-->
 
Jurassic Park Trilogy Blu-Ray
By Universal
($49.99)
 
 
  • Latest News
  • JP3 FAQ
  • You Review JP3!
  • News Archive
  • Cast+Crew
  • Media Gallery
  • JP3 Chat
  • Message Board
  • Fan Fiction
  • Links
  •  


     
    #4
    Dan's Lost World Page (the precursor to this page) went live December 23rd, 1996.
    Prev   -   Next

    Submit your own JP Fact to the list! Click here!

     

    [ Log In ] [ Register ]

    Reply
    - Next - Back
    "GOP 2012 Predictions"
    On 3/11/2011 at 9:43:52 PM, Colin started the thread:
    What say you folks? What is your preference (if any) and what is your prediction.

    Newt Gingrich won't get it because every one of his opponents will have too much fun exposing his infidelity. Huckabee, I think, stands a solid chance, actually, despite his limitations in several areas. Romney was the favorite until everybody started comparing Massachussett's health care plan that he implemented to ObamaCare, so that could stifle him. Palin doesn't have a chance, I think America is at least that smart. Hunstman has been getting some heads to turn lately, but his moderate views may hurt him, but could actually turn out to be what the GOP needs going into 2012.

    Preference: Jon Hunstman. I'm a fan.

    Prediction: Mitt Romney, with Huckabee as the dark horse.


    Msg #1: On 3/11/2011 at 9:45:27 PM, QuickComment replied, saying:
    Bolton 2012.


    Msg #2: On 3/11/2011 at 10:30:27 PM, raptor2000 replied, saying:
    Huckabee has been touching on some subjects he shouldn't be and as such pissing people off/alienating voters, such as attacking Natalie Portman for being pregnant while not married. Doesn't really matter if your religion dictates you must be married to have children; single parents are a large portion of the voting population and pissing them off is bad news bears.

    Anyway, I'm not really sure who I want to be nominated. Romney's ok, I suppose. I don't think it'll be hard to beat Obama if the GOP finds a decent candidate, but they need to squash these rumors of people like Sarah Palin or Donald Trump being nominated.



    Msg #3: On 3/12/2011 at 1:02:35 AM, Trainwreck replied, saying:
    My only hope: not Palin.


    Msg #4: On 3/12/2011 at 10:08:30 PM, Monkipzzle replied, saying:
    I like Huckabee, and (gasp) I like Palin, if only for her support of the Tea Party. I'd like to see Bobby Jindal run at some point, or even better, a ticket with Jesse Ventura, lol.



    As long as Obama is out and a republican replaces him I'll be OK...



    Msg #5: On 3/13/2011 at 3:31:55 AM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying:
    We need Ron Paul.


    Msg #6: On 3/13/2011 at 3:32:22 AM, Monkipzzle replied, saying:
    Another good choice!


    Msg #7: On 3/13/2011 at 3:54:39 AM, IngenRaptor replied, saying:
    I don't think Hunstman will be able to make it past the primaries. Being part of the Obama administration is not going to do him any good with republican voters. Especially all the motivated tea partiers.
    Same with Mitt Romney, all the comparisons between his health plan, and President Obama's health reform is very likely to kill his campaign.
    I don't think Sarah Palin has any desire to run for president which is too bad. That campaign would be fun to watch.
    Newt Gingrich is a joke.
    Haley Barbour has a chance to get the nomination but I can't see winning a national election. Huckabee could get the nomination if he runs which right now I'm not sure he is going to. I don't see him winning a national election either.
    I think the republican's nominee may end up being the exciting Tim Pawlenty. I'm not how he would do up against Obama on the national stage. I really don't see who the republicans have that can beat Obama in 2012.



    Msg #8: On 3/13/2011 at 8:44:49 PM, Monkipzzle replied, saying:
    I just want Obama out!


    Msg #9: On 3/14/2011 at 5:41:49 AM, Narrator replied, saying:
    Palin wins: World ends: Prophecy fulfilled.


    Msg #10: On 3/14/2011 at 6:03:06 PM, Monkipzzle replied, saying:
    I could deal with that...

    as long as Obama doesn't get a second term...




    Msg #11: On 3/14/2011 at 7:17:38 PM, Colin replied, saying:
    Sorry, Monki-- Barring a catastrophe, Obama is going to win in '12.

        Replies: 12
    Msg #12: On 3/14/2011 at 9:26:44 PM, raptor2000 replied to Msg #11, saying:
    No, he's not, unless the Republicans completely drop the ball and nominate somebody totally worthless. If ever there was a president that only deserved one term, it's Obama, and he didn't even deserve the one he got.


    Msg #13: On 3/14/2011 at 10:19:02 PM, Colin replied, saying:
    I'm not talking about whether or not it's deserved. I'm talking about the actual likelihood. Looking at the situation logically and not emotionally as you seem to be doing, he already has a better chance of winning the election than whomever the GOP nominates.

    http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html

    Look at where Obama is now and look at where Clinton and Reagan were shortly into their third year in office. I'm not saying that the past predicts the future spot-on, but so far everything is on track. Obama is beginning to see a slight rise in his approval rating right at the same time Clinton and Reagan did.

    Also, sitting presidents are typically re-elected anyway. This is a matter of logistics, not whether or not you like the guy. Mark my words, Obama will win.

    If Romney is the best guy the GOP has got, he's already screwed on two counts -- 1. He's Mormon, so the hard right evangelicals would rather sit at home than vote for a Mormon and 2. RomneyCare.



    Msg #14: On 3/14/2011 at 10:37:19 PM, IngenRaptor replied, saying:
    Colin is right. A sitting president is extremely hard to beat unless they completely drop the ball. President Obama hasn't.
    His approval ratings are decent. The economy is somewhat on the rise. People like him, and he has an amazing get out the vote strategy and fund-raising capabilities.
    Plus the main problem for republicans is they don't have a big name that is going to be running in 2012. The few moderates who may be able to compete against President Obama probably won't be able to get through the primaries or they are not running.



    Msg #15: On 3/15/2011 at 3:20:53 PM, Monkipzzle replied, saying:
    He'll probably be reelected, but that doesn't mean I can't hope that he will not...


    Msg #16: On 3/17/2011 at 9:20:35 PM, Monkipzzle replied, saying:
    Hey...no one mentioned Trump...

    Thoughts?


        Replies: 17
    Msg #17: On 3/17/2011 at 11:07:17 PM, raptor2000 replied to Msg #16, saying:
    >>Msg #2: On 3/11/2011 at 10:30:27 PM, raptor2000 replied, saying:
    ...but they need to squash these rumors of people like Sarah Palin or Donald Trump being nominated.<<

    I fear for the day when the people of the U.S. actually considers Donald Trump (or Sarah Palin) as a potential nominee for the leader of this country.



    Msg #18: On 3/18/2011 at 4:12:20 AM, Monkipzzle replied, saying:
    That day has come, my friend...

        Replies: 20
    Msg #19: On 3/18/2011 at 4:12:20 AM, Monkipzzle replied, saying:
    That day has come, my friend...


    Msg #20: On 3/18/2011 at 11:19:13 PM, raptor2000 replied to Msg #18, saying:
    Uh, no it hasn't. Nominees won't be announced for a while yet.

    Tons of ridiculous names have come up...Palin and Trump just get more publicity because they are celebrities. There's been no official word yet on anybody.



    Msg #21: On 3/20/2011 at 8:41:09 AM, Colin replied, saying:
    "I fear for the day when the people of the U.S. actually considers Donald Trump (or Sarah Palin) as a potential nominee for the leader of this country."

    I think, perhaps, the more choice phrasing of that might have been "when the majority of people of U.S." because plenty of people consider Palin and even Trump as viable candidates.



    Msg #22: On 3/22/2011 at 7:09:55 PM, Monkipzzle replied, saying:
    Sure do...



    *especially when compared to the current POTUS...*



    Msg #23: On 3/23/2011 at 5:23:02 PM, Colin replied, saying:
    Yes, I'm sure the people that prefer Trump to Obama are logical, intelligent thinkers.


    Msg #24: On 3/23/2011 at 6:45:34 PM, IngenRaptor replied, saying:



    Msg #25: On 3/23/2011 at 9:41:34 PM, Pteranadon2003 replied, saying:
    Anyone who thinks Palin is worthy of ANY job other than a FOX News pundit show host is someone I cannot take seriously. She's dumb. DUMB. I never get into these political threads cause I know how heated they can get and that's because, quite frankly, more conservatives here keep up the fight longer than any liberals here(thats a compliment by the way to you conservatives).

    But I am just so fucking sick of ANYONE taking Palin into consideration for any political position. Call me an intellectual douchebag, but I'm sorry, you have to have SOME kind of understanding of science, politics, and history, if you want to run for office. "Oh I'm folksy and old fashioned. I'm just like you. Blah blah blah." Oh you mean fucking stupid? Ignorant? An intellectual black hole? You don't know what a black hole is do you? I don't want "regular joes" in office, I want smart people who want to help others, not dumb people who only want to push their stupid "traditional" values on others. Keep your traditions. Let's try stuff that fucking works.

    Fuck!


        Replies: 26
    Msg #26: On 3/23/2011 at 10:15:36 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #25, saying:
    1) She isn't stupid, she just isn't nuanced enough to be President. It cheapens anyone to say something like 'oh, she's dumb'. It takes a hell of a lot of balls and at least average intelligence to be able to hold yourself together well enough to even function in front of millions of TV viewers, let alone politicos who are judging you.

    2) Your 'smart' people have fucked this country up much worse than anyone could have imagined. Remember the trillion dollars we spent on stimulus? It was designed to keep unemployment from ever going above 8%, where are we still now? To put it in perspective, the Japanese will spend roughly 280 billion to rebuild. They'll rebuild a country for a quarter of what we wasted.

    3) Any side of any social issues is not invalided simply because you disagree with it. If you aren't able to understand that reasonable people can hold views either against or in favor of abortion, or against or in favor of gay marriage, you've lost perspective. Personally I support 1st trimester abortions and oppose gay marriage only because of the economic incentives that we offer with marriage and the negative population trend America has. If you lump that in with someone who is protesting with misspelling words on a poster somewhere at a college campus, you're sadly mistaken.


        Replies: 30
    Msg #27: On 3/23/2011 at 10:47:54 PM, IngenRaptor replied, saying:
    1) I wouldn't say she is stupid, but she isn't all that smart. She didn't know Africa was a continent. She thought the Vice President was in charge of the senate? She just says the same things over and over, and then all the "death panel" stuff. I would love for her to get the Republican nomination just to see what amazing stuff she says on the campaign.
    2) For one, you can't compare rebuilding a country hit with tsunami with a job stimulus bill. A good reason why the stimulus bill didn't work is because almost half of it was tax cuts which unfortunately was the only way to get it passed. Most economists agree it should have been bigger and that we are lot better off then we would have been had it not been passed.
    3) I agree that people who hold reasonable views on social views should be respected. But when your views are based on what God would want or because it's against what's in the bible then that's when I think you're an idiot.



    Msg #28: On 3/23/2011 at 10:53:44 PM, Colin replied, saying:
    Sarah Palin may be the only active or even inactive politician that I'd be so bold to state, quite simply, is clearly unintelligent.

    I don't think George W. Bush is stupid. Or even Dan Quayle. Or any of the other notoriously "dumb conservatives." Those two just didn't speak well. But Sarah Palin couldn't even name any newspapers she read! Anytime somebody says Sarah Palin is unintelligent, conservatives seem to shift it on to how badly they think Obama is running the country. Regardless of his presidential efforts, nothing he does makes her any more intelligent and even if Obama is the problem, Palin is not the answer.

    I have never heard her say something poignant, well-stated or eloquent. I've heard many conservatives do just that, regardless of whether or not I agreed with. Palin offers nothing to the table.



    Msg #29: On 3/23/2011 at 11:00:35 PM, Colin replied, saying:
    "She thought the Vice President was in charge of the senate?"

    Well, the VP sort of is... He's the President of the senate and even if him being "in charge" is relegated to casting a tie-breaking vote and certifying vote counts, it's not entirely incorrect to say he's "in charge" even though the role he plays has been minimalized in recent years.



    Msg #30: On 3/27/2011 at 8:40:31 PM, Dark Element replied to Msg #26, saying:
    "She isn't stupid, she just isn't nuanced enough to be President. It cheapens anyone to say something like 'oh, she's dumb'. It takes a hell of a lot of balls and at least average intelligence to be able to hold yourself together well enough to even function in front of millions of TV viewers, let alone politicos who are judging you."

    I would agree that she isn't below average intelligence...but I don't want someone of average intelligence being the President, and she isn't anything above average intelligence. She isn't book smart (I think is safe to say), and that I think is a necessary requirement as the leader of the free world.

    2) Were the Dems the only people to waste money on a stimulus that didn't work? Not being a smart ass, but I'm pretty sure Bush did as well. Not sure where you were going with the Japan point...You could say we wasted more money tearing Iraq to the ground than it will take Japan to rebuild their naturally destroyed Country...I don't see how thats any different (both American acts were done with the best of intentions, I'm sure. This country hasn't been spending its money well for the last 15 or so years)

    3) Agreed, and I would say that that argument holds ground on something like abortion, because there are plausible negative affects that concern something as delicate and meaningful as life.

    But your views on gay marriage prohibit people that you have nothing to do with their freedom as an individual citizen of a free nation. They're choices as individuals, and what they do is of no concern of yours. Demanding someone have sex with members of the opposite sex (even if they are disgusted by the very idea of it) so that other American's can be born alienates the principles of freedom in this Country.

    So, while I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion on the issue, I don't believe it's any citizens right to take away the freedom of marriage from another citizen. I believe It's simply a lapse in logic in a country like the United States. But I'm just some silly liberal asshole, right? I don't know anything.


        Replies: 31
    Msg #31: On 3/27/2011 at 11:36:30 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #30, saying:
    For the record, I'll be the one to say that I genuinely believe Palin is stupid. One may say that she is merely trying to craft an image, and is in that regard, intelligent; however, I try to take people and politicians for their face value, and if she tries hard to project this anti-intellectual, Grizzly Mom image, that's exactly how I will take her.

    You could say we wasted more money building a better Iraq


    Fixed! :-)



    Msg #32: On 12/7/2017 at 9:22:14 PM, Colin replied, saying:
    Bumping this thread because the nearly seven year old conversations about Trump make me LOL and cry.

        Replies: 35
    Msg #33: On 12/20/2017 at 7:08:33 PM, RaptorHiss replied, saying:
    Absolutely hilarious....what a strange timeline we've found ourselves on.


    Msg #34: On 1/7/2018 at 10:40:26 PM, Pteranadon2003 replied, saying:
    The darkest timeline.


    Msg #35: On 9/27/2019 at 4:43:10 AM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #32, saying:
    Oh my.

    And I can't believe I actually thought that we built a better Iraq. How stupid Trainwreck 2011 was.

    It was ok, he went to Afghanistan again later that year and got smarter, giving us Trainwreck 2012.



    Reply
    - Next - Back

















       

    (C)2000 by Dan Finkelstein. "Jurassic Park" is TM & Universal Studios, Inc. & Amblin Entertainment, Inc.
    "Dan's JP3 Page" is in no way affiliated with Universal Studios.

    DISCLAIMER: The author of this page is not responsible for the validility (or lack thereof) of the information provided on this webpage.
    While every effort is made to verify informa tion before it is published, as usual: Don't believe everything you see on televis...er, the Internet.