Heinz: Bush is a cokehead
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:41:18 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign
  Heinz: Bush is a cokehead
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Heinz: Bush is a cokehead  (Read 11315 times)
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: November 01, 2004, 06:44:19 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Why don't you tell that to Ron Klink (clank, clunk).
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Klink had a tough time as a western PA Democrat against a pretty solid conservative in Santorum.  Going up against Heinz, who has looks, name, and money would be entirely different.  And if his step-father is president, that would help.  Santorum may be vulnerable as he can no longer be considered a pro-life candidate, thanks to his support of Specter against Toomey.  I used to like Santorum a lot,  was glad to give money to his campaign, and met him.  But he's lost my vote.  Republicans have been disappointing lately.


You better wait until you see how Bush does in the "T."  Klink was one of the more conservative Democrats out there.  Heinz won't do it.
Logged
Prospero
Rookie
**
Posts: 53


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: November 01, 2004, 07:07:32 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
You better wait until you see how Bush does in the "T."  Klink was one of the more conservative Democrats out there.  Heinz won't do it.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The T?  What is that?  I remember the Democrats thinking Klink had a shot because he was a conservative Democrat, a hope that quickly faded.  But circumstances change.  I don't know much about Heinz and whether he even wants it.  But he may be too young.  He would probably be better off waiting for Specter to step down and run for the open seat.
Logged
Bogart
bogart414
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 603
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.13, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: November 01, 2004, 07:37:17 PM »

Yeah......he's pretty much a nazi.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: November 01, 2004, 08:02:03 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
You better wait until you see how Bush does in the "T."  Klink was one of the more conservative Democrats out there.  Heinz won't do it.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The T?  What is that?  I remember the Democrats thinking Klink had a shot because he was a conservative Democrat, a hope that quickly faded.  But circumstances change.  I don't know much about Heinz and whether he even wants it.  But he may be too young.  He would probably be better off waiting for Specter to step down and run for the open seat.

The "T" is the state, exclusive of the Greater Pittsburgh and Greater Phila area.  Look at a map of PA and you will see.

Heinz is probably too liberal to run.
Logged
AuH2O
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,239


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: November 01, 2004, 08:06:02 PM »

Heinz is wacko. He'd get 30% against Santorum.
Logged
Redefeatbush04
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,504


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: November 01, 2004, 08:15:15 PM »

hey, relosetobush04, stuff it.

ALERT!!!!!ALERT!!!!!!!!!

RELOSETOBUSH04 has our last worthless CRAPWEASEL award of this election cycle.

ALERT!!!!!!!ALERT!!!!!!!

Hey Shankbear, in the words of Dick Cheney "go  yourself"
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: November 01, 2004, 08:24:57 PM »


Um..no..links? cites? proof?
Logged
CollectiveInterest
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 511


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: November 01, 2004, 09:01:20 PM »

My the Bushies seem to be cranky. Do you think they've figured out that GWB is gonna lose tomorrow?

BTW Cheney told Leahy "go  yourself"
Logged
shankbear
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 363


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: November 01, 2004, 10:10:45 PM »

RELOSETOBUSH04.........Feckless Crapweasel......live it....love it....be it.
Logged
No more McShame
FuturePrez R-AZ
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,083


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: November 01, 2004, 10:37:32 PM »

Santorum kicks his rich little fanny.  Tough when you're step dad is the disgraced junior senator from Massachusets.
Logged
CollectiveInterest
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 511


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: November 01, 2004, 11:05:49 PM »

Santorum kicks his rich little fanny.  Tough when you're step dad is the disgraced junior senator from Massachusets.

Well that disgraced junior senator is about to whoop the sitting Republican president.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: November 01, 2004, 11:13:08 PM »

First, WILL YOU ALL PLEASE WATCH YOUR LANGUAGE.

Second, Hienz is "Little Lord Fantleroy," and Santorum already kicked one of these effete types out of the Senate, Harris Wofford.
Logged
CollectiveInterest
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 511


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: November 02, 2004, 09:01:16 AM »

First, WILL YOU ALL PLEASE WATCH YOUR LANGUAGE.

Second, Hienz is "Little Lord Fantleroy," and Santorum already kicked one of these effete types out of the Senate, Harris Wofford.

What makes one effete? Dealing with the complexities of reality?
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: November 03, 2004, 01:25:59 PM »

First, WILL YOU ALL PLEASE WATCH YOUR LANGUAGE.

Second, Hienz is "Little Lord Fantleroy," and Santorum already kicked one of these effete types out of the Senate, Harris Wofford.

What makes one effete? Dealing with the complexities of reality?

Actually one characteristic is living in a fantasy world like you, DefectiveInfest.
Logged
Bogart
bogart414
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 603
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.13, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: November 03, 2004, 02:04:36 PM »


Well, just an opinion obviously--"proof" not available. Here's a good example, though.

AP: Speaking of liberalism, there was a story in The Washington Post about six months ago, they'd pulled something off the Web, some article that you wrote blaming, according to The Washington Post, blaming in part the Catholic Church scandal on liberalism. Can you explain that?

SANTORUM: You have the problem within the church. Again, it goes back to this moral relativism, which is very accepting of a variety of different lifestyles. And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, this "right to privacy," then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then don't be surprised what you get. You're going to get a lot of things that you're sending signals that as long as you do it privately and consensually, we don't really care what you do. And that leads to a culture that is not one that is nurturing and necessarily healthy. I would make the argument in areas where you have that as an accepted lifestyle, don't be surprised that you get more of it.

AP: The right to privacy lifestyle?

SANTORUM: The right to privacy lifestyle.

AP: What's the alternative?

SANTORUM: In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it.

AP: Well, what would you do?

SANTORUM: What would I do with what?

AP: I mean, how would you remedy? What's the alternative?

SANTORUM: First off, I don't believe _

AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?

SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.

AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?

SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you -- this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality _

AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.

SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/04/22/national1737EDT0668.DTL
Logged
Redefeatbush04
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,504


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: November 03, 2004, 03:42:30 PM »
« Edited: November 03, 2004, 07:14:11 PM by Redefeatbush04 »

Hey Cheney had to have said that at one point of time too lol. F off. F yourself same thing right
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.05 seconds with 14 queries.