Liz Chaney
- Thread starter Merlin99
- Start date
BOP
Well-Known Member
I knew a guy out in Tulsa, way back when. He was an okay looking guy, I guess, which in the bars is a plus.
The guy got more ass than a Greyhound bus station, and he totally lied to chicks. The worst part: he even admitted that they knew he lied.
One of his then-current favorites: he had been in a band that frequently opened for such acts as Led Zeppelin. If the chick called him on it, his ready answer was that he'd had a vehicle accident that caused nerve damage, and that's why he could no longer play guitar. Or whatever instrument he alleged to have played.
Me: "dude, do you even play guitar?"
Him: "naw, no need."
Last edited:
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
I keep thinking over the whole "country over party" thing, as though it was utterly self-evident that Trump deserved a guilty vote and every Democrat was on the side of "country" and every Republican was on the side of "party". You may recall that in the second impeachment, every single Democrat voted in favor - there was not one representative who broke with party. In the first, there were TWO.
So it's ridiculous to think it's strictly a loyalty thing. Because you can 100% count on the Dems to always vote party.
But secondly ---
It IS a party. At the end of the day, it's party and if you choose to side against the leader of your party, don't be surprised if somewhere down the line, the party says "we don't want YOU to represent us". I mean, this is generally why I oppose OPEN primaries, although we saw during THIS round of primaries exactly why - members from the opposing party crossing over to vote IN someone they think is a WEAK opponent.
If you formed a new party here, in St. Mary's County, to run for a local seat - say in the State Legislature - and the OTHER two parties decided, yeah, well WE WILL PICK your candidate - you'd be pissed, right? Why should THEY pick YOUR candidate?
Again - I will say - it is, in the end, a party and if you choose to go against them, you can still run for office - but not on THEIR ticket.
It's their party.
So it's ridiculous to think it's strictly a loyalty thing. Because you can 100% count on the Dems to always vote party.
But secondly ---
It IS a party. At the end of the day, it's party and if you choose to side against the leader of your party, don't be surprised if somewhere down the line, the party says "we don't want YOU to represent us". I mean, this is generally why I oppose OPEN primaries, although we saw during THIS round of primaries exactly why - members from the opposing party crossing over to vote IN someone they think is a WEAK opponent.
If you formed a new party here, in St. Mary's County, to run for a local seat - say in the State Legislature - and the OTHER two parties decided, yeah, well WE WILL PICK your candidate - you'd be pissed, right? Why should THEY pick YOUR candidate?
Again - I will say - it is, in the end, a party and if you choose to go against them, you can still run for office - but not on THEIR ticket.
It's their party.
She's got nothing to loose now.
Sneakers
Just sneakin' around....
That was exactly what I was thinking regarding her run for prez. Can't fall much lower, let's go for broke!
They better wrap up this BS witch hunt thing because in January their two "Republicans" are outta there. Then they can no longer call it "bipartisan", not that it ever was in the first place.
They'll likely lose a few Democrats as well. Murphy isn't running, so she's out definitely. Luria will get her ass smacked, so she's most likely out.
They'll likely lose a few Democrats as well. Murphy isn't running, so she's out definitely. Luria will get her ass smacked, so she's most likely out.
black dog
Free America
After his first book in 87, if the world didn't fully understand President Trumps personality with that, they have comprehension issues.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Easily half the people I've talked to about Trump don't know he ever existed before The Apprentice.
Wasn't he on Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous back in the 80's?
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
See, to ME, Trump was up there with the likes of Lee Iacocca and Sam Walton. He had "gambled" on Atlantic City resurging and becoming the Las Vegas of the east. It seemed reasonable - why should New Yorkers fly to Vegas when they can just gamble and be entertained a short distance away?
Frankly, I don't know why Atlantic City did NOT succeed. My brother in law also thought it, and moved his construction business there.
But Trump was all the news from Jersey to New York from 1980 to the early 90's. For those who think history begins with their memory, Trump was famous when people like Perot and Iacocca were forgotten.
I remember him from the 80's and still in California. Never watched an episode of The Apprentice.
Trump WAS lifestyles of the rich and famous in the 80s.