travel
Of course she's running, it's like wondering if Jack Nicklaus will
show up at the Masters, duh!
The left wing and RINOs are repeatedly predicting that she won't run,
because thay hope it'll keep her poll numbers and "SaraPac"
contributions down. They absolutely hate seeing a poll like this or
Gallup's poll showing her only 2pts from Romney and with a "field"
left behind.
The gigantic crowd of reporters were twenty deep outside of Trump
Towers when Sarah went to visit The Donald in New York.
Also, it was a hilarious, where Sarah showed up in New Hampshire on
Romney's big, formal announcement day and sucked the oxygen right out
of Romney's Bar-B-Que. Good strategy, lol. I think Piper made that
call (chortle).
Sarah's so adorable in her bus.
mo_charles
travel, palin will lose HUGE in a national election. i'm on the right of
the independents, and i don't know a soul who would vote for her. quite
the opposite, many rights would vote for o-fucking-bama instead. if her
lean is what we need, find a better candidate (huntsman, cain maybe).
mo_charles
------
Iceman
Cain, the bigot who said he wouldn't appoint a Muslim to his cabinet
or to a judgeship?
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/03/26/153625/herman-cain-muslims/
Cain, who is hardcore religious right, and accused Planned Parenthood
of black genocide?
mo_charles
> > the independents, and i don't know a soul who would vote for her. quite
> > the opposite, many rights would vote for o-fucking-bama instead. if her
> > lean is what we need, find a better candidate (huntsman, cain maybe).
>
> Cain, the bigot who said he wouldn't appoint a Muslim to his cabinet
> or to a judgeship?
>
> http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/03/26/153625/herman-cain-muslims/
>
> Cain, who is hardcore religious right, and accused Planned Parenthood
> of black genocide?
>
>
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/15/cain-planned-parenthood%E2%80%99s-mission-is-planned-genocide-of-black-babies/
the hyperventilating character assassination has begun? this guy must
have a chance.
mo_charles
--------
BillB
"mo_charles" <harry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:11hnb8x...@recgroups.com...
> the hyperventilating character assassination has begun?
He didn't say those things?
Stick with the guy who believe in the Golden Tablets. He's your man.
mo_charles
>
> He didn't say those things?
> Stick with the guy who believe in the Golden Tablets. He's your man.
golden tablets beat cockshots to young co-eds' twitters followed by
obligatory lawyer lies. they beat campaign finance fraud too (more lawyer
lies, etc. etc.). most get the picture.
VegasJerry
> On Jun 2, 6:04 pm, "VegasJerry" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Jun 2 2011 2:25 PM, Travel wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/
> >
> > > This poll tells us:
> >
> > > The Republican conservative vote is split between multiple candidates,
> > > (Sarah being one) and she's still in first place. As conservative
> > > candidates drop out, Sarah will pick up the votes.
> >
> > > Romney has the moderate market cornered, but he does poorly among
> > > conservatives, (which is the majority of Republican primary voters).
> >
> > > I can't see how Paw-linty fits in. He competes for Romney's moderate
> > > vote. The best Pawlint can do is win the Iowa caucus, but then still
> > > can't take New Hampshire away from Romney. Romney polled so bad in
> > > South Carolina the last time round that he dropped out and went
> > > straight to Florida. The-lint-of- paws won't beat Sarah in South
> > > Carolina, anymore than he can beat Romney in New Hampshire.
> >
> > > They'll (the other candidates) run out of money, quick, after the Iowa
> > > Caucus: Romney will win New Hampshire, Sarah will win South Carolina,
> > > then it's Nevada (where Sarah's given some big, rally speeches). The
> > > other candidates can't hang in.
> >
> > > It looks good for Sarah.
> >
> > And the Democrats.....
> >
> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> That's what they said about Ronald Reagan.
And it was true. Reagan trippled the national debt; Bush then doubled it.
_____________________________________________________________________
Travel
>
> - Show quoted text -
Turd can only pretend n' post.
Travel
>
> - Show quoted text -
Obama now has a record. The best candidate to beat Obama is the
candidate who displays the most striking difference in his radical,
socialist policies. That's Sarah.
Cain, although likable, really has no relevant experience. He's
completely untested in the ability to govern. Candidates from the US
House of Representatives are always a very long shot to get the
nomination, and Cain's not even up to that level.
Huntsman's a screaming commie. Not a chance.
TruthSeeker
> She's not going to run, she's going to sick the tea partiers on one of the
> other candidates who won't win. The real republican candidates (Chris
> Christie, Mitch Daniels) will run in 4 years when they don't have to face
> a virtually guaranteed incumbent winner.
Virtually guaranteed incumbent winner? Sure, the incumbent normally has
a big advantage. But not when the economy is bad. No incumbent
President has been re-elected with unemployment above 7.2% since FDR.
The unemployment rate just went back up to 9.1%. Even if the economy
doesn't officially slide into a double-dip recession the anemic growth
and continued abysmal jobs numbers point to another Republican year in
2012. Obama and his economic team are being seen as "The gang who
couldn't shoot straight."
Obama can't even drive us deeper into debt to try another stimulus,
there is no way the Congress is going to approve one. They won't even
raise the debt ceiling without spending-cut concessions (that includes
half the Democrats in Congress).
Obama got a bump in his overall job approval rating from the killing of
Bin Laden. But that didn't help the disapproval of his handling of the
economy, and the Bin Laden glow won't last. H. W. Bush had a great
approval rating following the first Gulf war, but the following year the
economy did him in.
--
TruthSeeker
TruthSeeker
> We have GOT to find some way to get [Palin] to run. It would be
> hilarious. The jokes would be unending.
Yep, just like the jokes about Ronald Reagan in 1979. No way that
B-movie actor had a chance against Jimmy Carter.
--
TruthSeeker
TruthSeeker
> travel, palin will lose HUGE in a national election. i'm on the right of
> the independents, and i don't know a soul who would vote for her. quite
> the opposite, many rights would vote for o-fucking-bama instead. if her
> lean is what we need, find a better candidate (huntsman, cain maybe).
I'd agree that the odds would be against her, but it's by no means a
sure thing. Unless the economy turns around big and fast Obama will be
a badly wounded candidate. Sure, a lot of independents won't vote for
her but they won't vote for Obama either, they'll stay home, and the
Democratic base will be dispirited while the Republicans and the Tea
Partiers will be energized. Remember 2010.
--
TruthSeeker
TruthSeeker
> Obama now has a record. The best candidate to beat Obama is the
> candidate who displays the most striking difference in his radical,
> socialist policies. That's Sarah.
Have you noticed how Democrats and liberal commentators are praising
Romney, and saying he'd be the Republicans' best nominee? That's
because he's Obama lite and the easiest candidate for Obama to beat --
and the one most palatable to them should he happen to win.
Should Romney get the nomination, these same people will turn on him in
an instant and start calling him the devil incarnate.
--
TruthSeeker
Clave
news:2MmdnYMN9pGPBXTQ...@giganews.com...
We won't have to. You Teabaggers will do all that lifting for us.
Jim
VegasJerry
> Travel wrote:
>
> > Obama now has a record. The best candidate to beat Obama is the
> > candidate who displays the most striking difference in his radical,
> > socialist policies. That's Sarah.
>
> Have you noticed how Democrats and liberal commentators are praising
> Romney, and saying he'd be the Republicans' best nominee?
He would be. His healthcare closely resembles the Democrats.
Jerry 'n Vegas
> That's
> because he's Obama lite and the easiest candidate for Obama to beat --
> and the one most palatable to them should he happen to win.
>
> Should Romney get the nomination, these same people will turn on him in
> an instant and start calling him the devil incarnate.
>
>
>
>
> --
> TruthSeeker
------
VegasJerry
> mo_charles wrote:
>
> > travel, palin will lose HUGE in a national election. i'm on the right of
> > the independents, and i don't know a soul who would vote for her. quite
> > the opposite, many rights would vote for o-fucking-bama instead. if her
> > lean is what we need, find a better candidate (huntsman, cain maybe).
>
> I'd agree that the odds would be against her, but it's by no means a
> sure thing. Unless the economy turns around big and fast Obama will be
> a badly wounded candidate.
Why? It's the Republicans' fault. Ask Irish Mick. The recovery was moving
along, slowly; then the Republicans took congress. As Irish Mick will tell
you; congress controls everything. Now that we're controled by Teabaggers,
the reovery has slowed even more.
> Sure, a lot of independents won't vote for
> her but they won't vote for Obama either, they'll stay home,
Not me. This time I'll vote for Obama. He's the one that saved us from a
depression and was pulling us from the recession (until Republicans took
control of congress and cause the recovery to stall).
> and the
> Democratic base will be dispirited while the Republicans and the Tea
> Partiers will be energized. Remember 2010.
Right. When the Teabaggers stopped the recovery.
>
>
>
> --
> TruthSeeker
________________________________________________________________________
VegasJerry
> VegasJerry wrote:
>
> > We have GOT to find some way to get [Palin] to run. It would be
> > hilarious. The jokes would be unending.
>
> Yep, just like the jokes about Ronald Reagan in 1979.
Who then trippled the national debt. They joke was on the American people.
No way that
> B-movie actor had a chance against Jimmy Carter.
>
>
>
> --
> TruthSeeker
______________________________________________________________________
VegasJerry
> brewmaster wrote:
>
> > She's not going to run, she's going to sick the tea partiers on one of the
> > other candidates who won't win. The real republican candidates (Chris
> > Christie, Mitch Daniels) will run in 4 years when they don't have to face
> > a virtually guaranteed incumbent winner.
>
> Virtually guaranteed incumbent winner? Sure, the incumbent normally has
> a big advantage. But not when the economy is bad.
Why? The Republicans can't do anything about it. They were the ones that
destroyed it and are now stopping the recovery.
Jerry 'n Vegas
> No incumbent
> President has been re-elected with unemployment above 7.2% since FDR.
> The unemployment rate just went back up to 9.1%. Even if the economy
> doesn't officially slide into a double-dip recession the anemic growth
> and continued abysmal jobs numbers point to another Republican year in
> 2012. Obama and his economic team are being seen as "The gang who
> couldn't shoot straight."
>
> Obama can't even drive us deeper into debt to try another stimulus,
> there is no way the Congress is going to approve one. They won't even
> raise the debt ceiling without spending-cut concessions (that includes
> half the Democrats in Congress).
>
> Obama got a bump in his overall job approval rating from the killing of
> Bin Laden. But that didn't help the disapproval of his handling of the
> economy, and the Bin Laden glow won't last. H. W. Bush had a great
> approval rating following the first Gulf war, but the following year the
> economy did him in.
>
>
>
>
> --
> TruthSeeker
---
Travel
That's right, they go easy on Romney, because they know Romney will
"deal." We need a strong-convictions reformer, not another appeaser
like Bush. Actually, the Bushes were left wing collaborators, which is
even worse.
Travel
Before Romneycare, 95% of Massachusettes residents had health
insurance. With Romneycare, 98% of Massachusettes residents have
health care.
That 3% difference is mostly young, working people who could afford
healthcare, but just chose not to spend that monthly payment on health
insurance. Now they're forced to have health insurance through tax
penalties. This negligible difference in percentage covered, at a
ruinous cost.
The "poor people"? Uh, the poor people were already eligible for
Welfare Medicaid, SSI, SS-Medicare-disability/retirement and VA health
insurance; not to mention free health care at a hospital ER for any
that slipped between the cracks; including illegal aliens.
Travel
The economy didn't show any improvement until the Republicans took
control of the The House: businessses and consumers knew that Obama
coudn't pass anymore outrageous, harmful bills without The House and
eased up a little on "pent-up demand" spending.
The bad economy, heading for a double-recession, is due to Obama's
disastrous policies.
Also, the tea party doesn't control the Repubican part of congress:
the left wing collaboratiing RINOs are still in the Republican
leadership.
Travel
> On Jun 3 2011 7:12 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>
> > VegasJerry wrote:
>
> > > We have GOT to find some way to get [Palin] to run. It would be
> > > hilarious. The jokes would be unending.
>
> > Yep, just like the jokes about Ronald Reagan in 1979.
>
> Who then trippled the national debt. They joke was on the American people.
>
The joke is on you, Turd. Any deficit under Ronald Reagan was
mannageable and his policies dramatically cut taxes, brought interest
rates down from Carter's (Democrat) 20%, created 20 million jobs and
defeated the Soviet Union. Plus, the measure is the federal spending
percentage of the GDP, you dancing imbecile. Obama's disaster
socialism has that figure going up to 27%.
Obama has out-spent every American President in history, combined.
Now, adjust your idiocy for inflation.
Ronald Reagan cut domestic spending as well as dramatically cut
taxes.
The first two years of the Reagan Presidency was busy with getting the
country out of Carter and the Democrats' disaster of 10% unemployment
and 20% interest rates, etc. In the last two years of the Reagan
presidency, the Democrats controlled congress, raised taxes on
construction etc., and caused the banking, S&L crisis as their
accomplishment.
It's an abundantly clear-cut case of Ronald Reagan's free market
policies and strong national defense v. ruinous, Obama socialist
"policies," weak national defense and U.S. sovereignty-destroying
collusion with world/Euro-socialists.
Next moron
TruthSeeker
> On Jun 3 2011 7:17 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>> I'd agree that the odds would be against [Palin], but it's by no
> means a sure thing. Unless the economy turns around big and fast
>> Obama will be a badly wounded candidate.
> Why? It's the Republicans' fault. Ask Irish Mick. The recovery was moving
> along, slowly; then the Republicans took congress. As Irish Mick will tell
> you; congress controls everything. Now that we're controled by Teabaggers,
> the reovery has slowed even more.
And here the predictable spin from Jerry. As even he can't deny the
poor recovery any more, he blames it on the Republicans. Even though
they only got a majority in one house of Congress.
Sorry, Jerry, but Obama and the Democrats still own the economy. I do
think it's unfair in a way, no President by himself actually has much
control over the economy, but that's politics.
--
TruthSeeker
Clave
<...>
> Sorry, Jerry, but Obama and the Democrats still own the economy...
And it's a god-damned good thing they do.
I think I'd rather have that around my neck than "wants to start a new
recession and destroy Medicare and Social Security."
Jim
Pepe Papon
wrote:
Yeah, but give them some credit. At least they want to attack the
deficit by giving even more tax cuts to the rich.
Pepe Papon
wrote:
>On Jun 3 2011 7:08 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>
>> brewmaster wrote:
>>
>> > She's not going to run, she's going to sick the tea partiers on one of the
>> > other candidates who won't win. The real republican candidates (Chris
>> > Christie, Mitch Daniels) will run in 4 years when they don't have to face
>> > a virtually guaranteed incumbent winner.
>>
>> Virtually guaranteed incumbent winner? Sure, the incumbent normally has
>> a big advantage. But not when the economy is bad.
>
>Why? The Republicans can't do anything about it. They were the ones that
>destroyed it and are now stopping the recovery.
>
>
>Jerry 'n Vegas
That's a complex message to communicate in this sound bite era.
Republicans are masters of the sound bite. If the Democrats can find
a way to compress that much info into a simple message, then they have
a shot.
Travel
> "TruthSeeker" <TruthSee...@nospam.us> wrote in message
Obama already shafted Medicare recipients by cutting a half a trillion
dollars from their benefits with Obama commie"care."
Ryan's plan saves Medicare.
Name one thing Obama has done that's good for the economy. Except,
obviously, extending the BUSH tax cuts.
Travel
> On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 20:11:22 -0700, "Clave" <clav...@the.monastery.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"TruthSeeker" <TruthSee...@nospam.us> wrote in message
> >news:jLidndP5PeQkf3fQ...@giganews.com...
>
> ><...>
>
> >> Sorry, Jerry, but Obama and the Democrats still own the economy...
>
> >And it's a god-damned good thing they do.
>
> >I think I'd rather have that around my neck than "wants to start a new
> >recession and destroy Medicare and Social Security."
>
> >Jim
>
> Yeah, but give them some credit. At least they want to attack the
> deficit by giving even more tax cuts to the rich.
Small business owners, who provide the majority of jobs are "the
rich"? Plumbers and convenience store owners are the rich?
BillB
"Travel" <nin...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:11d25a59-78a5-4ebd...@hd10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
>Small business owners, who provide the majority of jobs are "the
>rich"? Plumbers and convenience store owners are the rich?
That would depend on how much they make. Some are, some aren't.
Travel
> On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 07:35:05 -0700, "VegasJerry" <jerr...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jun 3 2011 7:08 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>
> >> brewmaster wrote:
>
> >> > She's not going to run, she's going to sick the tea partiers on one of the
> >> > other candidates who won't win. The real republican candidates (Chris
> >> > Christie, Mitch Daniels) will run in 4 years when they don't have to face
> >> > a virtually guaranteed incumbent winner.
>
> >> Virtually guaranteed incumbent winner? Sure, the incumbent normally has
> >> a big advantage. But not when the economy is bad.
>
> >Why? The Republicans can't do anything about it. They were the ones that
> >destroyed it and are now stopping the recovery.
>
> >Jerry 'n Vegas
>
> That's a complex message to communicate in this sound bite era.
Bullshit usually is, regardless of the "era." Note the mid-term
elections.
VegasJerry
> VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Jun 3 2011 7:17 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>
> >> I'd agree that the odds would be against [Palin], but it's by no
> > means a sure thing. Unless the economy turns around big and fast
> >> Obama will be a badly wounded candidate.
> > Why? It's the Republicans' fault. Ask Irish Mick. The recovery was moving
> > along, slowly; then the Republicans took congress. As Irish Mick will tell
> > you; congress controls everything. Now that we're controled by Teabaggers,
> > the reovery has slowed even more.
> And here the predictable spin from Jerry. As even he can't deny the
> poor recovery any more, he blames it on the Republicans.
No, I did not. You're dodging again. I said the recovery was slow, but a
recovery none-the-less. The recovery is slower, now that the Republicans
are fucking with it.
> Even though
> they only got a majority in one house of Congress.
THAT'S the part you have to hash out with Irish Mick.
Jerry 'n Vegas
>
> Sorry, Jerry, but Obama and the Democrats still own the economy. I do
> think it's unfair in a way, no President by himself actually has much
> control over the economy, but that's politics.
>
>
>
> --
> TruthSeeker
_______________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
Travel
> "Travel" <nine...@webtv.net> wrote in message
I'm looking for a point. All I see lame is obfuscation and worn-out
"Class warfare" gogglygoop.
Raising taxes is bad for the economy, regardless of the income. Also,
$200.000 a year isn't the rich. So, raising taxes is not only bad for
the economy, but the Democrats are lying, and shafting the middle
class as well as the lower class who need jobs provided by small
business owners.
Travel
> On Jun 4 2011 6:58 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>
> > VegasJerry wrote:
> > > On Jun 3 2011 7:17 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>
> > >> I'd agree that the odds would be against [Palin], but it's by no
> > > means a sure thing. Unless the economy turns around big and fast
> > >> Obama will be a badly wounded candidate.
> > > Why? It's the Republicans' fault. Ask Irish Mick. The recovery was moving
> > > along, slowly; then the Republicans took congress. As Irish Mick will tell
> > > you; congress controls everything. Now that we're controled by Teabaggers,
> > > the reovery has slowed even more.
> > And here the predictable spin from Jerry. As even he can't deny the
> > poor recovery any more, he blames it on the Republicans.
>
> No, I did not. You're dodging again. I said the recovery was slow, but a
> recovery none-the-less. The recovery is slower, now that the Republicans
> are fucking with it.
>
>
Name one thing the Republicans are doing that's "fucking with it,"
without lying.
BillB
>Also, $200.000 a year isn't the rich.
Yes, it is.