-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
January 26, 2020, 07:08:00 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: peteramescarlin.com
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Campaign 2016
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 81   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Campaign 2016  (Read 224471 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Moon Dawg
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1036



View Profile
« on: April 13, 2015, 07:30:52 PM »

  Democrats

 IN - Hillary Rodham Clinton
 PENDING - Lincoln Chafee, Jim Webb, Bernie Sanders, Martin O' Malley
 QUESTIONABLE - Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren

   Republicans

 IN - Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Mark Everson
 PENDING - Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Rick Perry, Carly Fiorina
 QUESTIONABLE - Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin, John Kasich, Rick Santorum




 Sad choices. Cry

 Difficult to see HRC not getting the nomination, especially with such anemic potential primary opposition. I could imagine a Bush/Rubio ticket beating her in the general election but the others would all lose.

 Rand Paul - Real hair or toupee? If a hairpiece, glue or hooks?
« Last Edit: May 17, 2015, 05:19:17 PM by Moon Dawg » Logged
Mikie
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5887



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 13, 2015, 08:41:24 PM »

Hillary's got it in the bag, Steve. Biden won't get in front of the steamroller and neither will Liz Warren (though I like her).

The other Bozo's don't stand a chance in Hell against the Clinton's. Elect Hillary? Get two Presidents for the price of one.


P.S. Ya fergot Rethuglicans Rick Sanitarium, Don Trump, and Chris Christie. Coulda been contendas.

Sad choices as you say....

Logged

I, I love the colorful clothes she wears, and she's already working on my brain. I only looked in her eyes, but I picked up something I just can't explain. I, I bet I know what she’s like, and I can feel how right she’d be for me. It’s weird how she comes in so strong, and I wonder what she’s picking up from me. I hope it’s good, good, good, good vibrations, yeah!!
Moon Dawg
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1036



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 13, 2015, 08:54:09 PM »

Man, how could I forget Big Boy Christie? Talk about the elephant in the room. (Cheap shot, sorry.) He's on.

 Chafee, once a Republican and then an Independent, is now a Democrat. Let it be noted that in 2002 Chafee was the only GOP senator who voted against giving Bush a blank check for Iraq. Hillary? She went with the flow, voted yes.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2015, 08:56:52 PM by Moon Dawg » Logged
Mikie
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5887



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 13, 2015, 09:15:03 PM »

A graphic I saw on Textus's Facebook page a while ago, showing all three Bushes standing there smiling. Jeb has a bigger head than the other two combined.

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Vote for Jeb, well you are just stupid".

Logged

I, I love the colorful clothes she wears, and she's already working on my brain. I only looked in her eyes, but I picked up something I just can't explain. I, I bet I know what she’s like, and I can feel how right she’d be for me. It’s weird how she comes in so strong, and I wonder what she’s picking up from me. I hope it’s good, good, good, good vibrations, yeah!!
Moon Dawg
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1036



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 13, 2015, 09:37:16 PM »

  I'm of two minds about Jeb. On one hand, his brother's presidency was a disgrace (Some subtle rebuke on Jeb's part would be essential) but on the other he is a completely different person who seems bright enough. After all, JFK, RFK, EMK, brothers yet each a distinct entity unto himself. Jeb's the best of this GOP lot IMO.

 Ohio Gov John Kasich could be a GOP dark horse. If the likes of Scott Walker and Ted Cruz are legit, then Kasich should consider running too.

 I wonder who Bungalow Bill is for?
« Last Edit: April 13, 2015, 09:45:06 PM by Moon Dawg » Logged
alf wiedersehen
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2178


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 13, 2015, 10:04:29 PM »

Now that I'm eligible to vote, I'm in for Clinton.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2015, 09:04:41 AM by Bubbly Waves » Logged
Bean Bag
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1177


Right?


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 15, 2015, 08:01:15 PM »





Hold yer fire.  There's no life forms aboard.
Logged

409.
bluesno1fann
Guest
« Reply #7 on: April 15, 2015, 08:32:08 PM »

I'm all in for Sanders

« Last Edit: November 06, 2015, 06:40:28 PM by Come And See Her..... » Logged
Awesoman
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1476


Disagreements? Work 'em out.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: April 16, 2015, 03:42:53 PM »

Ugh.  Definitely no interest with Hillary Clinton.  She's got quite the spotty track record to contend with.  Unfortunately I'm not too warm on any of the Republican candidates thus far as well. 
Logged

I'm the man on the mountain, come on up.
I'm the plowman in the valley with a face full of mud.
Yes, I'm fumbling and I know my car don't start.
Yes, I'm stumbling and I know I play a bad guitar.

Give me little drink from your loving cup.
Just one drink and I'll fall down drunk.
bgas
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6372


Oh for the good old days


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: April 16, 2015, 04:39:53 PM »

Ahhh the perfect Clinton ticket: Hilary for Pres, Bill for VP
Logged

Nothing I post is my opinion, it's all a message from God
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: April 16, 2015, 05:09:34 PM »

Hillary's got it in the bag, Steve. Biden won't get in front of the steamroller and neither will Liz Warren (though I like her).

The other Bozo's don't stand a chance in Hell against the Clinton's. Elect Hillary? Get two Presidents for the price of one.

P.S. Ya fergot Rethuglicans Rick Sanitarium, Don Trump, and Chris Christie. Coulda been contendas.

Sad choices as you say....
That cracked me up...

I want those Billary emails...and Benghazi transparency...and I think she may fizzle when the pressure builds on her lack of exactly that.  The Clinton Foundation...there are a lot of unanswered questions...it ain't going away...

Sometimes the "short list" evaporates...her time was '08.   Wink

Logged
the professor
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 982


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: April 16, 2015, 07:03:15 PM »

The Professor is a conservative, which means he does not believe in a pc surveillance society , wrought and controlled by Red Guard Marxists, determined to crush ambition and spread victimhood and Foucauldian terror.

He also repudiates the religious right and seeks a freedom loving, tolerant candidate in favor of gay marriage, early term abortion and american power abroad.

His positions are most akin to Goldwater.

He wants responsible immigration reform and major reductions in government waste and pointless social programs that maintain the food-stamp, victim-centered society nearly perfected by Obama, his college classmate and the worst president in US history.

His ideal ticket is Rubio/Condoleezza Rice, an intellectual powerhouse ticket.

He respects his liberal brothers and sisters and will not insult nor spar. Good luck to all.

I believe in America, as my people say in "One."





Hold yer fire.  There's no life forms aboard.
Logged
Larry Franz
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 160


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: April 16, 2015, 07:54:41 PM »

I want those Billary emails...and Benghazi transparency...and I think she may fizzle when the pressure builds on her lack of exactly that.  The Clinton Foundation...there are a lot of unanswered questions...it ain't going away...

The only reason those "issues" (Benghazi? let's invent a scandal if we can't find a real one) won't go away is that the Republicans need something to agitate their base and distract everyone else. There's only one real issue: should this country have a Republican President who will go along with the Republicans in Congress or a Democratic President who will fight them? If you want more tax cuts for the rich, less regulation of Wall Street, more "defense" spending, more pollution, more global warming, a bigger deficit, more Supreme Court justices like Scalia, etc. vote Republican. If you don't, vote Democratic.

Paul Krugman explains the situation better than I can:  

Quote
There has never been a time in American history when the alleged personal traits of candidates mattered less. As we head into 2016, each party is quite unified on major policy issues — and these unified positions are very far from each other. The huge, substantive gulf between the parties will be reflected in the policy positions of whomever they nominate, and will almost surely be reflected in the actual policies adopted by whoever wins....

How did the parties get this far apart? Political scientists suggest that it has a lot to do with income inequality. As the wealthy grow richer compared with everyone else, their policy preferences have moved to the right — and they have pulled the Republican Party ever further in their direction. Meanwhile, the influence of big money on Democrats has at least eroded a bit, now that Wall Street, furious over regulations and modest tax hikes, has deserted the party en masse. The result is a level of political polarization not seen since the Civil War....

The differences between the parties are so clear and dramatic that it’s hard to see how anyone who has been paying attention could be undecided even now, or be induced to change his or her mind between now and the election.

More on this topic with Prof. Krugman's specific examples here: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/opinion/it-takes-a-party.html
« Last Edit: April 16, 2015, 08:08:34 PM by Larry Franz » Logged

Well, here's another nice mess you've gotten me into. (It became fine later on.)
Mendota Heights
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 927



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: April 17, 2015, 10:40:08 AM »

David Krugman is a laughing stock amongst us Austrians and for good reasons. It's like he is deliberately wrong on purpose all the time.

  • He wants to make people richer - by confiscating their wealth (taxes)
  • He wants to stimulate the economy (the production of goods and services) - by producing goods and services no-one wants (fake alien invasion)
  • He wants people to consume more - by expanding the currency supply (makes people poorer)
  • He wants to end bubbles created by the Fed - by having the Fed creating new and bigger bubbles

The list goes on and on. And on and on.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2015, 10:46:32 AM by Hamstring Hero » Logged

I have been dubbed Mr. Pet Sounds and Mr. Country Love by polite and honored board member Smile Brian. I hope I live up to those esteemed titles.
Mendota Heights
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 927



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: April 17, 2015, 12:36:04 PM »

@Larry Franz

If you are pro "income equality" you might want to stop supporting the two parties who let the Fed run wild with their destructive policies? If you intend to vote next year please read the two short excerpts below.

How Inflation Helps Keep the Rich Up and the Poor Down by Jörg Guido Hülsmann
Source: https://mises.org/library/how-inflation-helps-keep-rich-and-poor-down

Inflation is an unjustifiable redistribution of income in favor of those who receive the new money and money titles first, and to the detriment of those who receive them last. In practice the redistribution always works out in favor of the fiat-money producers themselves (whom we misleadingly call central banks) and of their partners in the banking sector and at the stock exchange. And of course inflation works out to the advantage of governments and their closest allies in the business world. Inflation is the vehicle through which these individuals and groups enrich themselves, unjustifiably, at the expense of the citizenry at large. If there is any truth to the socialist caricature of capitalism — an economic system that exploits the poor to the benefit of the rich — then this caricature holds true for a capitalist system strangulated by inflation. The relentless influx of paper money makes the wealthy and powerful richer and more powerful than they would be if they depended exclusively on the voluntary support of their fellow citizens. And because it shields the political and economic establishment of the country from the competition emanating from the rest of society, inflation puts a brake on social mobility. The rich stay rich (longer) and the poor stay poor (longer) than they would in a free society.


How Central Banks Cause Income Inequality by Frank Hollenbeck
Source: https://mises.org/library/how-central-banks-cause-income-inequality

...

This brings us to the second undesirable and unjustified source of income inequalities, i.e., the creation of money out of thin air, or legal counterfeiting, by central banks. It should be no surprise the growing gap in income inequalities has coincided with the adoption of fiat currencies worldwide. Every dollar the central bank creates benefits the early recipients of the money—the government and the banking sector — at the expense of the late recipients of the money, the wage earners, and the poor. Since the creation of a fiat currency system in 1971, the dollar has lost 82 percent of its value while the banking sector has gone from 4 percent of GDP to well over 10 percent today.

The central bank does not create anything real; neither resources nor goods and services. When it creates money it causes the price of transactions to increase. The original quantity theory of money clearly related money to the price of anything money can buy, including assets. When the central bank creates money, traders, hedge funds and banks — being first in line — benefit from the increased variability and upward trend in asset prices. Also, future contracts and other derivative products on exchange rates or interest rates were unnecessary prior to 1971, since hedging activity was mostly unnecessary. The central bank is responsible for this added risk, variability, and surge in asset prices unjustified by fundamentals.

The banking sector has been able to significantly increase its profits or claims on goods and services. However, more claims held by one sector, which essentially does not create anything of real value, means less claims on real goods and services for everyone else. This is why counterfeiting is illegal. Hence, the central bank has been playing a central role as a “reverse Robin Hood” by increasing the economic pie going to the rich and by slowly sinking the middle class toward poverty.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2015, 12:54:47 PM by Hamstring Hero » Logged

I have been dubbed Mr. Pet Sounds and Mr. Country Love by polite and honored board member Smile Brian. I hope I live up to those esteemed titles.
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: April 17, 2015, 12:49:54 PM »

@Larry Franz

If you are pro "income equality" you might want to stop supporting the two parties who let the Fed run wild with their destructive policies?

How Central Banks Cause Income Inequality by Frank Hollenbeck
Source: https://mises.org/library/how-central-banks-cause-income-inequality

...

This brings us to the second undesirable and unjustified source of income inequalities, i.e., the creation of money out of thin air, or legal counterfeiting, by central banks. It should be no surprise the growing gap in income inequalities has coincided with the adoption of fiat currencies worldwide. Every dollar the central bank creates benefits the early recipients of the money—the government and the banking sector — at the expense of the late recipients of the money, the wage earners, and the poor. Since the creation of a fiat currency system in 1971, the dollar has lost 82 percent of its value while the banking sector has gone from 4 percent of GDP to well over 10 percent today.

The central bank does not create anything real; neither resources nor goods and services. When it creates money it causes the price of transactions to increase. The original quantity theory of money clearly related money to the price of anything money can buy, including assets. When the central bank creates money, traders, hedge funds and banks — being first in line — benefit from the increased variability and upward trend in asset prices. Also, future contracts and other derivative products on exchange rates or interest rates were unnecessary prior to 1971, since hedging activity was mostly unnecessary. The central bank is responsible for this added risk, variability, and surge in asset prices unjustified by fundamentals.

The banking sector has been able to significantly increase its profits or claims on goods and services. However, more claims held by one sector, which essentially does not create anything of real value, means less claims on real goods and services for everyone else. This is why counterfeiting is illegal. Hence, the central bank has been playing a central role as a “reverse Robin Hood” by increasing the economic pie going to the rich and by slowly sinking the middle class toward poverty.


But, of course, there are central banks in many places - Canada, Europe, etc. but the United States has a far greater income disparity, 4th worst in the world while Canada doesn't even make the top ten. Furthermore, the United States is pretty unique in how its gap between rich and poor has widened so much in such a small period of time. In fact, for about 40 years of the 20th Century, all through a period in which the US had central banking, the gap was quite small, on par with most countries. But since the dismantling of the welfare state and the imposition of neoliberal economic reform policies, the country has drifted back to having the largest economic disparity since 1928. Note the year 1928 -- it shouldn't be surprising since this was the last period of significant de-regulation, which led directly to the crash of 1929, just as it did in 2008.
Logged
Mendota Heights
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 927



View Profile
« Reply #16 on: April 17, 2015, 01:15:14 PM »

Claim: There are central banks in many places - Canada, Europe, etc.
Yes.

Claim: In fact, for about 40 years of the 20th Century, all through a period in which the US had central banking, the gap was quite small, on par with most countries.
When was this and how big was the expansion of the currency supply during this time?

Claim: The United States is pretty unique in how its gap between rich and poor has widened so much in such a small period of time.
Things changed a whole lot for Americans on August 15th, 1971. Look at the M0 and M1 charts, you will find them rather telling.
 
Claim: Note the year 1928 -- it shouldn't be surprising since this was the last period of significant de-regulation, which led directly to the crash of 1929, just as it did in 2008.

You think you found a correlation? Really? Where is it? Do you think the foundations of the Great Depression was laid in 1928? In 1924 the Fed tried to intervene in the American economy by - you guessed it! - expanding the currency supply, which led to a bank credit expansion of over $4 billion in less than one year. The Fed did the same thing in 1928, but this time in an even larger scale.

Austrian business cycle in short: Inflation and credit expansion always precipitate business maladjustments and malinvestments that must later be liquidated. The expansion artificially reduces and thus falsifies interest rates, and thereby misguides businessmen in their investment decisions. In the belief that declining rates indicate growing supplies of capital savings, they embark upon new production projects. The creation of money gives rise to an economic boom. It causes prices to rise, especially prices of capital goods used for business expansion. But these prices constitute business costs. They soar until business is no longer profitable, at which time the decline begins. In order to prolong the boom, the monetary authorities may continue to inject new money until finally frightened by the prospects of a runaway inflation. The boom that was built on the quicksand of inflation then comes to a sudden end.

Read the whole thing here: https://mises.org/library/great-depression. It is really enlightening.

The rest of your post is made up of unsubstantiated claims. You have to be more specific if you want me to address them.

Why did it only take the American economy one year to recover after the 1921-1922 depression (with no "help" of central planners)? It was just as dire as the 1924 situation.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2015, 01:23:49 PM by Hamstring Hero » Logged

I have been dubbed Mr. Pet Sounds and Mr. Country Love by polite and honored board member Smile Brian. I hope I live up to those esteemed titles.
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: April 17, 2015, 01:23:44 PM »

Claim: There are central banks in many places - Canada, Europe, etc.
Yes.

Claim: In fact, for about 40 years of the 20th Century, all through a period in which the US had central banking, the gap was quite small, on par with most countries.
When was this and how big was the expansion of the currency supply during this time?

Claim: The United States is pretty unique in how its gap between rich and poor has widened so much in such a small period of time.
Things changed a whole lot for Americans on August 15th, 1971. Look at the M0 and M1 charts, you will find them rather telling.
 
Claim: Note the year 1928 -- it shouldn't be surprising since this was the last period of significant de-regulation, which led directly to the crash of 1929, just as it did in 2008.

You think you found a correlation? Really? Where is it? Do you think the foundations of the Great Depression was laid in 1928? In 1924 the Fed tried to kickstart the American economy by - you guessed it! - expanding the currency supply, which led to a bank credit expansion of over $4 billion in less than one year. The Fed did the same thing in 1928, but this time in an even larger scale.

Austrian business cycle in short: Inflation and credit expansion always precipitate business maladjustments and malinvestments that must later be liquidated. The expansion artificially reduces and thus falsifies interest rates, and thereby misguides businessmen in their investment decisions. In the belief that declining rates indicate growing supplies of capital savings, they embark upon new production projects. The creation of money gives rise to an economic boom. It causes prices to rise, especially prices of capital goods used for business expansion. But these prices constitute business costs. They soar until business is no longer profitable, at which time the decline begins. In order to prolong the boom, the monetary authorities may continue to inject new money until finally frightened by the prospects of a runaway inflation. The boom that was built on the quicksand of inflation then comes to a sudden end.

Read the whole thing here: https://mises.org/library/great-depression. It is really enlightening.

The rest of your post is made up of unsubstantiated claims. You have to be more specific if you want me to address them.

Why did it only take the American economy one year to recover after the 1921-1922 depression (with no "help" of central planners)? It was just as dire as the 1924 situation.

We could have a lengthy conversation about this. Suffice to say, I think it is fairly confirmed that the Mises/Rothbard approach to economics is largely an unfounded one despite being attractive. Here is a pretty good analysis of the movement:

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm
Logged
Mendota Heights
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 927



View Profile
« Reply #18 on: April 17, 2015, 01:27:39 PM »

What part of the Austrian School do you think is wrong, Chocolate Shake Man? In your own words.

And the link you posted is not that great. I will expand on this tomorrow, it's almost midnight here.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2015, 01:52:58 PM by Hamstring Hero » Logged

I have been dubbed Mr. Pet Sounds and Mr. Country Love by polite and honored board member Smile Brian. I hope I live up to those esteemed titles.
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: April 17, 2015, 02:59:47 PM »

delete
« Last Edit: April 18, 2015, 07:03:06 PM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
Bean Bag
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1177


Right?


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: April 17, 2015, 09:00:19 PM »

Benghazi? let's invent a scandal if we can't find a real one
LOL Larry, I'm gonna help you out here.

First:  There will never, never! be a need "invent" scandals with the Clintons.

Second: If you think Benghazi isn't going to be a REAL issue for the lovely Hillary, just axe your pal John "Frankenstein" Kerry about swiftboats.

Benghazi isn't going bye-bye because you don't understand it.  It ain't going away cuz you close your eyes and "pretend" Hillary farts rainbows out of her pant suits.  Nor will it go away because the media ignores it.  Reality is reality.  And Christopher Stevens was a REAL human being Larry.  And he was left to die.

Logged

409.
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: April 18, 2015, 03:26:15 PM »

What part of the Austrian School do you think is wrong, Chocolate Shake Man? In your own words.

And the link you posted is not that great. I will expand on this tomorrow, it's almost midnight here.

Hamstring, we've talked a lot about economics in the past, I believe. And to be honest, I think I spoke out of turn here because I'm actually not all that familiar with the Austrian School. I mean, I am familiar with it, I understand the basic economic positions it continues to take and I've seen the arguments from people who frequently reference mises.org and I am often left unconvinced by the arguments that those people are making. But I suppose it wasn't accurate for me to say that the theory has been fairly confirmed to be unfounded on the basis of what I had read - which, admittedly was limited. So please accept my apology for that - my position was not in keeping with my own personal standards. Again, I reiterate that I am largely unconvinced by what I've seen/read about but I admit that I am not versed enough in the primary material to write off Mises/Rothbard altogether (which, as I understand it, represents a kind of faction within the Austrian School, correct?). Again, my apologies.
Logged
Alex
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2625


Yes, I do dig worms.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #22 on: May 15, 2015, 08:49:43 AM »

 Democrats

 IN - Hillary Rodham Clinton
 PENDING - Lincoln Chafee, Jim Webb, Bernie Sanders, Martin O' Malley
 QUESTIONABLE - Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren

   Republicans

 IN - Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio
 PENDING - Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Rick Perry, Carly Fiorina
 QUESTIONABLE - Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin, John Kasich, Rick Santorum




 Sad choices. Cry

 Difficult to see HRC not getting the nomination, especially with such anemic potential primary opposition. I could imagine a Bush/Rubio ticket beating her in the general election but the others would all lose.

 Rand Paul - Real hair or toupee? If a hairpiece, glue or hooks?


Also in: Bernie Sanders
Logged

"I thought Brian was a perfect gentleman, apart from buttering his head and trying to put it between two slices of bread"  -Tom Petty, after eating with Brian.
Rocky Raccoon
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2298



View Profile
« Reply #23 on: May 16, 2015, 09:34:13 PM »

Ah yes, Bernie is my candidate!  It's unlikely he'll beat Hillary but I'm glad he's in the race, he's making a bigger impact than I thought he would.
Logged

SurferDownUnder
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 240



View Profile
« Reply #24 on: June 01, 2015, 10:47:43 PM »

Quick! Someone stick Ross Perot in an age reduction machine and get his ass up there!
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 81   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.339 seconds with 21 queries.