Former LA governor Buddy Roemer likely to run for President

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Uh, TIME has a circulation of about 4 million weekly.

Which means that there are almost 100 million people who don't read it.

TIME is mostly found in waiting rooms and the like, so multiple people read one issue. And obviously not a single person who didn't read knew who Barack Obama was.

[feeblepizza]

Uh, TIME has a circulation of about 4 million weekly.

Which means that there are almost 100 million people who don't read it.

TIME is mostly found in waiting rooms and the like, so multiple people read one issue. And obviously not a single person who didn't read knew who Barack Obama was.

Most TIME magazines in waiting rooms are multiple months old and speak of the urgency of climate change/why we need to maintain ObamaCare/and the like. And the people who watched the 04 Democratic Convention and read his books had a brief recollection of who he was.

[tpfkaw]

Uh, TIME has a circulation of about 4 million weekly.

Which means that there are almost 100 million people who don't read it.

TIME is mostly found in waiting rooms and the like, so multiple people read one issue. And obviously not a single person who didn't read knew who Barack Obama was.

Most TIME magazines in waiting rooms are multiple months old and speak of the urgency of climate change/why we need to maintain ObamaCare/and the like. And the people who watched the 04 Democratic Convention and read his books knew who he was.

Well, a good number are articles about how the childrens must be protected from dope and "sexting."

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The article in question would be relevant several months after it was put out. But the most important thing is that the cover obviously assumes one already knows who Obama is. Would TIME ever do a cover with Roemer and say why he might be the next President?

[feeblepizza]

Uh, TIME has a circulation of about 4 million weekly.

Which means that there are almost 100 million people who don't read it.

TIME is mostly found in waiting rooms and the like, so multiple people read one issue. And obviously not a single person who didn't read knew who Barack Obama was.

Most TIME magazines in waiting rooms are multiple months old and speak of the urgency of climate change/why we need to maintain ObamaCare/and the like. And the people who watched the 04 Democratic Convention and read his books knew who he was.

Well, a good number are articles about how the childrens must be protected from dope and "sexting."

Exactly. Mainstream government propaganda and liberal garbage. Nothing important whatsoever comes from TIME Magazine.

[feeblepizza]

The article in question would be relevant several months after it was put out. But the most important thing is that the cover obviously assumes one already knows who Obama is. Would TIME ever do a cover with Roemer and say why he might be the next President?

No, because they refuse to have an open mind about possible non-Communist Party candidate, as you seem to have.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The article in question would be relevant several months after it was put out. But the most important thing is that the cover obviously assumes one already knows who Obama is. Would TIME ever do a cover with Roemer and say why he might be the next President?

No, because they refuse to have an open mind about possible non-Communist Party candidate, as you seem to have.

Anybody who is calling the Democrats a "communist" our of demagogy is a fool who is also offending a victims of a real communism.

Kid, grow up.

[Mr. Morden]

Obama appeared on Meet The Press in October 2006, and indicated that he might be interested in running for president in 2008 after all, and that he'd decide within a few months.  That made a big splash in the media, and he instantly jumped to 2nd place (after Clinton) in all the Democratic primary polls.

Today, Roemer indicates that he might run for president, and it gets essentially no coverage.  Here's Google News on "Buddy Roemer":

http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=buddy+roemer

Pretty pathetic.  I highly doubt that Roemer is going to be invited on Meet the Press any time soon.  And no one is bothering to include him in any 2012 primary polls, and I doubt they're going to start doing so in the near future.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Obama appeared on Meet The Press in October 2006, and indicated that he might be interested in running for president in 2008 after all, and that he'd decide within a few months.  That made a big splash in the media, and he instantly jumped to 2nd place (after Clinton) in all the Democratic primary polls.

Today, Roemer indicates that he might run for president, and it gets essentially no coverage.  Here's Google News on "Buddy Roemer":

http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=buddy+roemer

Pretty pathetic.  I highly doubt that Roemer is going to be invited on Meet the Press any time soon.  And no one is bothering to include him in any 2012 primary polls, and I doubt they're going to start doing so in the near future.

Feeblepizza does not like facts, dude.

[feeblepizza]

The article in question would be relevant several months after it was put out. But the most important thing is that the cover obviously assumes one already knows who Obama is. Would TIME ever do a cover with Roemer and say why he might be the next President?

No, because they refuse to have an open mind about possible non-Communist Party candidate, as you seem to have.

Anybody who is calling the Democrats a "communist" our of demagogy is a fool who is also offending a victims of a real communism.

Kid, grow up.

The Democratic Party of today supports socialist/communist ideologies. Our Commander-in-Chief and the loons we voted out of Congress are proof of that. I suggest that you and other whiners grow up, pull your heads out of your leftist asses, and decided to fight for freedom instead of ruin.

[feeblepizza]

Obama appeared on Meet The Press in October 2006, and indicated that he might be interested in running for president in 2008 after all, and that he'd decide within a few months.  That made a big splash in the media, and he instantly jumped to 2nd place (after Clinton) in all the Democratic primary polls.

Today, Roemer indicates that he might run for president, and it gets essentially no coverage.  Here's Google News on "Buddy Roemer":

http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=buddy+roemer

Pretty pathetic.  I highly doubt that Roemer is going to be invited on Meet the Press any time soon.  And no one is bothering to include him in any 2012 primary polls, and I doubt they're going to start doing so in the near future.

Feeblepizza does not like facts, dude.

I appreciate facts much more than any of you, thanks very much.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The article in question would be relevant several months after it was put out. But the most important thing is that the cover obviously assumes one already knows who Obama is. Would TIME ever do a cover with Roemer and say why he might be the next President?

No, because they refuse to have an open mind about possible non-Communist Party candidate, as you seem to have.

Anybody who is calling the Democrats a "communist" our of demagogy is a fool who is also offending a victims of a real communism.

Kid, grow up.

The Democratic Party of today supports socialist/communist ideologies. Our Commander-in-Chief and the loons we voted out of Congress are proof of that. I suggest that you and other whiners grow up, pull your heads out of your leftist asses, and decided to fight for freedom instead of ruin.

Obama "socialism" is a very moderate thing in a comparision to a programs of mainstream European leftist parties.

[feeblepizza]

The article in question would be relevant several months after it was put out. But the most important thing is that the cover obviously assumes one already knows who Obama is. Would TIME ever do a cover with Roemer and say why he might be the next President?

No, because they refuse to have an open mind about possible non-Communist Party candidate, as you seem to have.

Anybody who is calling the Democrats a "communist" our of demagogy is a fool who is also offending a victims of a real communism.

Kid, grow up.

The Democratic Party of today supports socialist/communist ideologies. Our Commander-in-Chief and the loons we voted out of Congress are proof of that. I suggest that you and other whiners grow up, pull your heads out of your leftist asses, and decided to fight for freedom instead of ruin.

Obama "socialism" is a very moderate thing in a comparision to a programs of mainstream European leftist parties.

I think it's about as bad. Try living in America and see how you like it.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Obviously, it was no one else than socialist Barack Obama who landed U.S. in two wars and under whose watch global crisis started.

[feeblepizza]

Obviously, it was no one else than socialist Barack Obama who landed U.S. in two wars and under whose watch global crisis started.

The wars are necessary. The crisis, I'll admit, was the fault of too little regulation on Fannie and Freddie and the repeal of the Wall Street Up-Tick Rule and other necessary safeguards.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Obviously, it was no one else than socialist Barack Obama who landed U.S. in two wars and under whose watch global crisis started.

The wars are necessary.

How Iraw was necessary?

[feeblepizza]

Obviously, it was no one else than socialist Barack Obama who landed U.S. in two wars and under whose watch global crisis started.

The wars are necessary.

How Iraw was necessary?

Saddam (who did not have WMD) had the capability to produce WMD and was gearing up to do so. Bush acted preemptively and removed the threat before it even became a threat.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Obviously, it was no one else than socialist Barack Obama who landed U.S. in two wars and under whose watch global crisis started.

The wars are necessary.

How Iraw was necessary?

Saddam (who did not have WMD) had the capability to produce WMD and was gearing up to do so. Bush acted preemptively and removed the threat before it even became a threat.

You know, Germany posess a capability to produce WMD as well. Should US strike?

[feeblepizza]

Obviously, it was no one else than socialist Barack Obama who landed U.S. in two wars and under whose watch global crisis started.

The wars are necessary.

How Iraw was necessary?

Saddam (who did not have WMD) had the capability to produce WMD and was gearing up to do so. Bush acted preemptively and removed the threat before it even became a threat.

You know, Germany posess a capability to produce WMD as well. Should US strike?

There you go again, being a smartass...Germany is an ally. Iraq was an enemy. It is better to attack an enemy so that they will not pose a threat than to pose dumbass hypothetical question about attacking an ally with a questionable history just because they can produce WMD.

[President Mitt]

Little boys your age should not use such language.

[feeblepizza]

Little boys your age should not use such language.

Ever hear of the First Amendment? I'm pretty sure it still applies to the Internet, as well.

[Phony Moderate]

The article in question would be relevant several months after it was put out. But the most important thing is that the cover obviously assumes one already knows who Obama is. Would TIME ever do a cover with Roemer and say why he might be the next President?

No, because they refuse to have an open mind about possible non-Communist Party candidate, as you seem to have.

Anybody who is calling the Democrats a "communist" our of demagogy is a fool who is also offending a victims of a real communism.

Kid, grow up.

The Democratic Party of today supports socialist/communist ideologies. Our Commander-in-Chief and the loons we voted out of Congress are proof of that. I suggest that you and other whiners grow up, pull your heads out of your leftist asses, and decided to fight for freedom instead of ruin.

As does the Republican Party. Social conservatism is a form of "socialism/communism". Not to mention the bank bailouts and so on. 

[feeblepizza]

The article in question would be relevant several months after it was put out. But the most important thing is that the cover obviously assumes one already knows who Obama is. Would TIME ever do a cover with Roemer and say why he might be the next President?

No, because they refuse to have an open mind about possible non-Communist Party candidate, as you seem to have.

Anybody who is calling the Democrats a "communist" our of demagogy is a fool who is also offending a victims of a real communism.

Kid, grow up.

The Democratic Party of today supports socialist/communist ideologies. Our Commander-in-Chief and the loons we voted out of Congress are proof of that. I suggest that you and other whiners grow up, pull your heads out of your leftist asses, and decided to fight for freedom instead of ruin.

As does the Republican Party. Social conservatism is a form of "socialism/communism". Not to mention the bank bailouts and so on. 

The bailouts were opposed by the vast majority of Republicans, and supported by nearly all Democrats. And social conservatism is about preserving our Judeo-Christian values as a nation. Please explain how that is socialism/communism?

[Phony Moderate]

The bailouts were opposed by the vast majority of Republicans, and supported by nearly all Democrats.

Only 14 Republicans out of 49 in the Senate voted against it. Not what I would call a "vast majority".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Social conservatism is a form of communism - spiritual communism, because it attempts to level out everyone into mediocrity through conformism.

[pbrower2a]

1. Tom Brokaw plugged Barack Obama as one of the most promising young politicians in America when he was still a member of the Illinois State Senate. Brokaw rarely does that; he is not a master of hype, so he must have known something.

2. In view of the sell-off of TARP assets for a profit and tax cuts, our President is the antithesis of a socialist. America is more capitalist now than it was when President Obama was inaugurated.

3. The GOP used to be a conservative party. It has become so reckless that it must now be called reactionary if not fascist. Some elected Republicans as high up as the US Senate  are  close to being full-blown fascists.