Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

The best the Conk party can do is a choice of the following:

Herman Cain, businessman and radio talk show host from Georgia
Newt Gingrich, former U.S. Speaker of the House of Representatives from Georgia
Fred Karger, political consultant and gay rights activist from California
Andy Martin, perennial candidate from Illinois
Jimmy McMillan, perennial candidate from New York
Roy Moore, former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court of Alabama
Ron Paul, U.S. Representative from Texas
Tim Pawlenty, former Governor from Minnesota
Buddy Roemer, former Governor from Louisiana
Mitt Romney, former Governor from Massachusetts
Rick Santorum, former Senator from Pennsylvania
Ole Savior, perennial candidate from Minnesota

Add to THAT "who's who" of right-wing-nuts the following possible (probable) candidates:

Sarah Palin
Michelle Bachman
Donald Trump
Mike Huckabee
Haley Barbour

So, setting aside the "perennial" candidates, at this point it appears we're going to get to choose between two psychotic bitches, one delusional 3xBK old man (Trump), a bible-thumping preacher (Huckabee), an absolutely unelectable Mormon (Romney), a cheating ex-Speaker of the House (Gingrich), a completely unelectable perennial candidate (Paul) and two retread governors who can't think of anything else to do (Barbour & Pawlenty).

And on the other side of the ballot we'll have a guy who is doing is absolute best to spend us into oblivion and wouldn't know an effective foreign policy if it walked up and kicked him in the nuts.

What happened to the good ol' days?

This election is going to be a fucking circus. And it's almost guaranteed that no matter WHO wins the Republican nomination, one or more of these wingnuts will run as an independent, diluting the vote like Perot did in 1992.

It's certainly not the first time there will be lame choices, in fact when really was the last time there were two strong candidates in the same election process.

And it is not a particular problem to the GOP either. Thinking back when the Dems ran Dukockass, and to a lesser extent John Kerry, neither could compete with the incumbent. On the other side, I am thinking of poor old Bob Dole with his limp dick getting his ass kicked by Clinton.

Kind of think that's what will happen again in 1012, Obama will destroy the Republican opponent whoever he/she is, but if the Repubs keep control of the House, I again expect to see Impeachment proceedings to commence once again.

Wedgebuster wrote:It's certainly not the first time there will be lame choices, in fact when really was the last time there were two strong candidates in the same election process.

And it is not a particular problem to the GOP either. Thinking back when the Dems ran Dukockass, and to a lesser extent John Kerry, neither could compete with the incumbent. On the other side, I am thinking of poor old Bob Dole with his limp dick getting his ass kicked by Clinton.

Kind of think that's what will happen again in 1012, Obama will destroy the Republican opponent whoever he/she is, but if the Repubs keep control of the House, I again expect to see Impeachment proceedings to commence once again.

That's my point exactly. Why is it that we always seem to be given a choice where it's the lesser of two evils? I mean, do I want a guy running the country who thinks we have a blank checkbook and doesn't think our national debt is a big deal, a guy who thinks cutting a budget INCREASE is the same as cutting the budget? Or do we want some psycho bitch who thinks Obama was born on Mars and the NH and Delaware are interchangeable?

AZGrizFan wrote:The best the Conk party can do is a choice of the following:

Herman Cain, businessman and radio talk show host from Georgia
Newt Gingrich, former U.S. Speaker of the House of Representatives from Georgia
Fred Karger, political consultant and gay rights activist from California
Andy Martin, perennial candidate from Illinois
Jimmy McMillan, perennial candidate from New York
Roy Moore, former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court of Alabama
Ron Paul, U.S. Representative from Texas
Tim Pawlenty, former Governor from Minnesota
Buddy Roemer, former Governor from Louisiana
Mitt Romney, former Governor from Massachusetts
Rick Santorum, former Senator from Pennsylvania
Ole Savior, perennial candidate from Minnesota

Add to THAT "who's who" of right-wing-nuts the following possible (probable) candidates:

Sarah Palin
Michelle Bachman
Donald Trump
Mike Huckabee
Haley Barbour

So, setting aside the "perennial" candidates, at this point it appears we're going to get to choose between two psychotic bitches, one delusional 3xBK old man (Trump), a bible-thumping preacher (Huckabee), an absolutely unelectable Mormon (Romney), a cheating ex-Speaker of the House (Gingrich), a completely unelectable perennial candidate (Paul) and two retread governors who can't think of anything else to do (Barbour & Pawlenty).

And on the other side of the ballot we'll have a guy who is doing is absolute best to spend us into oblivion and wouldn't know an effective foreign policy if it walked up and kicked him in the nuts.

What happened to the good ol' days?

This election is going to be a fucking circus. And it's almost guaranteed that no matter WHO wins the Republican nomination, one or more of these wingnuts will run as an independent, diluting the vote like Perot did in 1992.

inmates run the asylum in conkistan... that's what happens when you let the nutters take control like the conks did with those tea-party shitbags...

they'll never give Daniels the fair shake he deserves... so they'll either go with their Howard Dean clone (Palin) or their John Kerry clone (Pawlenty or Romney)

AZGrizFan wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:It's certainly not the first time there will be lame choices, in fact when really was the last time there were two strong candidates in the same election process.

And it is not a particular problem to the GOP either. Thinking back when the Dems ran Dukockass, and to a lesser extent John Kerry, neither could compete with the incumbent. On the other side, I am thinking of poor old Bob Dole with his limp dick getting his ass kicked by Clinton.

Kind of think that's what will happen again in 1012, Obama will destroy the Republican opponent whoever he/she is, but if the Repubs keep control of the House, I again expect to see Impeachment proceedings to commence once again.

That's my point exactly. Why is it that we always seem to be given a choice where it's the lesser of two evils? I mean, do I want a guy running the country who thinks we have a blank checkbook and doesn't think our national debt is a big deal, a guy who thinks cutting a budget INCREASE is the same as cutting the budget? Or do we want some psycho bitch who thinks Obama was born on Mars and the NH and Delaware are interchangeable?

Worse than that Z, your party is getting re-hijacked by the same crazy element that alienated millions of voters over the past years, even after many in the GOP called for returning to business that matters and leaving the polarizing social issues off the table. All this tea-bagger crap is turning the independents and the moderates back to the Dems.

When exactly were the good old days?

Incumbents just don't lose very often so you never get a good group of candidates from the opposing party in that kind of election. Obama will be re-elected barring some drastic worsening of the economy and no one wants to line up just to be a Dole or a Kerry.

With that said, it's all not happy times for the Dems despite likely getting to hold onto the White House until 2016. The House will still likely be GOP led after 2012 and there's a very real chance the Senate could be GOP-held as well after 2012. Both parties will have successes to point to and both parties will have pretty equal shares of government. As much as the tea party gets pilloried, they are seeing plenty enough of electoral success. 2014 and 2016 will really shape up to be interesting years and who comes out of the woodwork on both sides to run for President after Obama's second term is over.

GannonFan wrote:Incumbents just don't lose very often so you never get a good group of candidates from the opposing party in that kind of election. Obama will be re-elected barring some drastic worsening of the economy and no one wants to line up just to be a Dole or a Kerry.

With that said, it's all not happy times for the Dems despite likely getting to hold onto the White House until 2016. The House will still likely be GOP led after 2012 and there's a very real chance the Senate could be GOP-held as well after 2012. Both parties will have successes to point to and both parties will have pretty equal shares of government. As much as the tea party gets pilloried, they are seeing plenty enough of electoral success. 2014 and 2016 will really shape up to be interesting years and who comes out of the woodwork on both sides to run for President after Obama's second term is over.

So...you are saying the nutzys still have a chance to take over the Republican Party, establish their own third party, or otherwise be relevant in the future?

Interesting..

I'd vote for anything but Obama at this point. Even Huckabee

What's sad is, this is how I feel

I'd vote for anybody instead of Obama at this point. Even HILLARY

Wedgebuster wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Incumbents just don't lose very often so you never get a good group of candidates from the opposing party in that kind of election. Obama will be re-elected barring some drastic worsening of the economy and no one wants to line up just to be a Dole or a Kerry.

With that said, it's all not happy times for the Dems despite likely getting to hold onto the White House until 2016. The House will still likely be GOP led after 2012 and there's a very real chance the Senate could be GOP-held as well after 2012. Both parties will have successes to point to and both parties will have pretty equal shares of government. As much as the tea party gets pilloried, they are seeing plenty enough of electoral success. 2014 and 2016 will really shape up to be interesting years and who comes out of the woodwork on both sides to run for President after Obama's second term is over.

So...you are saying the nutzys still have a chance to take over the Republican Party, establish their own third party, or otherwise be relevant in the future?

Interesting..

As much as people like to label the tea partiers as nuts or crazy people, I think people aren't looking past the surface. Sure there are plenty of loons and Palin-types out there, but the Dems are being significantly challenged on spending and deficits and the nation's sustainability. 2010 wasn't an aberration, it was a real thrashing (just like the GOP was thrashed in 2006 and 2008). Unless we as a nation take off economically in the next year, we're still going to be struggling and there'll be plenty more questions over how to fix things and right now, the GOP is winning those arguments, especially in the legislature. People focus on the nuts, but they're missing the boring normal guys who are quietly going about their business and securing seats. There are enough nuts that the GOP won't be able to unseat a stronger than appearing Obama, but in local and state races there just aren't enough nuts to go around to lose.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:The best the Conk party can do is a choice of the following:

Herman Cain, businessman and radio talk show host from Georgia
Newt Gingrich, former U.S. Speaker of the House of Representatives from Georgia
Fred Karger, political consultant and gay rights activist from California
Andy Martin, perennial candidate from Illinois
Jimmy McMillan, perennial candidate from New York
Roy Moore, former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court of Alabama
Ron Paul, U.S. Representative from Texas
Tim Pawlenty, former Governor from Minnesota
Buddy Roemer, former Governor from Louisiana
Mitt Romney, former Governor from Massachusetts
Rick Santorum, former Senator from Pennsylvania
Ole Savior, perennial candidate from Minnesota

Add to THAT "who's who" of right-wing-nuts the following possible (probable) candidates:

Sarah Palin
Michelle Bachman
Donald Trump
Mike Huckabee
Haley Barbour

So, setting aside the "perennial" candidates, at this point it appears we're going to get to choose between two psychotic bitches, one delusional 3xBK old man (Trump), a bible-thumping preacher (Huckabee), an absolutely unelectable Mormon (Romney), a cheating ex-Speaker of the House (Gingrich), a completely unelectable perennial candidate (Paul) and two retread governors who can't think of anything else to do (Barbour & Pawlenty).

And on the other side of the ballot we'll have a guy who is doing is absolute best to spend us into oblivion and wouldn't know an effective foreign policy if it walked up and kicked him in the nuts.

What happened to the good ol' days?

This election is going to be a fucking circus. And it's almost guaranteed that no matter WHO wins the Republican nomination, one or more of these wingnuts will run as an independent, diluting the vote like Perot did in 1992.

inmates run the asylum in conkistan... that's what happens when you let the nutters take control like the conks did with those tea-party shitbags...

they'll never give Daniels the fair shake he deserves... so they'll either go with their Howard Dean clone (Palin) or their John Kerry clone (Pawlenty or Romney)

Newsflash: Inmates run the asylum in Donkyland as well...Dean, Pelosi, Palin, Reid, Emmanuel, Obama, Weiner, etc.,....

GannonFan wrote:Incumbents just don't lose very often so you never get a good group of candidates from the opposing party in that kind of election. Obama will be re-elected barring some drastic worsening of the economy and no one wants to line up just to be a Dole or a Kerry.

With that said, it's all not happy times for the Dems despite likely getting to hold onto the White House until 2016. The House will still likely be GOP led after 2012 and there's a very real chance the Senate could be GOP-held as well after 2012. Both parties will have successes to point to and both parties will have pretty equal shares of government. As much as the tea party gets pilloried, they are seeing plenty enough of electoral success. 2014 and 2016 will really shape up to be interesting years and who comes out of the woodwork on both sides to run for President after Obama's second term is over.

the long-term problem for the GOP is the split that they've not yet resolved. The Libertarian/Evangelical rift is going to break wide open at some point soon, and when it does, it will throw the GOP in to significant turmoil.

bulldog10jw wrote:What's sad is, this is how I feel

I'd vote for anybody instead of Obama at this point. Even HILLARY

Like I've said several times over the past 6 months, whodathunk I'd be looking back longing for the days of a Bill Clinton presidency.

AZGrizFan wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
inmates run the asylum in conkistan... that's what happens when you let the nutters take control like the conks did with those tea-party shitbags...

they'll never give Daniels the fair shake he deserves... so they'll either go with their Howard Dean clone (Palin) or their John Kerry clone (Pawlenty or Romney)

Newsflash: Inmates run the asylum in Donkyland as well...Dean, Pelosi, Palin, Reid, Emmanuel, Obama, Weiner, etc.,....

Not giving her away that easy there skidmore..

Nobody with a brain wants the job.

AZGrizFan wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
inmates run the asylum in conkistan... that's what happens when you let the nutters take control like the conks did with those tea-party shitbags...

they'll never give Daniels the fair shake he deserves... so they'll either go with their Howard Dean clone (Palin) or their John Kerry clone (Pawlenty or Romney)

Newsflash: Inmates run the asylum in Donkyland as well...Dean, Pelosi, Palin, Reid, Emmanuel, Obama, Weiner, etc.,....

not really - Obama was far from the fringes choice in 08... conks like to rub one out to the idea that he's some kind of far-left radical... but he's not. more to the point... Howard Dean? the guy hasn't been around in five years...

AZGrizFan wrote:

bulldog10jw wrote:What's sad is, this is how I feel

Like I've said several times over the past 6 months, whodathunk I'd be looking back longing for the days of a Bill Clinton presidency.

Without Bill, there would never have been Republican majorities in Congress.

Well, Bill, Hillary, and talk radio

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Incumbents just don't lose very often so you never get a good group of candidates from the opposing party in that kind of election. Obama will be re-elected barring some drastic worsening of the economy and no one wants to line up just to be a Dole or a Kerry.

With that said, it's all not happy times for the Dems despite likely getting to hold onto the White House until 2016. The House will still likely be GOP led after 2012 and there's a very real chance the Senate could be GOP-held as well after 2012. Both parties will have successes to point to and both parties will have pretty equal shares of government. As much as the tea party gets pilloried, they are seeing plenty enough of electoral success. 2014 and 2016 will really shape up to be interesting years and who comes out of the woodwork on both sides to run for President after Obama's second term is over.

the long-term problem for the GOP is the split that they've not yet resolved. The Libertarian/Evangelical rift is going to break wide open at some point soon, and when it does, it will throw the GOP in to significant turmoil.

Parties don't have to be homogeneous to be successful, especially at the local level. And as to yet, why is that split even a problem that will result in rupture of the party?

AZGrizFan wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:It's certainly not the first time there will be lame choices, in fact when really was the last time there were two strong candidates in the same election process.

And it is not a particular problem to the GOP either. Thinking back when the Dems ran Dukockass, and to a lesser extent John Kerry, neither could compete with the incumbent. On the other side, I am thinking of poor old Bob Dole with his limp dick getting his ass kicked by Clinton.

Kind of think that's what will happen again in 1012, Obama will destroy the Republican opponent whoever he/she is, but if the Repubs keep control of the House, I again expect to see Impeachment proceedings to commence once again.

That's my point exactly. Why is it that we always seem to be given a choice where it's the lesser of two evils? I mean, do I want a guy running the country who thinks we have a blank checkbook and doesn't think our national debt is a big deal, a guy who thinks cutting a budget INCREASE is the same as cutting the budget? Or do we want some psycho bitch who thinks Obama was born on Mars and the NH and Delaware are interchangeable?

Well, that's what we've had for the past decade.....

AZGrizFan wrote:The best the Conk party can do is a choice of the following:

Herman Cain, businessman and radio talk show host from Georgia
Newt Gingrich, former U.S. Speaker of the House of Representatives from Georgia
Fred Karger, political consultant and gay rights activist from California
Andy Martin, perennial candidate from Illinois
Jimmy McMillan, perennial candidate from New York
Roy Moore, former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court of Alabama
Ron Paul, U.S. Representative from Texas
Tim Pawlenty, former Governor from Minnesota
Buddy Roemer, former Governor from Louisiana
Mitt Romney, former Governor from Massachusetts
Rick Santorum, former Senator from Pennsylvania
Ole Savior, perennial candidate from Minnesota

Add to THAT "who's who" of right-wing-nuts the following possible (probable) candidates:

Sarah Palin
Michelle Bachman
Donald Trump
Mike Huckabee
Haley Barbour

So, setting aside the "perennial" candidates, at this point it appears we're going to get to choose between two psychotic bitches, one delusional 3xBK old man (Trump), a bible-thumping preacher (Huckabee), an absolutely unelectable Mormon (Romney), a cheating ex-Speaker of the House (Gingrich), a completely unelectable perennial candidate (Paul) and two retread governors who can't think of anything else to do (Barbour & Pawlenty).

And on the other side of the ballot we'll have a guy who is doing is absolute best to spend us into oblivion and wouldn't know an effective foreign policy if it walked up and kicked him in the nuts.

What happened to the good ol' days?

This election is going to be a **** circus. And it's almost guaranteed that no matter WHO wins the Republican nomination, one or more of these wingnuts will run as an independent, diluting the vote like Perot did in 1992.

That was the good old days.....

GannonFan wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
the long-term problem for the GOP is the split that they've not yet resolved. The Libertarian/Evangelical rift is going to break wide open at some point soon, and when it does, it will throw the GOP in to significant turmoil.

Parties don't have to be homogeneous to be successful, especially at the local level. And as to yet, why is that split even a problem that will result in rupture of the party?

they don't have to be homogeneous - but when one factions agenda directly conflicts with another... a split and realignment is bound to occur (see also the southern democrats leaving for the gop in the 70s)

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Newsflash: Inmates run the asylum in Donkyland as well...Dean, Pelosi, Palin, Reid, Emmanuel, Obama, Weiner, etc.,....

not really - Obama was far from the fringes choice in 08... conks like to rub one out to the idea that he's some kind of far-left radical... but he's not. more to the point... Howard Dean? the guy hasn't been around in five years...

He'll be back.

Wedgebuster wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Newsflash: Inmates run the asylum in Donkyland as well...Dean, Pelosi, Palin, Reid, Emmanuel, Obama, Weiner, etc.,....

Not giving her away that easy there skidmore..

Whoops.

If gas hits $5/gallon the GOP could run my asshair and win.