Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

That makes perfect sense. not. lol. nm

Posted By: sam on 2008-09-12
In Reply to: And...... - sm

nm


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Oh, that makes perfect sense.

They're simply not the *right* EC (evangelically correct) Christians.


Did you by chance see the Barbara Walters special last night on heaven?  I watched part of it, but I also taped it. 


The two religions that stuck out like a sore thumb were the *born again* Christians and the *jihad Muslims*.  They were the two groups who felt that everyone who didn't believe exactly as they do are doomed to go to hell.


So the fact that Catholics are targeted makes perfect sense to me and is in line with the Bush & Co. MO.


I think it makes perfect sense.

They are both getting their victims to do what they want them to do with a promise neither of them will keep. 


Ron Gettelfinger is making perfect sense
on this in his new conference as we speak.
That's probably because this is what makes sense to you.
Perhaps you could be a translator for us?

REPORTER: Is the tide turning in Iraq?
DUBYA: I think -- tide turning -- see, as I remember -- I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of -- it's easy to see a tide turn -- did I say those words?
-- White House, Jun. 14, 2006

If one were to measure progress on the number of suiciders, if that's your definition of success, I think it gives -- I think it will -- I think it obscures the steady, incremental march toward democracy we're seeing. In other words, it's very difficult -- you can have the most powerful army of the world -- ask the Israelis what it's like to try to stop suiciders. ...That's the -- but that's one of the main -- that's the main weapon of the enemy, the capacity to destroy innocent life with a suicider. ...Trying to stop suiciders -- which we're doing a pretty good job of on occasion -- is difficult to do. And what the Iraqis are going to have to eventually do is convince those who are conducting suiciders who are not inspired by al Qaeda, for example, to realize there's a peaceful tomorrow.
-- White House, May 23, 2006

I've reminded the Prime Minister -- the American people, Mr. Prime Minister, over the past months that it was not always a given that the United States and America would have a close relationship.
-- With Prime Minister Koizumi of Japan, White House, Jun. 29, 2006
Ok, that makes sense then
I was thinking when I read the headline that that sounds like something sports players would do to each other (like patting each other on the "behind"). The headline made it sound like he did it in a room full of reporters in the senate. HA HA HA
Sorry...this makes no sense....
I think you mean Taliban, and bin Laden is not their boss. He is AL Qaeda's boss.

That being said...they were only doing what they were told to do? We are talking Congress here. They had the evidence that this could happen, and blocked legislation that would have prevented it. Who do you think "told" them to block it?
makes sense to me
x
makes no sense to me either
x
Makes a lot of sense
Why don't we all do that??????
Well, now it all makes sense!! nm
x
That makes sense.
I guess I'm just cheap though.  I'd rather spend my money on a local ceremony for my friends and family and swap rings.  The commitment in either circumstance still has the same meaning but I could see why they would make the trip.  Like I said....I'm just cheap and wouldn't want to pay for the trip.  LOL.  Of course, I didn't go all out for my wedding either.  It was small with friends and family and m yhsuband and I spent a day at an amusement park for our honeymoon.  It still meant as much to me as if I'd gone to Hawaii, got married on the beach at sunset, and stayed for 2 weeks for my honeymoon.
Your post makes no sense. nm
.
Your post makes no sense..
But then, that has never bothered you guys in the past.....not making sense, that is.
Again, not clever and makes no sense.
xx
Your logic makes no sense at all
!!
What??? Another post that makes no sense
What is the bustling metropolis of Zberg? And you think rhetoric is a "fancy" word? And what town and mayor are you talking about?

You once again posted a reply that makes no sense at all and has nothing to do with the OP's message. A hint to trying to make a point about something would be to stick to the content of the OPs message, and write in complete sentences that we all can understand. Your post makes no sense and was not amusing (I mean funny - wouldn't want you to think I'm using a "fancy" word like amusing).

Thanks,
Mary (also known as hmmm)
that makes sense......and you talk out of the other end?
nm
This post makes no sense to me at all. But never mind. NM

Your post makes no sense and neither do the ones you cut and pasted. SM
Having said that, since you obviously are going to KEEP cutting and pasting the same post, I will gladly leave. I guess I could do like you do, remain anony behind many names, too gutless to stand behind my convictions, but that's a liberal trait.  The fact is, this board dies when people are not agitating you because you cannot sustain a conversation without attack.  It's an absolute fact and one need only look at the two boards to see that.   I am sure you will last work, maybe even cut and paste again, and say something only you will find hilariously funny.  Go ahead, I won't be posting back. 
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. None. nm

Yep...the other side of the story...makes sense to me...
Global Warming Equals Socialism
Philip V. Brennan
Wednesday, Feb. 7, 2007

There's a very simple question that the global warming scaremongers don't seem to be able to answer in a straightforward, credible manner.

It has to do with the current refrigeration of much of the United States and the claims of the global warming alarmists which appear to be very much at odds.

According to the propaganda campaign being hammered at the people of the world, the polar ice cap is melting and the polar regions are on the verge of becoming a tropical paradise.

I would like to know, if the polar regions are warming, how they able to bestow Arctic weather upon much of the U.S. as they are currently doing?

If the Arctic is the planet's refrigeration system and if that system is losing its coolant due to global warming, how can it continue to bless the U.S. with cold fronts that continue to break records for their severity?

The lame excuse the alarmists provide is that, oh well, climate is measured over the long term, you see, and over a year's time, the climate is seen as getting warmer, despite the frigid temperatures seen in the winter, which are merely temporary.

That's called begging the question.


In an e-mail promoting a new book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming the Conservative Book Updates from Human Events Book Service had the following wisdom to impart: For decades, environmentalism has been the Left's best excuse for increasing government control over our actions in ways both large and small.

It's for Mother Earth! It's for the children! It's for the whales! But until now, the doomsday-scenario environmental scares they've trumped up haven't been large enough to give the sinister prize they want most of all: total control of American politics, economic activity, and even individual behavior.

With global warming, however, greenhouse gasbags can argue that auto emissions in Ohio threaten people in Paris, and that only global government can tackle such problems. National sovereignty? Democracy? Forget it: global warming has now brought the Left closer to global government, statism, and the eradication of individual rights than it has ever been before.

In that book, CBC reports that author Christopher C. Horner explains why, although Al Gore and his cronies among the media elites and U.N. globalists endlessly bleat that global warming is an unprecedented global crisis, they really think of it as a dream come true.

Global warming is the ideal scare campaign for those who are doing all they can to secure strict control over society, business, and the minutest details of individual life. As Horner explains, if global warming really were as bad as the Leftist doomsayers insist it is, then no policy imaginable could 'solve' it . . . no matter how much we sacrifice there would still be more to do. That makes global warming the bottomless well of excuses for the relentless growth of Big Government.

Writing in Canada's National Post, Feb. 5, Timothy Ball addresses the strongarm tactics employed by the environmentalist left. Dr. Ball, chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and a former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg, Canada recalls what happened to him when he spoke out against the global warming hoax.

What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in university, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

Dr. Ball recalls that he once got a three-page letter from an academic colleague telling him he had no right to say what he was saying, especially in public lectures.

He was also accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being in the pay of oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay, you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club, or governments pay, there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

What did Dr. Ball say that got him in such trouble with some of his colleagues?

Just this: Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and that for 32 years I was a professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg.

Politicians are being listened to, however, wrote Dr. Ball, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

In recent weeks we have seen environmentalist wackos issuing fatwas against any scientist who dares to contradict their propaganda, demanding they be exiled from the scientific community and tried in international courts.

For example, The Weather Channel's most prominent climatologist, Heidi Cullen, advocated that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming.

Appearing on the Larry King Show Jan. 31, MIT's professor of atmospheric science Dr. Richard Lindzen spoke about the widely touted scientific report issued by the U.N.'s Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and allegedly the work of 2,500 scientists insisting that it's 90 percent certain that global warming is manmade.

In fact, Dr. Lindzen explained, all that was issued last Friday was a summary for policy-makers that is not prepared by scientists. It's not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else.

They travel around the world several times a year for several years to write it and the summary for policy-makers has the input of about 13 of the scientists; but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, of environmental organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists, and industrial organizations, each seeking their own benefit.

Added Lindzan about the whole global warming scare, I think it's mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves.

Then there is this juicy story about the lengths to which the globalbaloneyists will go to convince the world it is tottering on the brink of a cataclysm.

The pro-global warming BBC reported that rising seas, caused by global warming have for the first time washed an inhabited island of the face of the earth.

According to BBC, The obliteration of Lohachara island, in India's part of the Sundarbans where the Ganges and the Brahmaputra rivers empty into the Bay of Bengal, marks the moment when one of the most apocalyptic predictions of environmentalists and climate scientists has started coming true.

According to TheNewsisNowPublic.com, the story was a hoax.

BBC didn't bother to mention that Lohachare Island disappeared 22 years ago and that the entire region of The Sundarbans is a river delta, or that the disappearance of the island has been attributed to erosion, not global warming.

All of this provides solid evidence that Christopher C. Horner is right on target in his charge that the whole global warming business is nothing but pure politics — a means by which the left can take control of just about every human activity worldwide.

The real purpose behind the global warming movement is the establishment of a world socialist order under the control of the United Nations.

Global warming is what I've been saying it is since 1997: a lot of globaloney.

World socialist order? Shades of Revelation.

I am glad Sam is back. She makes sense.
nm
Makes perfectly good sense.....has no
xx
Agree but I think this is too simple...and makes way too much sense. lol nm

Your post is grammatically confusing and makes no sense nm
jm
Now that makes all kinds of sense. Sheesh. I am sure murders occur...
where you live too. Are you a murderer? What a goofy post. I just happen to be one of those people who knew of Bill before he came to national fame. And I did not say he murdered anyone. All I said is that there are unexplained deaths. All you have to do is google. People should not post rumor and innuendo if they do not want it turned around and applied to their side.
Here is a perfect example. sm
You might want to step back, take a deep breath and ask yourself why one simple question *why did you post this*, would bring on such a tirade from you. It was a question. That was all it was. 
Perfect....
The world (in my opinion) would be a better place if people didn't take themselves so seriously.

Great statement, TT! Says it all.
I am not saying that he is perfect -
I never said anything about transparency - I am saying that even when I read the articles you all are quoting it never says that Obama lied about anything.

Maybe his aides misspoke, maybe Bush's aides misspoke, I don't know - but you all are calling Obama a liar and I just don't see where he lied.

At the same time, I don't think that telling what he and President Bush talked about is really all that bad a thing - yes, I really would like some transparency in knowing what is going on in my country - they are both elected officials and in fact are answerable to "we the people". I don't think any sensitive information was leaked out concerning our enemies - I think what we read was about our economy, which at this point we are all concerned about and should have as much information as possible.

Now for the part about admitting that he is wrong, if he is wrong or does something bad, I will be the first to stand up and say it, and I will be the first to admit I was wrong in supporting him, but at this point, I do not see anything he has done wrong.
This is a perfect example....(sm)

of why dems are so critical of the right.  You just throw stuff out there that has no basis.  Given that I have looked at all available text that would fall into the category you speak of and have found nothing to back up your claim, the fact that Obama typically meticulously chooses his words before he says them, and your obvious unwillingness or inability to provide some kind of documentation to support your claim, I have to come to the conclusion that what you have said is false.  If this is incorrect, then by all means, please feel free to prove me wrong.


The dems were just recently accused of character assassination after stating facts.  And then here you come along with this garbage, which is basically the same thing that has been done by the pubs since before the election.  At least you're consistent.


That is a perfect example of
how helping people sometimes isn't helping.....it is enabling them to continue mooching.  This is what the current administration fails to understand. 
Never said he was perfect...
just said he wasn't a socialist! Where do air traffic controllers come in?
Yes, that was so right on .... so perfect.
nm
How perfect.. thanks.
nm
perfect
" . . .no obligation to think logically, represent facts accurately or to be an honest broker in the public arena of ideas."  Thank you for that perfect description of Fox News. 

PERFECT!!!
x
Here's a perfect example, Suzie:

American Girl: Yawwnnn.... you're boring me to death....


Nameless Troll: By all means.... RIP.


MT: See, THAT'S what I am talkin' about! SM boring and lame! I am telling you, you are lame girl.


American Girl: Did they just wish me dead? ....RIP is a term usually reserved for the dead, right?


They degenerate debate to name calling, calling us evil, and then wishing us dead....all the while preaching to us about how evil and intolerant we are....the irony is bewildering but not unexpected.



MT: Don't forget when they told Nan she was old and would die soon SM and wished for her to burn in hell. That was an especial highlight of the nature of how they "never" say anything hateful.


(No name, but I admit it was me, completely frustrated and having sunk to their level): I know it's difficult but close your eyes and try to FOCUS for a second or two. Take a deep breath. You can do it. The poster was directly responding in kind to YOUR post in which YOU wrote: you're boring me to death.... Now feel free to twist and mangle that any way that makes you look like poor little AG who is always picked on, but YOU are the one who started this. The person was wishing you a peaceful trip while on the destination YOU indicated you were headed.


American Girl: Admit it though... you still wished me dead....


Nameless Troll: Not true. I don't wish anyone dead. I don't harbor that kind of hatred inside me. Sorry to bust your bubble.


Nan: They'll never admit it. sm It has to be your imagination.


These were just a FEW in an entire thread of insults (including one from Nan calling the person a slimy bottom dweller.) Not ONE post in this entire thread added anything of intelligence to any debate (including my own).


Does anyone reading this SERIOUSLY think the poster wished AG dead? When I read it, I see it as a very sarcastic response to a very sarcastic post. I believe it’s shortly after this point in time (when those three were getting exactly what they gave, after repeated threats and "chances" and "strikes" by them to the poster or else they would tell the Monitor) that they all three posted that they wouldn’t be coming back here any more. Those posts are gone now, and as we can see, one of them is already denying ever saying she was leaving. (To those of you who actually did read these posts and know they were there, please continue to rely on the accuracy of your memory because it’s correct.)


Now, when the day comes that AG recalls someone on this board "wishing her dead," are you going to believe that that is what the person REALLY wished, given the entire context of these posts?


The Perfect Storm. SM
America Will Reject the Race Exploiting Demagogues of the New Orleans Tragedy

by Keith Thompson 

Saturday 10 September 2005, 6:35 pm


MSNBC ran a ticker headline Friday identifying dead bodies, debris, human waste and chemicals as prominent contents of the toxic flood waters. It’s no surprise, and curiously fitting, that the national media all week has been awash with the cultural equivalent: noxious, vile proclamations by the America’s foremost moral pretenders, atrocity addicts, all-purpose grifters and incendiary race hustlers: Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Cynthia McKinney, and Maxine Waters — with auditions from aspiring race-mongering demagogues Kanye West and Michael Eric Dyson.


Each of these self-congratulatory progressive activists has labored to exploit the New Orleans catastrophe as an onslaught against black America. Collectively they possess moral authority equivalent to the two scammers who used an amputated finger in an attempted shakedown of Wendys. Let’s be clear about the lineage these bottom feeders are part of. The opportunistic race-based ghouls who have made New Orleans their haunt are not different from David Duke, in either kind or degree. The activists now working overtime to incite race hatred — doing so in the name of “justice” and “civil rights” — deserve the same accolades and mantles as the klansmen who terrorized blacks, Jews, Catholics, and white civil rights workers in another decade.


Like the vulgar, hate-driven white racists who read aloud from Bibles in church the morning after lynching, burning and raping, these morally bankrupt representatives of today’s civil rights elite represent the last gasp of a morally unregenerate worldview. And like the Klan of yore, they (and their enablers Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Richard Cohen, and Hillary Clinton) grow more desperate and deranged as the moderate American mainstream rejects their quest to rip open the nation’s past racial wounds for temporary partisan advantage.


Efforts to turn New Orleans into the cultural equivalent of Rwanda are repugnant to everything about America than makes moral sense. Lincoln spoke of the better angels of human nature, implying the existence of something very much worse. Every schoolboy knows the proper counterpart is demon. The moral scammers now inciting race hatred in the wake of the Louisiana nightmare will fail. And the movement they represent will ultimately fail, because it is more than wrong or simply false, it is cancerously self-canceling. The body politic will cast off this disease and will do so to preserve its well being, vitality, and wholeness.


But the end of this fight is not near. The mainstream media is highlighting the preposterous claims of America’s hate apostles because the MSM sees an opportunity not simply to negate the past two presidential elections, but to reverse the general trend away from the cultural corrections (anti-welfare state, pro-national defense) that Reagan’s 1980 victory represented. The American left has been licking its chops for years, hoping for the political equivalent of a perfect storm: the ideal convergence of forces that would yield a return to normalcy for expanding the gutter of identity politics and apologizing to the world at large for everything American. The left longs for a return of Carter’s malaise because that will reinforce the left’s longstanding antagonism toward the resurgence of personal responsibility and national pride since 9-11.


The unconscionable quest to exploit the human misery of New Orleans sickens me more than I can say. I was with my family at a Florida hospice, attending to my mother as she lay dying from cancer, when Katrina came ashore, wreaking human and physical loss only miles away. We were all aware that our personal loss would be shared by many hurricane victims, and that the American people would do what we always do: rally to help the wounded, the sick, and the bereaved. It never occurred to us — not even remotely — on August 25, the day mom passed away, that leaders of this nation’s so-called progressive community would even consider using a natural tragedy as an occasion to further their now familiar By Any Means Necessary campaign against this country and its traditions.


Then again, neither did I expect that there would be 250 demonstrations on American campuses against the United States responding militarily to the September 11 attacks, as David Horowitz has so aptly described. Naïvete dies hard, but there’s a positive side. It’s extremely hard to resuscitate.


Your post is a perfect example.
I believe this is what Delighted was referring to.  You are not discussing anything, merely demeaning all liberals.  It grows tiresome.  There is little to no debate generally, and postings are merely a platform to demean liberals on this, the liberal board.
Perfect example of why Dems will win and be in the
Republicans thrive on scare tactics - or at least they THINK they're scare tactics. 
The Perfect Stranger
The Perfect Stranger


By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, August 29, 2008;

Barack Obama is an immensely talented man whose talents have been largely devoted to crafting, and chronicling, his own life. Not things. Not ideas. Not institutions. But himself.

Nothing wrong or even terribly odd about that, except that he is laying claim to the job of crafting the coming history of the United States. A leap of such audacity is odd. The air of unease at the Democratic convention this week was not just a result of the Clinton psychodrama. The deeper anxiety was that the party was nominating a man of many gifts but precious few accomplishments -- bearing even fewer witnesses.

When John Kerry was introduced at his convention four years ago, an honor guard of a dozen mates from his Vietnam days surrounded him on the podium attesting to his character and readiness to lead. Such personal testimonials are the norm. The roster of fellow soldiers or fellow senators who could from personal experience vouch for John McCain is rather long. At a less partisan date in the calendar, that roster might even include Democrats Russ Feingold and Edward Kennedy, with whom John McCain has worked to fashion important legislation.
ad_icon

Eerily missing at the Democratic convention this year were people of stature who were seriously involved at some point in Obama's life standing up to say: I know Barack Obama. I've been with Barack Obama. We've toiled/endured together. You can trust him. I do.

Hillary Clinton could have said something like that. She and Obama had, after all, engaged in a historic, utterly compelling contest for the nomination. During her convention speech, you kept waiting for her to offer just one line of testimony: I have come to know this man, to admire this man, to see his character, his courage, his wisdom, his judgment. Whatever. Anything.

Instead, nothing. She of course endorsed him. But the endorsement was entirely programmatic: We're all Democrats. He's a Democrat. He believes what you believe. So we must elect him -- I am currently unavailable -- to get Democratic things done. God bless America.

Clinton's withholding the "I've come to know this man" was vindictive and supremely self-serving -- but jarring, too, because you realize that if she didn't do it, no one else would. Not because of any inherent deficiency in Obama's character. But simply as a reflection of a young life with a biography remarkably thin by the standard of presidential candidates.

Who was there to speak about the real Barack Obama? His wife. She could tell you about Barack the father, the husband, the family man in a winning and perfectly sincere way. But that takes you only so far. It doesn't take you to the public man, the national leader.

Who is to testify to that? Hillary's husband on night three did aver that Obama is "ready to lead." However, he offered not a shred of evidence, let alone personal experience with Obama. And although he pulled it off charmingly, everyone knew that, having been suggesting precisely the opposite for months, he meant not a word of it.

Obama's vice presidential selection, Joe Biden, naturally advertised his patron's virtues, such as the fact that he had "reached across party lines to . . . keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists." But securing loose nukes is as bipartisan as motherhood and as uncontroversial as apple pie. The measure was so minimal that it passed by voice vote and received near zero media coverage.

Thought experiment. Assume John McCain had retired from politics. Would he have testified to Obama's political courage in reaching across the aisle to work with him on ethics reform, a collaboration Obama boasted about in the Saddleback debate? "In fact," reports the Annenberg Political Fact Check, "the two worked together for barely a week, after which McCain accused Obama of 'partisan posturing' " -- and launched a volcanic missive charging him with double-cross.

So where are the colleagues? The buddies? The political or spiritual soul mates? His most important spiritual adviser and mentor was Jeremiah Wright. But he's out. Then there's William Ayers, with whom he served on a board. He's out. Where are the others?

The oddity of this convention is that its central figure is the ultimate self-made man, a dazzling mysterious Gatsby. The palpable apprehension is that the anointed is a stranger -- a deeply engaging, elegant, brilliant stranger with whom the Democrats had a torrid affair. Having slowly woken up, they see the ring and wonder who exactly they married last night.
Yes - and then it would be a perfect world
Yeeee-haaaaaa
These are perfect!! Thanks for the shot . .
of reality . . . well, reality to most of us, anyway. 
Now there's a perfect example of true

I think it is a perfect analogy.
I'm sorry you feel like you wasted your time reading my post but grades are earned just like incomes are earned.  To take away from one to give to another is just absurd, discouraging, and not fair at all to the people who worked hard to achieve their incomes or grades.  It encourages people to not work as hard because they are penalized for making more and it will encourage more people not to work because they will get a check from the government supporting them anyway...so why bother.
Sure, because NOTHING in this world is perfect...nm
nm
Right, we understand, you are perfect,
doubt anything you print here, and most certainly, if anyone disagrees with any of your opinions we are spiteful and impulsive hens, pathetic and hilarious. And those are just a few mild descriptive terms from this one post you have. I am so sorry you had to stoop to the level we did and become a mere MT at some point in your life. Maybe some day you will find something of substance and reality in your life and realize what it is all about, however, I will not hold my breath!

Now, as my 2-year-old granddaughter says when she finishes her meal, I'm done.
P.S. Who decided he was the perfect one

to run for president anyhow? There were candidate s much more qualified than O that could have run away with the votes if they were "chosen" by the party...but they chose someone who was only a senator for what, less than 2 years? Why? I would love to know how the party choses their candidates to run for president. Something doesn't smell right here.


 


Thanks for posting this. Perfect!
)))
Such a perfect post... Thank you.
nm
Okay, maybe this would be the perfect time
for that explanation of irony?  Nah, never mind.