Bye Bye Mary

[Roadrunner]

The topic shifted to Bye Bye Mary, to Paint's it doesn't matter that Marry is gone..............Which has been the topic for quite some time.

He's saying it doesn't matter, and doesn't care and then will not shut up about it.................to the point of threatening to kill people in HIS COUNTRY.................If we don't agree.

We all know he is a troll. We also all know he has melted down on this thread...........and we are getting entertainment from it.

Did you see the exit polls in Louisiana when Mary Landrieu was thrown out of office?

Only 27% of Louisiana voters thought Governor Jindal would make a good Presidential candidate.

I wasn't part of the 27%.

.

Only Fox News takes Jindal seriously as a Presidential candidate.

I think he could run for the Senate and get Vitter's seat when Vitter runs for governor.

I won't vote for either.

 

[eagle1462010]

I'd love to see Sessions run for President............but he has repeatedly stated he would not do it.

Jindal.................not on board there either.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Guys - time to get back on topic.

Stay Tuned...

​

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The topic shifted to Bye Bye Mary, to Paint's it doesn't matter that Marry is gone..............Which has been the topic for quite some time.

He's saying it doesn't matter, and doesn't care and then will not shut up about it.................to the point of threatening to kill people in HIS COUNTRY.................If we don't agree.

We all know he is a troll. We also all know he has melted down on this thread...........and we are getting entertainment from it.

Did you see the exit polls in Louisiana when Mary Landrieu was thrown out of office?

Only 27% of Louisiana voters thought Governor Jindal would make a good Presidential candidate.

I wasn't part of the 27%.

.

Only Fox News takes Jindal seriously as a Presidential candidate.

I think he could run for the Senate and get Vitter's seat when Vitter runs for governor.

I won't vote for either.

Right after Katrina I thought Jindal could become a Presidential candidate but truly the guy just hasn't done much since then to impress me. I mean he hasn't been a failure or anything, but meh.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

We are not a democracy, honey, we are a republic, even though you and the Dem's would much prefer it.

Liberals of that day didn't want you or the rest of the pitchforks to have the vote. I agree. You are destroying the damn place. And liberals are the same, we're 230 years smarter and the times have changed so we changed with them instead of pretending to live in 1789.

Liberals of that day built the church their children attend today. They built the school, so their sons and daughters could learn to read and write, and sign their wills with more than an x. They raised a daughter who fought for the right to vote and then held the fist election she could vote in, in her own home parlor. They started businesses and employed people and created a town which grew into a city. They were generous and gave freely. Not one ever stuck his hand out for a free lunch. Not then, not now.
You are the one who started down memory lane. They'd puke if they saw what has become of the Nation they fought and died to protect and nurture.

No, they'd wonder why the fuck we are still using what they created that worked for them instead of us doing the same damn thing ourselves when it's 230 years later. They fought a Revolution to get that right and then all went completely stupid as if nothing had charged from the days when a butter churn was considered high-tech.

No, they'd wonder who thought it was a good idea to go 20 trillion dollars in debt and continue to borrow. They'd wonder why people were lining up to get free money from our government instead of a getting up in the morning and going to work. They'd be appalled at stealing their money to redistribute it to those too lazy to work. They would be offended at the way we treat our soldiers. They would grieve at the loss of moral compass in their land. They ask who's bright idea it was to make success a bad thing. They would want to know why we didn't shoot the gov. man who came on our farms to tell us who could and couldn't harvest the wheat. They'd ask why we let the government take control of our lives, when they died to make sure that never happened. They'd shake their heads at our stupidity, and wonder how something from their loins could have gone so far off track.....

Their loins? You think they fucked this country into existence? And they'd know why the benefits get tossed around the way they do now, capitalism took over the place and the pitchforks got the vote. They knew once that happened the game was up. It's why we're not a Democracy. They were Liberal Elites little woman (who they would never have let vote).

That's correct. because they weren't interested in having the rabble vote. Now why would that be?

And have any of you little dummies figured out why 53 and 54 are the same damn number in this case? It has to do with politics.

 

[BlackSand]

Right after Katrina I thought Jindal could become a Presidential candidate but truly the guy just hasn't done much since then to impress me. I mean he hasn't been a failure or anything, but meh.

I cannot speak for all, but the general consensus talking to my friends about it is pretty simple.

He was okay when he came in after Blanco ... But he eventually got more interested in polls and setting himself up as a national candidate than being governor. He chases headlines ... Sticks his nose in tabloid affairs where it doesn't belong ... And screwed the pooch on some state issues flip-flopping and whatnot.

I hope he doesn't think Louisiana wanting to get rid of Mary Landrieu is any indication we would support him nationally. I wonder if he would have been re-elected if he had been running against anyone other than a schoolteacher from Haynesville in the final.

.

 

[Roadrunner]

The topic shifted to Bye Bye Mary, to Paint's it doesn't matter that Marry is gone..............Which has been the topic for quite some time.

He's saying it doesn't matter, and doesn't care and then will not shut up about it.................to the point of threatening to kill people in HIS COUNTRY.................If we don't agree.

We all know he is a troll. We also all know he has melted down on this thread...........and we are getting entertainment from it.

Did you see the exit polls in Louisiana when Mary Landrieu was thrown out of office?

Only 27% of Louisiana voters thought Governor Jindal would make a good Presidential candidate.

I wasn't part of the 27%.

.

Jindal would make a good replacement for Vitter.

Jindal is not going to get the Republican nomination though.

 

[BlackSand]

Jindal would make a good replacement for Vitter.

Jindal is not going to get the Republican nomination though.

I don't know how Jindal would do in the Senate ... I could see him turning into a camera hog like John McCain ... And bending over to give Liberals a freeby so they can call him a nice guy.

We don't need another Jakey Fakey jellyfish.

I will be interested in seeing who else on the Conservative side might want to throw their hat in. All I can say is that I am glad we have a run-off, because I didn't vote for Cassidy in the first round ... Still liked him better than Landrieu.


.

 

[skye]

Bye bye Mary

Bye Bye!

 

[Listening]

54 to 46.

In 2016, Reid runs for re-election.

55. to 45.

What's next ?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

54 to 46.

In 2016, Reid runs for re-election.

55. to 45.

What's next ?

You have how many seats to defend 2016 while the ten seats by the Dems are safe? It's math folks.

"After securing control of the Senate Tuesday, Republicans are already staring down a daunting map for 2016.

The majority of the Senate battleground in the next election cycle will be fought on Republican turf, with the GOP defending 24 seats to the Democrats’ 10. There is more trouble for the party beneath those raw numbers; only two Democratic seats are in competitive states, while more than half a dozen Republican incumbents face re-election in states President Barack Obama carried at least once.

Republicans appear to have put themselves in as strong a position as possible, coming out of the midterms with potentially a 54-seat majority. But the next electoral fight for the Senate fundamentally looks nothing like 2014: Democrats are on offense, the playing field is packed with pricey media markets and every race is positioned down-ballot from a presidential contest."
Senate Races 2016 Tables Turn on Republicans

 

[Listening]

54 to 46.

In 2016, Reid runs for re-election.

55. to 45.

What's next ?

You have how many seats to defend 2016 while the ten seats by the Dems are safe? It's math folks.

"After securing control of the Senate Tuesday, Republicans are already staring down a daunting map for 2016.

The majority of the Senate battleground in the next election cycle will be fought on Republican turf, with the GOP defending 24 seats to the Democrats’ 10. There is more trouble for the party beneath those raw numbers; only two Democratic seats are in competitive states, while more than half a dozen Republican incumbents face re-election in states President Barack Obama carried at least once.

Republicans appear to have put themselves in as strong a position as possible, coming out of the midterms with potentially a 54-seat majority. But the next electoral fight for the Senate fundamentally looks nothing like 2014: Democrats are on offense, the playing field is packed with pricey media markets and every race is positioned down-ballot from a presidential contest."
Senate Races 2016 Tables Turn on Republicans

Yes, I've read this little fairy tale too.

What are the democrats on the offense with ? Where were they in 2014. Does not exist.

This also assumes that we have another Obama vs. Miquetoast presidential campaign. First, you have to wonder if people will fall for the whole "Hope and Change" thing again. Second, you'd have to assume the GOP won't put up a very good candidate (and what's worse...won't have a well established platform well in advance).

 

[skye]

Bye Mary...ride into the sunset Mary!

byeeeeeeeeeeeeee

 

[PaintMyHouse]

54 to 46.

In 2016, Reid runs for re-election.

55. to 45.

What's next ?

You have how many seats to defend 2016 while the ten seats by the Dems are safe? It's math folks.

"After securing control of the Senate Tuesday, Republicans are already staring down a daunting map for 2016.

The majority of the Senate battleground in the next election cycle will be fought on Republican turf, with the GOP defending 24 seats to the Democrats’ 10. There is more trouble for the party beneath those raw numbers; only two Democratic seats are in competitive states, while more than half a dozen Republican incumbents face re-election in states President Barack Obama carried at least once.

Republicans appear to have put themselves in as strong a position as possible, coming out of the midterms with potentially a 54-seat majority. But the next electoral fight for the Senate fundamentally looks nothing like 2014: Democrats are on offense, the playing field is packed with pricey media markets and every race is positioned down-ballot from a presidential contest."
Senate Races 2016 Tables Turn on Republicans

Yes, I've read this little fairy tale too.

What are the democrats on the offense with ? Where were they in 2014. Does not exist.

This also assumes that we have another Obama vs. Miquetoast presidential campaign. First, you have to wonder if people will fall for the whole "Hope and Change" thing again. Second, you'd have to assume the GOP won't put up a very good candidate (and what's worse...won't have a well established platform well in advance).

It's no fairy tale, it's an election cycle. What do they have, your inability to govern and the fact that you have no one to run that moderates will vote for. In a normal cycle, that's plenty.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Bye Mary...ride into the sunset Mary!

byeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Yeah, she just retired on 150k a year, for life. Poor poor Mary, how will she manage.

 

[skye]

Bye Mary...ride into the sunset Mary!

byeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Yeah, she just retired on 150k a year, for life. Poor poor Mary, how will she manage.

Bye Mary ...good bye!!!!! and good night ...get lost now....we don't want to see your face anymore.

 

[BlackSand]

Yes, I've read this little fairy tale too.

What are the democrats on the offense with ? Where were they in 2014. Does not exist.

This also assumes that we have another Obama vs. Miquetoast presidential campaign. First, you have to wonder if people will fall for the whole "Hope and Change" thing again. Second, you'd have to assume the GOP won't put up a very good candidate (and what's worse...won't have a well established platform well in advance).

I hope the Democrats keep up the race baiting and war on women dialog like Mary Landrieu did. She was stupid enough to insult her constituents and then the state.

I mean we knew Mary was a "Beltway Bimbo" ... But I think she was trying to take Nancy Pelosi's crown at the top of that chart before she lost her chance.

.

 

[Listening]

54 to 46.

In 2016, Reid runs for re-election.

55. to 45.

What's next ?

You have how many seats to defend 2016 while the ten seats by the Dems are safe? It's math folks.

"After securing control of the Senate Tuesday, Republicans are already staring down a daunting map for 2016.

The majority of the Senate battleground in the next election cycle will be fought on Republican turf, with the GOP defending 24 seats to the Democrats’ 10. There is more trouble for the party beneath those raw numbers; only two Democratic seats are in competitive states, while more than half a dozen Republican incumbents face re-election in states President Barack Obama carried at least once.

Republicans appear to have put themselves in as strong a position as possible, coming out of the midterms with potentially a 54-seat majority. But the next electoral fight for the Senate fundamentally looks nothing like 2014: Democrats are on offense, the playing field is packed with pricey media markets and every race is positioned down-ballot from a presidential contest."
Senate Races 2016 Tables Turn on Republicans

Yes, I've read this little fairy tale too.

What are the democrats on the offense with ? Where were they in 2014. Does not exist.

This also assumes that we have another Obama vs. Miquetoast presidential campaign. First, you have to wonder if people will fall for the whole "Hope and Change" thing again. Second, you'd have to assume the GOP won't put up a very good candidate (and what's worse...won't have a well established platform well in advance).

It's no fairy tale, it's an election cycle. What do they have, your inability to govern and the fact that you have no one to run that moderates will vote for. In a normal cycle, that's plenty.

In 2010 we kicked ass.

In 2012 we had a poor game plan.

In 2014 we fixed that.

If we show up with a poor game plan in 2016, we'll get beat again.

But, there won't be any ObamaMessiah spouting his lies in the race for the WH. Hillary is going to get bloodied in the fight and even if she wins...she's not going to sweep anyone in with her.

We'll just have to see who has the better plan.

But there is no default edge for the dems.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

54 to 46.

In 2016, Reid runs for re-election.

55. to 45.

What's next ?

You have how many seats to defend 2016 while the ten seats by the Dems are safe? It's math folks.

"After securing control of the Senate Tuesday, Republicans are already staring down a daunting map for 2016.

The majority of the Senate battleground in the next election cycle will be fought on Republican turf, with the GOP defending 24 seats to the Democrats’ 10. There is more trouble for the party beneath those raw numbers; only two Democratic seats are in competitive states, while more than half a dozen Republican incumbents face re-election in states President Barack Obama carried at least once.

Republicans appear to have put themselves in as strong a position as possible, coming out of the midterms with potentially a 54-seat majority. But the next electoral fight for the Senate fundamentally looks nothing like 2014: Democrats are on offense, the playing field is packed with pricey media markets and every race is positioned down-ballot from a presidential contest."
Senate Races 2016 Tables Turn on Republicans

Yes, I've read this little fairy tale too.

What are the democrats on the offense with ? Where were they in 2014. Does not exist.

This also assumes that we have another Obama vs. Miquetoast presidential campaign. First, you have to wonder if people will fall for the whole "Hope and Change" thing again. Second, you'd have to assume the GOP won't put up a very good candidate (and what's worse...won't have a well established platform well in advance).

It's no fairy tale, it's an election cycle. What do they have, your inability to govern and the fact that you have no one to run that moderates will vote for. In a normal cycle, that's plenty.

In 2010 we kicked ass.

In 2012 we had a poor game plan.

In 2014 we fixed that.

If we show up with a poor game plan in 2016, we'll get beat again.

But, there won't be any ObamaMessiah spouting his lies in the race for the WH. Hillary is going to get bloodied in the fight and even if she wins...she's not going to sweep anyone in with her.

We'll just have to see who has the better plan.

But there is no default edge for the dems.

Have a plan. but 2016 is like 2012 and 2008, the Dems comes out, and you have 24 seats to try and hold where Obama won six, while the Dems have ten total. That is how the cycle works. One year it favors you, one year it doesn't. There's only so much magic you can make in a numbers game.