68
   

The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

 
 
Butrflynet
 
  0  
Reply Mon 30 Jan, 2012 11:36 pm
http://i.imgur.com/1owIe.jpg
hingehead
 
  4  
Reply Mon 30 Jan, 2012 11:47 pm
@Butrflynet,
Not to cast aspersions on the attempt - but if you have to label your caricatures you've failed as a cartoonist, in a sense. (irrelevant tangent ends)
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 12:33 am
@hingehead,
Waterman might be on this site so labels are necessary for him.
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 08:09 am
@H2O MAN,
In the first place this belongs on an Obama thread.

Secondly, anyone can find a partisan article complete with figures to support their views.

Chart Book: The Legacy of the Great Recession

Summary, the recession of 2007 were caused by the Bush tax cuts and the wars, without the stimulus, it could have been worse, but it did get better than it did during the Bush years.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 08:12 am
@revelette,
revelette wrote:

In the first place this belongs on an Obama thread.
..........

Half the thread title here reads:
Quote:
The Race For The Race For The White House

so H2O's comment is perfectly appropriate here - unless of course you think Obama was elected king for life.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 08:16 am
@High Seas,
No but he is a not a republican candidate. The Republican Nomination For President:
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 08:23 am
@revelette,
Yours is the crafty way of interpreting punctuation used by gun control advocates to dissect the 2nd Amendment - just don't let OmSigDavid catch up with you Smile
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 08:30 am
@High Seas,
The prime title is "The Republican Nomination for President" which is then supported by The "RAce FOR the RAce" for the WHite House.
Both of those phrases only define the GOP's condition. (It i assumed that Obama WILL be the Demms nominee).
Being a bit testy arent you?
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 08:37 am
@farmerman,
Never testy on points of grammar and syntax - try Spendius, I'm just not into militia arguments - economic plans are so much more interesting: this is Art Laffer on the supply-side tax plan of Newt Gingrich in today's WSJ:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204652904577192660439187438.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AO843_laffer_G_20120130174742.jpg
parados
 
  0  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 08:53 am
@High Seas,
Meanwhile, if we want to use numbers..

Per H2Oman the average growth after WW2 was 4.6%.
The average growth after the Bush tax cut - 2.3%

I guess that proves that cutting taxes doesn't create growth. Or are you going to quibble over my numbers while defending Spurts?
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 08:56 am
@parados,


Meanwhile, Obama's policies are killing growth... how in the wide,
wide world of sports can you continue to defend this Marxist in chief?
parados
 
  2  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 09:00 am
@H2O MAN,
Killing growth?

If the average growth for the last 11 years has been 2.3% and the average growth for the last 3 has been 2.4% which of the last 2 Presidents had the the better growth?

Simple math seems to be beyond you Spurt.
DrewDad
 
  0  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 09:02 am
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:
I'm just not into militia arguments

Pull the other one.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 09:06 am
@parados,


The slight growth we are experiencing in this country under Obama's rule is in spite of Obama's policies...
this tells me that there is hope for recovery in this country once Obama is defeated in November.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 09:18 am
@parados,
Quote:
If the average growth for the last 11 years has been 2.3% and the average growth for the last 3 has been 2.4% which of the last 2 Presidents had the the better growth?


What's growth? Growth of what? How is it measured?
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 10:43 am


When you ask the following question of conservatives:
Who would you rather have in the White House as a result of the 2012 election?

My answer, given the possible choice between Gingrich and Romney, I choose Gingrich.
0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  2  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 10:52 am
@Butrflynet,
http://i.imgur.com/1owIe.jpg
Now I see it! The reason Gingrich can win is his uncanny resemblance (at least in this cartoon) to Ted Kennedy! Liberals will rally behind him and beside him as they sink into fond memories of their beloved icon Teddy! Conservatives will embrace his ideas!
sozobe
 
  0  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 11:17 am
Now this is interesting!

OK, Florida usually has 99 delegates, that was slashed to 50 'cause they moved their primary up. Check.

It's winner take all, so if Romney wins, he gets all 50 delegates. Check.

Here's the thing -- the winner take all part is actually not written in stone!

Quote:
The RNC has said Florida will be a winner-take-all primary, but that decision is still subject to challenge.

......

If [tonight's] results are in line with recent polls, Mitt Romney will win 50 delegates and everyone else will win none. (Thus, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul spent a limited amount of time and resources in Florida.) But if it were proportional, Romney would win about 20-25, Gingrich would win about 14-16, Santorum would win about 5-7, and Paul would win 5-6. In other words, Newt Gingrich may have enormous incentive to file protests and perhaps even legal challenges to the RNC to make Florida allocate its delegates proportionally. It wouldn’t be Florida without a voting controversy, would it?


http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/01/where-florida-could-get-interesting-1-1.html
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 12:13 pm
@Sturgis,
Sturgis wrote:


The reason Gingrich can win is his uncanny resemblance (at least in this cartoon) to Ted Kennedy!
Liberals will rally behind him and beside him as they sink into fond memories of their beloved icon Teddy!


I like this idea! ... Gingrich would defeat Obama in a landslide victory with Kennedy liberals behind him!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 02/26/2025 at 10:05:55