Do you know how to make money from AdSense automatically? You don’t!? I’ll teach you how!…

Back from the political wilderness, so to speak.Four years after racially impolitic remarks cost him the Senate’s top post, Sen. Trent Lott (Miss.) rejoined Congress’s leadership ranks yesterday when his Republican colleagues turned to the veteran in…

a. he is Whip, people, not Leader – Lott’s job is to count the votes of Senators and make majority votes happen for the GOP – he is not the voice of the GOP and not in charge of what happens in the Senate – it is all about getting to 51 or 60, dependinmg on the bill

b. the new Leader, McConnell, is a reliable conservative vote and leader for the GOP – now if you have lost all hope for the GOP, so be it, but remember that McConnell has been sometimes the oone voice in the wilderness about the horrors of campaign finance reform (what a sham) and other issues – he will do a fine job and I commend the Caucus for their choice

Now, do you have any retort to these facts or would you prefer the cliche “MSM/POLL/LIBERAL LIES LIES LIES LIES!”

No moron, I’m looking for THE PART WHERE YOU PROVE YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE FUTURE OR ABILITY TO FORETELL IT. Vis a vis your statement:

“Thie election done more to foreshadow the political future…”

As for your facts, you’ve DECLARED that latinos will break 80% Dem. Your “fact” is an opinion piece with a single data point that you’ve extrapolated into infinity. You pulled your conclusions out straight out of your deluded ass. Andres Oppenheimer speaks, and Grebrook slurps. Is that how it works? Is Oppenheimer a Latino name? Is Grebrook? What makes you think that overwhelmingly catholic Mexican laborers are going to embrace entitlements? Abortion? High taxes?

As for youth, 18-24 has ALWAYS leaned left. But there’s a funny thing about that demographic (and here’s the part where I foretell the future): It grows up.

Your pie in the sky masturbatory socialist paradise fantasy is lacking numerous reality-based elements, and “our enemies” is not the least of them.

Stop taking me seriously?

Yes. This is not complicated. You see, here is the equation:

*Only an idiot believes that extreme conservatives cannot win the Republican Primary
*austinnelly believes that Mitt Romney, an extreme conservative, cannot win the Republican Primary (I didn’t even think he was that extreme, universal healthcare?)
*Therefore austinnelly is an idiot, and should not be taken seriously when it comes to political debate

So, no, this was not “the tides turning”. There were never any tides to begin with. Affirmative action was never “elected”.

Just because something was not “elected” as you put it, does not mean it cannot gain or lose popularity over time. Seems to mean there is a changing of oppinion no matter how you want to look at it. I just figured if a blue state shot down affirmative action, it’s significant. I could be wrong.

Romney won’t get the nomination; too conservative.

This is where I stop taking you seriously.

I didn’t say every single liberal, read much? Maybe it should have been “people left of center”. Because it is a blue state and when 54% vote to shoot it down, maybe the tides are turning on this particular issue.

Not everyone who votes even has a political ideology. A good 20% of the electorate votes but doesn’t really think about politics that much. So it’s not amazing that they would shoot affirmative action down. White people don’t like affirmative action and they’re the majority, both liberal and conservative. So, no, this was not “the tides turning”. There were never any tides to begin with. Affirmative action was never “elected”.

My predictions? John Edwards v. Mitt Romney

Are you freaking kidding me? I know you just like to troll around in here and annoy people but let’s not smoke crack and make lame a** predictions. The dems want to stay in office. They’re not going to p*ss away a chance at the presidency to some ambulance chasing douchebag like John Edwards. Neither he nor Kerry have a senate staffers chance of surviving a ride in Ted Kennedy’s car of winning. They’ll team up Hillary with someone to round out her rough edges (stupid, socialist hag with personality of a bag full of broken glass); they might even go for big money and run her with former President 0.P.P (yeah you know me)Clinton. It’s not like they’re going to have to try hard. Romney won’t get the nomination; too conservative. They’ll probably run Benedict McCain and that Colombian coffee guy with the donkey. He should be legal by then. John Edwards…yeah. Who’s the veep on that ticket genius? Kevin Federline?

Geez Louise, must they select Trent Lott for a leadership position? That man screams sleaze with his slick hair and attitude. I just don’t understand why anyone would elect him given his toxicity. There are politicians, as I’ve said before,…

Right, because every single person in Michigan who voted for Kerry is automatically a liberal. Right.

I didn’t say every single liberal, read much? Maybe it should have been “people left of center”. Because it is a blue state and when 54% vote to shoot it down, maybe the tides are turning on this particular issue.

And my point is liberals are now opposing affirmative action, as do racists as you mentioned.

Right, because every single person in Michigan who voted for Kerry is automatically a liberal. Right.

It’s nice to see your soon to be presidential candidate wanting to socialize 1/7 of our economy.

Yeah right, she’ll never win the nomination. It’ll be Edwards or Clark, but not Clinton. She’ll get 33% guaranteed, and the other 66% will vote for the first person they think has the best chance of beating her.

My predictions? John Edwards v. Mitt Romney. The redneck liberal versus the New England Mormon. At least it’ll have more character than 2004, which was essentially the boring dudd versus the redneck-dunce-ex-drunk-crackhead. Only one side of that race had an interesting personality.

You’re mistaking my claim that racists (obviously) oppose affirmative action for “ONLY” racists oppose affirmative action.

And my point is liberals are now opposing affirmative action, as do racists as you mentioned.

It’s nice to see your soon to be presidential candidate wanting to socialize 1/7 of our economy.

It would appear that both sides of the aisle are racing to see which one can claim the title of worst political maneuverings….

Forget it. That sounded lame to me as well, but I still think that Lott will be a plus sign in the Republican column through the coming years.

From the book Give me a break by John Stossel p145

Affirmative action was shot down in Michigan by 54%. I believe a state that went for Kerry in 2004.

You’re mistaking my claim that racists (obviously) oppose affirmative action for “ONLY” racists oppose affirmative action.

Source your claim or retract it, dirtbag. You’ve dissembled enough, grebrook. Put up or shut up.

Latinos – http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/15965795.htm
Youth – http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061108/ts_nm/usa_elections_youth_dc

Now, do you have any retort to these facts or would you prefer the cliche “MSM/POLL/LIBERAL LIES LIES LIES LIES!”

Boat shoes and rolled up jeans. With a members only jacket of course.

The fact of the matter is this: We’re going to create an entire new generation of Democratic voters when we give amnesty to 20 million illegals and the 8-10 million adult-aged family members that are brought here. And they’re going to break 80-20 for the Democrats, and crush the Republican party in every national election for decades.

Collusion with foreigners to subvert American elections. That’s unprecedented!