If the election were held today, for whom would you vote?
- Spelling Police
- Merry Man
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 11:20 am
- Location: Watching you
If the election were held today, for whom would you vote?
If the election were held today, for whom would you vote?
Last edited by Spelling Police on Mon Jan 07, 2008 5:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
when the sound is ee
it's i before e
except after c
it's i before e
except after c
- TheConfessor
- Posts: 6462
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:11 pm
- ne1410s
- Posts: 2961
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:26 pm
- Location: The Friendly Confines
- Bob Juch
- Posts: 26515
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
- Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
- Contact:
How about Hunter S. Thompson? Yeah, I know he's dead - would cause less trouble.TheConfessor wrote:Questions like this are pointless. There will never be an election with all of these names on the same ballot. Give me a valid matchup and I'll think about it.
Actually, I like the sound of a Hunter-Thompson ticket.
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)
Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.
Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)
Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.
Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.
- NellyLunatic1980
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:54 am
- Contact:
- themanintheseersuckersuit
- Posts: 7619
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:37 pm
- Location: South Carolina
Headline: Thompson leads Republican Field, loses to WGAS.
Suitguy is not bitter.
feels he represents the many educated and rational onlookers who believe that the hysterical denouncement of lay scepticism is both unwarranted and counter-productive
The problem, then, is that such calls do not address an opposition audience so much as they signal virtue. They talk past those who need convincing. They ignore actual facts and counterargument. And they are irreparably smug.
feels he represents the many educated and rational onlookers who believe that the hysterical denouncement of lay scepticism is both unwarranted and counter-productive
The problem, then, is that such calls do not address an opposition audience so much as they signal virtue. They talk past those who need convincing. They ignore actual facts and counterargument. And they are irreparably smug.