Maggot_with_halitosis Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecrashingisles Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 He's never gonna give you up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reck B Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 He's never gonna give you up He's never gonna let you down, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RufflesTheGuineaPig Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 He's never gonna let you down, either. He won't u-turn around either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bomberbrown Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 He won't u-turn around either. ....or desert you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikhail Liebenstein Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Net worth of $3.9million. Yep, he's just like one of us. Given the guy is 78 and has worked for years as a doctor I don't see that as an issue. In the south east anyone who owns there own home outright and has a pension probably has a networth of over $1m. He is what I'd call affluent middle class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 how the frack they get anyone elected what with caucases, precincts, secret ballots, electronic ballots, then there is an election and another vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RufflesTheGuineaPig Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 how the frack they get anyone elected what with caucases, precincts, secret ballots, electronic ballots, then there is an election and another vote? My favourite bit it that after all the people in America make a huge fuss about voting, it all means precisely DICK. The electoral college members actually make the final vote and, while they are supposed to be "guided" by the results of the vote by the people, can choose to vote whichever way they wish. It's not unknown for them to vote differently to the general population in their state, although to-date it has never changed the outcome of a presidential election. I wonder if we have finally reached the point where it will. To be fair, IMHO if the Republicans lose the next US election they wont take it laying down, and we will probably see the wealthier, less densely populated "republican states" seceed (sp?) and start their own "Republic of America" or similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgia O'Keeffe Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 My favourite bit it that after all the people in America make a huge fuss about voting, it all means precisely DICK. The electoral college members actually make the final vote and, while they are supposed to be "guided" by the results of the vote by the people, can choose to vote whichever way they wish. It's not unknown for them to vote differently to the general population in their state, although to-date it has never changed the outcome of a presidential election. I wonder if we have finally reached the point where it will. To be fair, IMHO if the Republicans lose the next US election they wont take it laying down, and we will probably see the wealthier, less densely populated "republican states" seceed (sp?) and start their own "Republic of America" or similar. To be fair from their arent any actual Republicans in the GOP nominees other than the forementioned so they may as well start seceeding now if thats the case as they aint gonna get one even if they put a Republican in and the Democrats wont get an actual Democrat either if they win but they will get what they vote for the same as in the UK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowflux Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Ron Paul may win tonight - he may even do well in New Hampshire and come second but he will bomb in the southern states of South Carolina and Florida. His views foreign affairs are simply seen as too anti Israel and pro Muslim. The alterrnatives are scary though - Romney is a Wall Street man (you might as well elect the CEO of Goldman Sachs to the White House) but the surge now seems to be for Rick Santorum a truly scary catholic fundamentalist. I really fear for the world if he wins the White House. Rick Santorum came second (edit: to Romney) by just 8 votes in Iowa. Now that is scary. I've just been reading about him - he's GWB on steroids. If he wins the republican nomination, I'll be building a bunker, collecting beans and joining a gun club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R K Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Rick Santorum came second (edit: to Romney) by just 8 votes in Iowa. Now that is scary. I've just been reading about him - he's GWB on steroids. If he wins the republican nomination, I'll be building a bunker, collecting beans and joining a gun club. It's a beauty parade between competing fruit loops. End result will thus be a fruit loop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 He is 76 and still working... That's the sort of net worth that any professional person would achieve by that age unless they fritter their money away. Isnt Joe Biden the poorest man in US govt? Net worth of $0.5million or something. Ie, a £300k house (or broom cupboard in chelsea) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 +1. At his age, not even any need for a bullet. Just strap him in a room with a young lady and his heart will probably go pop. Beats being in a plane crash/car crash/bullet to the head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killer Bunny Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Rommey - 6 delegates won Santorum - 6 delegates won Paul - 6 delegates won That's the number that matters! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Doomberg reported on this. they had two commentators on. Paul came third remember....he was not mentioned once...all the others were, not Paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killer Bunny Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Doomberg reported on this. they had two commentators on. Paul came third remember....he was not mentioned once...all the others were, not Paul. Same for BBC Today R4 this morning. Frightening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingBingo Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Same for BBC Today R4 this morning. Frightening. The establishment are terrified of him, and will sadly probably succeed in keeping him out of view until another cookie cutter politician wins again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John The Pessimist Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 If they aren't talking about him, at least then they aren't doing a Newt Gingrich on him. He can continue to fly below the radar and win delegates. His Libertarianism should be more popular in the rustbelt states......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecrashingisles Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Bachmann's turn is over, guys. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-16416324 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Bachmann's turn is over, guys. Niiiccceee! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hedgefunded Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 It really is quite staggering how Paul is ignored by the media. Yes, he got a front page on the BBC site yesterday, but even that was to portray him as a no-hoper. He did get a mention on Newsnight, just long enough for the reporter to say that "He can't win". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gone baby gone Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 They used to like to focus on Michele Bachmann instead... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecrashingisles Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 They used to like to focus on Michele Bachmann instead... That picture was taken before Herman Cain pulled out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJAR Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 That picture was taken before Herman Cain pulled out. I applaud you sir. *applauds* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shipbuilder Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 i saw that during a rare viewing of the zanu news and whilst it didn't surprise me,I thought it was well out of order.they gave up striving for impariality years ago and what sticks in my throat is when they look down their nose at fox news and call it biased ffs. He doesn't seem to me to be ignored to any great extent on the BBC website, in fact there is an entire feature on him on the first BBC US election page of the website, acknowledging the very reasons why he is considered to be an 'unlikely' candidate by the world media. I can't see how logically there is any kind of 'lefty' (usually the reason given for BBC bias) motivation that would see the BBC being biased against one Republican candidate over another. Could you explain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.