To: Cringing Negativism Network
A Sarah/Ted or Ted/Sarah alliance would cause a political earthquake.
3 posted on
10/28/2014 5:38:10 PM PDT by
E. Pluribus Unum
(Any energy source that requires a subsidy is, by definition, "unsustainable.")
To: E. Pluribus Unum
That would be something to get excited about.
4 posted on
10/28/2014 5:38:42 PM PDT by
driftdiver
(I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
They’d have to run third party. The rinos will not support either of them. In fact, they’ll do everything they can to stop them. And sadly, way too many people will vote republican in the end no matter what.
13 posted on
10/28/2014 5:44:46 PM PDT by
VerySadAmerican
(Liberals were raised by women or wimps. And they're all stupid.)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
In either order, they’d have my vote. No question...
17 posted on
10/28/2014 5:48:04 PM PDT by
Dead Corpse
(A Psalm in napalm...)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
A Sarah/Ted or Ted/Sarah alliance would cause a political earthquake. I'd love to see a Palin/West ticket. That would scare the beltway so bad you would hear the knees chattering all the way to the west coast.
42 posted on
10/28/2014 6:26:52 PM PDT by
BerryDingle
(I know how to deal with communists, I still wear their scars on my back from Hollywood-Ronald Reagan)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
A Sarah/Ted or Ted/Sarah alliance would cause a political earthquake. I would cut my work schedule in half and spend the balance of my waking hours doing everything in my power to elect that ticket.
107 posted on
10/28/2014 8:00:13 PM PDT by
Windflier
(To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
“A Sarah/Ted or Ted/Sarah alliance would cause a political earthquake.”
Definitely agree. A lot of democrats and maybe a few republicans would stain their underwear.
111 posted on
10/28/2014 8:08:57 PM PDT by
Texicanus
(Texas, it's a whole 'nother country.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson