1 - 10 Next
Too bad GM and the nation got mixed up with BO. I like Chevys, my favorite is the 1956 (I am old, yes), but in spite of that Chevy has produce four vehicles which did not even rise to the level of lemon: Corvair, Vega, the diesel - 260 and 350, and now the volt. Owners lost untold millions on these four.
Example of a poor choice of words: I have a friend who was learning English. After meeting and talking to a certain well-known man, he remarked to a friend: "That man is a wise guy." Of course, he meant that in the literal sense = wise, not a "smart-mouth."
I agree. It could also be the person sending this just used a poor choice of words.
Good list, but Liberals are shameless, so it is almost impossible to embarrass them.
In response to:

Obama bin Biden 2012

Don11646 Wrote: May 05, 2012 9:45 PM
The GOP only has the House, which has passed over 30 bills (many to help with jobs), but the Senate under Harry the Democrat has those bills in the trash. The House cannot force the Senate or the President to do anything. Over three years and counting now the Senate has not passed a budget required by law. That's where the Congress is. We must win the White House, the Senate and hold the house in order to get control.
In response to:

A Few Words For Newt Gingrich

Don11646 Wrote: May 05, 2012 9:31 PM
It's always the lesser of two evils. The lesser implies there is a greater evil. O will continue to destroy the economy, so that makes him the greater evil in this case. At this point, it's going to be O or Mitt. To vote for someone else or not vote is a waste and a "vote" for O. One of the two will the elected. The greater evil is worse than the lesser so that means the lesser is better. Mitt is not my first choice, but I plan to voter him the lesser=better.
In response to:

A Few Words For Newt Gingrich

Don11646 Wrote: May 05, 2012 9:25 PM
It's always the lesser of two evils. OK, the lesser implies that there is a greater evil. It's clear that O wants to do more to hurt the economy. Mitt (not my first choice) will do the opposite. The lesser evil is also the better of the two. As it stands now, O or Mitt will be Pres and any other choice is impossible, so the lesser is the better - a vote for Mitt does not require total agreement, but that I realize it's O or Mitt, and Mitt is better.
In response to:

A Few Words For Newt Gingrich

Don11646 Wrote: May 05, 2012 9:19 PM
There is no hope of better things with O. He has made it clear that he wants to spend more. Mitt it is clear will do better.
In response to:

A Few Words For Newt Gingrich

Don11646 Wrote: May 05, 2012 9:16 PM
No difference in Obama and Mitt? He is not my first choice, but there is world of difference between the two. One will cut spending, taxes, repeal Obamacare, allow oil production increase, approve the pipeline, honor the Constitution, stop bailouts, work to renew the Bush tax cuts, support Israel, honor and build up the military, and work to save the economy. Obama would do none of these things, but Mitt would, so there is a giant difference. If Obama is re-elected, he will do the same and much more because he will not be facing another election. I don't know how long our economy can survive with Obama, but I have strong doubts that it can make with him another four years. Please stop saying there is no difference- it's a bunch.
In response to:

The Truth About Mormonism

Don11646 Wrote: Apr 16, 2012 3:05 PM
I will vote for Mitt is he is the GOP nominee, however, This is a very poor article. It hardly touches on Mormon doctrine. They do not believe in the God of the Bible or in the Jesus in the Bible. For great info on this subject go to www.wayoflife.org and search for Mormon doctrine.
1 - 10 Next