Old Hippie Posted March 13, 2010 Report Share Posted March 13, 2010 Hillary, boxer, Pelosi, Fienstein... You have to lick/fuck one, kill one, marry one, date one in public...decide... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itsmedave Posted March 13, 2010 Report Share Posted March 13, 2010 This is always a difficult one with women in their 60's and above (and I'm not sure how their sexuality is relevant to their claim to fame)...but I love games so here goes... Marry - Feinstein...cause she seems nice enough that I wouldn't mind spending time with her. Date publicly - Hillary...cause she must have some incredible stories to tell and is among the most intelligent women in public life Leaving fuck and kill...which is tough because I want to do neither to either of them Having said that, I guess I'd do away with Boxer because she seems to be less effective at getting things done...howver you feel about Pelosi she has gotten hundreds of bills passed through the house that are sitting around waiting for the senators to deal with. So with our problem of a do nothing Congress it would be nice if we had more like Pelosi who actually got legislation passed...and is enough for me to sacrifice my high licking standards and keep her around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted March 13, 2010 Report Share Posted March 13, 2010 I am awaiting HH's response! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USVirgin Posted March 13, 2010 Report Share Posted March 13, 2010 Everyone take note...we all saw it... ITSME WANTS TO LICK PELOSI! :applause: Dude! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckwoww Posted March 13, 2010 Report Share Posted March 13, 2010 I am awaiting HH's response! I think Hugh and Hillary would make a lovely couple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted March 13, 2010 Report Share Posted March 13, 2010 ...... or Hillary and HH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted March 13, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2010 I am awaiting HH's response! I think Hugh and Hillary would make a lovely couple. I'll do Hillary...on one condition. You two guys do a three-some with Janet Reno. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckwoww Posted March 13, 2010 Report Share Posted March 13, 2010 Hillary Rodham Hoy. Now there's a name with some class.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted March 14, 2010 Report Share Posted March 14, 2010 I'm as angry as anyone about concessions in illegal immigration but its all a non starter. It doesn't matter what party is in power NOTHING of consequence will EVER be done. Its just not politically viable for either party. A Republican can get nominated in his party with a hard line on immigration but he WILL lose out in the general election. He could even be labled racist or some such like tag because of it. Also, we focus on illegal immigration accross the southern border but no one really discusses illegal immigrants that arrive by airplane. Mainly due to overstayed work and holiday visas. This was from about 4 years ago, so the numbers are higher now. http://www.workpermit.com/news/2005_10_24/us/immigrants_overstay_visas_us.htm The study estimates that the visa overstay population in the United States is at least 3.6 million people, out of an estimated 9 million to 10 million illegal immigrants. Yet nationally, only 51 full-time agents in the special enforcement unit of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency were assigned in 2004 to work on these cases McCain would not have done squat about illegal immigration. Both parties need New Mexico, a swing state. The border states like Arizona are also dicey. Republicans have Texas but they will NEVER get California as a red state if they take a hardline. They could have Michigan and parts of the rust belt perhaps where illegal immigration has been blamed for the loss of factory jobs but its hard to say if it will be enough to swing Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania that way. Those states have other issues as well but jobs is the most important admittedly. Those are heavily union states and the Republican party has a bad reputation with unions and are seen as 'union busters' so a Republican has to coddle them and turn them back into 'Reagan democrats', northern union members who usually are Democrat but vote Republican in the national election if given a cause celebre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rchapstick Posted March 14, 2010 Report Share Posted March 14, 2010 Problem for Republican re. immigration is that big biz does not want reform. All of the illegals taking low paying jobs helps keep overall wages down (and not just for the guy that mows my lawn). Without all of the illegals, wages would skyrocket. Even GWB tried to make a path for illegal aliens to become legal, or to become guest workers. Got shot down very quickly. Outside of Faux News and the Wacko fringe (both the left and the right), no one really wants to kick all of the illegals out. BTW HH, Meg Whitman, Steve Poizner et al want to cut all of your benefits, since retirees in CA really don't contribute anything, and we just an't afford to keep paying for your healthcare. Does that mean you are voting for Gavin Newson? Just curious ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.