Git Sum Presidentin' (Republican primaries)

[Coffee and TV]

I don't get it Kram. My 83 year-old grandfather has a better sense of humor than you.

[meangreendork]

I'm still amused that political talk didn't really spike up on the GMG boards until the 2008 election.

[KRAM1]

I don't get it Kram. My 83 year-old grandfather has a better sense of humor than you.

Because you don't get it is a sign of the challenge you face. Using such words in a public forum is offensive and childish...the fact that you "don't get it" tells me something of your definition of a "grown man". Placing a smiley face icon after such nonsense in no way makes it acceptable. It is offensive and shows a lack of maturity in tyring to express one's opinion.

You know it is, and you know better than that. You have shown the ability to make your points well, and to back them up...try sticking to that and then we can all see how a "grown man" does things...And, I doubt your 83 year old grandfather would be laughing at your post nor see any humor in it at all....it wasn't funny. It was offensive.

[Harry]

I don't get it Kram. My 83 year-old grandfather has a better sense of humor than you.

We let things run pretty open in the Nest, but this is going a little too far even though you prolly meant it to be a joke C&T. There have been some good thoughts and interaction in this thread so I don't want to close it but let's keep is quasi civil please...to quote one of my favorite Van Halen albums, "Fair Warning"...

GMG

[Coffee and TV]

Because you don't get it is a sign of the challenge you face. Using such words in a public forum is offensive and childish...the fact that you "don't get it" tells me something of your definition of a "grown man". Placing a smiley face icon after such nonsense in no way makes it acceptable. It is offensive and shows a lack of maturity in tyring to express one's opinion.

You know it is, and you know better than that. You have shown the ability to make your points well, and to back them up...try sticking to that and then we can all see how a "grown man" does things...And, I doubt your 83 year old grandfather would be laughing at your post nor see any humor in it at all....it wasn't funny. It was offensive.

And what does it say about someone so self-righteous as yourself? That you have some sort of authority to try and judge me based on a silly alumni message board? How "grown-up" are you to cast judgement on someone you've never met, someone you barely know anything about, and someone sits behind a computer? You know nothing about my maturity or the sense of humor my grandfather would have over something as nonsensical as a slap fight between myself and another message board poster. You have consistently tried to take every one of my posts out-of-context and then lecture me on what I do or don't think, or in many cases, what you want to believe I think. What kind of person attempts at every opportunity to speak down to me like a child because they were put on the earth before I was? Who the hell are you to think you know what's best for me?

Please, find someone else to mold or lecture with the great wealth of worldly knowledge you think you possess. I've been around the block a time or two, I can make decisions all on my own without help. If I do need it, I'll find someone who treats me as an equal and not look to a message board where I can be constantly patronized.

[UNT90]

---Gasoline was over $3.90 in Texas in the summer of 2008.... and when I drove to Florida most of the Southern States had it priced at over $4.00 (expensive auto trip).. Then the banking crisis happened in Sept-Oct. along with the Banking bail -outs and it dropped greatly and has never been that high again.... nor has employment... Low gasoline prices don't necessary mean good economy. At the same time in 2008 the stock market started tanking and continued to do so until it went into the 6000's in early 2009.... It began recovering in March of 2009. It is now almost 13,000 again. Also car companies were bailed out in early 2009 and Chrysler has paid that money back, Ford didn't take any...GM still owes some.... and the "Clunker" program increased production and helped keep people working in factories and at car dealerships. That was a much better option that the increased employment that could have resulted and insane amount of unemployment checks that would have been paid.

Deal with facts not political party prejudice.... I am not sure some really realize what conservative is... balancing the budget which happened in the 90's was... Doubling the debt it as happened after 2001 isn't. You don't spend more than you take in (for all eight years) and be considered conservative.

True the debt is still going up.... well... what has Congress passed to help...? about nothing. The President doesn't pass bills, Congress does, he just signs or vetos them.

...

Dude. Stop looking at your educator's union talking pioints. Americans will not accept unemployment over 8 percent and gas prices over $4.00 a gallon. They didn't in 2008 and they won't in 2012.

Facts, plain and simple. No matter which party you call home.

[Green Mean]

Dude. Stop looking at your educator's union talking pioints. Americans will not accept unemployment over 8 percent and gas prices over $4.00 a gallon. They didn't in 2008 and they won't in 2012.

Facts, plain and simple. No matter which party you call home.

Well folks may not have a choice in gas prices. When gas went to 2 and 3 dollars it was a big hoopla but people sort of got used to it. If gas goes to 4 bucks...people will bitch but it still won't stop a lot of people from driving and buying gas guzzlers.

[oldguystudent]

Gas prices ate greatly affected by HUGE increase on world demand led by India and China, both of whom were trudging around on bicycles ten years ago. Go ahead. Drill Alaska. I genuinely could not care less about the red spotted Arctic mongoose. But the man who drills Alaska, then sells the oil for a discount to world market prices so his domestic commuting compatriots can get some relief at the pump isn't a very good businessman.

[Censored by Laurie]

Facts, plain and simple.

Actually, the facts plain and simple are that no presidential election has been won on the platform of "I'm not _____(current president)."

The Republicans will eventually settle on a candidate that will appeal to about a third of their base and maybe a quarter of the moderates and will bank on winning with a "I'm not Obama" campaign rather than "I'm _______, a strong and charismatic leader with this clear plan of action to move America forward." It will fail...it failed in 2004, 1984, anyone led to slaughter against FDR...it's just not a successful strategy for winning an election.

The primaries have shown that the nomination will eventual be won by attrition. The loyalists will still just punch the R square at the top of the card, but each one...Romney, Santorum and Gingrich...have something off-putting enough to swing voters to keep them away. Romney's willingness to change his stance on everything at any given moment depending upon to whom he's attempting to pander may well be the only Republican hope.

[Mean Green 93-98]

Actually, the facts plain and simple are that no presidential election has been won on the platform of "I'm not _____(current president)."

The Republicans will eventually settle on a candidate that will appeal to about a third of their base and maybe a quarter of the moderates and will bank on winning with a "I'm not Obama" campaign rather than "I'm _______, a strong and charismatic leader with this clear plan of action to move America forward." It will fail...it failed in 2004, 1984, anyone led to slaughter against FDR...it's just not a successful strategy for winning an election.

It worked in 2008.

[KRAM1]

And what does it say about someone so self-righteous as yourself? That you have some sort of authority to try and judge me based on a silly alumni message board? How "grown-up" are you to cast judgement on someone you've never met, someone you barely know anything about, and someone sits behind a computer? You know nothing about my maturity or the sense of humor my grandfather would have over something as nonsensical as a slap fight between myself and another message board poster. You have consistently tried to take every one of my posts out-of-context and then lecture me on what I do or don't think, or in many cases, what you want to believe I think. What kind of person attempts at every opportunity to speak down to me like a child because they were put on the earth before I was? Who the hell are you to think you know what's best for me?

Please, find someone else to mold or lecture with the great wealth of worldly knowledge you think you possess. I've been around the block a time or two, I can make decisions all on my own without help. If I do need it, I'll find someone who treats me as an equal and not look to a message board where I can be constantly patronized.

So, let's see...C&T = dish it out... great...take it= not so much. I get it. Just glad I'm not on those same blocks you have "been around"...sorry if my comments hit a little too close to home for you. Happy to have any of your comments as long as you keep the offensive language off the board. I really don't think that's asking too much...nor is it being self-righteous any more than your using that language is self-aggrandizing. I'm done with this ... you may have the last word if you wish...

[UNT90]

Actually, the facts plain and simple are that no presidential election has been won on the platform of "I'm not _____(current president)."

The Republicans will eventually settle on a candidate that will appeal to about a third of their base and maybe a quarter of the moderates and will bank on winning with a "I'm not Obama" campaign rather than "I'm _______, a strong and charismatic leader with this clear plan of action to move America forward." It will fail...it failed in 2004, 1984, anyone led to slaughter against FDR...it's just not a successful strategy for winning an election.

The primaries have shown that the nomination will eventual be won by attrition. The loyalists will still just punch the R square at the top of the card, but each one...Romney, Santorum and Gingrich...have something off-putting enough to swing voters to keep them away. Romney's willingness to change his stance on everything at any given moment depending upon to whom he's attempting to pander may well be the only Republican hope.

Nothing is more off-putting Than an economy that directly affects someone's pocketbook. Clinton and Reagan both understood this. Remember, at this point in time in the 1980 election process, Reagan was BEHIND Carter in all the polls.

And Reagan was painted by the Dems as a guy who would start WW3. A little worse than being a Christian, I think (another angle tried with failure in that election). 2 weeks before the election, the polls were within the margin of error. When it came right down to it, Americans voted their pocketbook, which Americans always do.

Don't get sidetracked. "It's the economy, stupid."

[Censored by Laurie]

It worked in 2008.

Not even close...hell, McCain ran more on a "I'm not Bush" campaign than either Clinton or Obama.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Dude. Stop looking at your educator's union talking pioints. Americans will not accept unemployment over 8 percent and gas prices over $4.00 a gallon. They didn't in 2008 and they won't in 2012.

Facts, plain and simple. No matter which party you call home.

--Well another bad assumption.. I teach mathematics (not politics) in a community college and am not a member of a union and never have been. You are somewhat right about 2008.... but look which party was in power when it got into that condition. Most people remember.. especially those who look at the numbers and statistics. Obama should be defeatable.... but I doubt it with cast that is now out there and with the crazy divided mix they are... We shall see.

Dude.??? Sounds pretty much like some movie with HS characters..

..

Edited February 9, 2012 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Censored by Laurie]

Don't get sidetracked. "It's the economy, stupid."

If that were universally true, Reagan should've lost in 1984.

But let's say it is true...the economic downturn started in '07, before Obama's election. Has he done much to improve things? Nah, not really...but most Americans have likely experienced economic stasis under Obama and given the times are likely rather satisfied with that considering the Republicans aren't trotting out an exciting alternative.

[Censored by Laurie]

Oh...and before I get completely drawn off-side and into political conversation on this slow day at work...this is gold.

[Coffee and TV]

So, let's see...C&T = dish it out... great...take it= not so much. I get it. Just glad I'm not on those same blocks you have "been around"...sorry if my comments hit a little too close to home for you. Happy to have any of your comments as long as you keep the offensive language off the board. I really don't think that's asking too much...nor is it being self-righteous any more than your using that language is self-aggrandizing. I'm done with this ... you may have the last word if you wish...

Completely ignores everything I said and continue to focus on a few words that are so harmful to virgin ears.

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

We shall see. As I pass a gas pump that was $3.10 a gallon three weeks ago that is now $3.49, and with gas prices predicted of over $4.00 per gallon by summer, I don't see it happening in time for Pres. Obama.

Why is Texas gas so expensive? We haven't seen prices rise much over the last couple months. I paid 2.88 a gallon this morning in Longmont, CO and passed 2 stations that were 2.90 on my way to work.

[oldguystudent]

Why is Texas gas so expensive? We haven't seen prices rise much over the last couple months. I paid 2.88 a gallon this morning in Longmont, CO and passed 2 stations that were 2.90 on my way to work.

Does Colorado have that anti-pollution additive requirement? I can't remember what it's called, but it used to be one of the reasons California gas is so much more expensive. Texas added the requirement a few years ago, and prices jumped accordingly.

[FirefightnRick]

...this is gold.

Not surprising you would think so.

Rick

[FirefightnRick]

Remember, at this point in time in the 1980 election process, Reagan was BEHIND Carter in all the polls.

I doubt he could remember considering he's 20 something going on 12.

Rick

[Censored by Laurie]

I doubt he could remember considering he's 20 something going on 12.

Rick

Seems UNT90 and I were having a civil discourse.

Why don't you go back to your "the mean kids don't listen to my crotchety and self-important bitching anymore so I'm taking my ball and going home" board?

[UNT90]

If that were universally true, Reagan should've lost in 1984.

But let's say it is true...the economic downturn started in '07, before Obama's election. Has he done much to improve things? Nah, not really...but most Americans have likely experienced economic stasis under Obama and given the times are likely rather satisfied with that considering the Republicans aren't trotting out an exciting alternative.

So much just plain wrong with this it isn't even funny.

The economic recovery had been ongoing for almost a year, with the jobless rate decreasing steadily in that time. Inflation and interest rates had come down greatly. He had much progress to point toward, and the nation as a whole felt that things were getting better.

The situation right now is nowhere close to that. Could that be the case by November? Maybe. But, if that is going to be the case, things have really got to start moving quickly on the jobless rate. I don't think this is likely.

Funny that you say Americans should settle on someone who has done nothing to better a terrible economy. Just shows how far people will go to protect their political "team". Maybe Pres. Obama's campaign slogan could be "Vote for me. After all, things were terrible when I came to office, and I have kept them that way!!"

Not a winning strategy.

If the economy stays the way it is, Pres. Obama should be a one term president. The only reason "should" isn't "will" is the republican party's ability to mess up a certain type of dream.

[Coffee and TV]

The economic recovery had been ongoing for almost a year, with the jobless rate decreasing steadily in that time. Inflation and interest rates had come down greatly. He had much progress to point toward, and the nation as a whole felt that things were getting better.

Sounds a lot like what's happening now. We've actually been in recovery for 2 years now. Very very slow recovery, but a recovery. The broken bone hasn't healed, but the cast(e?) has been set. Not to mention, the early 80's recession and the late 00's recession are two different animals. They weren't the results of the same problems, and you couldn't address them the same way either.

Funny that you say Americans should settle on someone who has done nothing to better a terrible economy. Just shows how far people will go to protect their political "team". Maybe Pres. Obama's campaign slogan could be "Vote for me. After all, things were terrible when I came to office, and I have kept them that way!!"

Not a winning strategy.

And what's the Republicans strategy, "I'm not Obama"?

Technically speaking, there's 2 choices in this year's election. People won't just vote against Obama in November, they'll need someone else to vote for. That candidate isn't out there for the Republicans. Maybe Romney comes away much more polished by August/September, but for now people aren't really interested in running out and voting Obama out of office if the other guy doesn't seem like he's any better.

[FirefightnRick]

BTW, gas prices were $3.05 a gallon in January '08 and spiked to $4 by march.

Rick