[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: 2012 US presidential race



>From what I understand,  Newt is a fan of Triceratops.  Perhaps that would be 
>the new logo of the Republicans.  That aside, this discussion could get ugly 
>really quick and will certainly drum up the dreaded "C" word that we are not 
>supposed to mention on this list. 

D

On Apr 12, 2012, at 11:49 AM, Scott wrote:

> Even the utterly ridiculous, baggage-laden Newt would have to pander to the 
> anti-science right of his party ever to get the nomination. Only Jon Huntsman 
> (no longer in the race) could ever have made me hold my nose and vote for a 
> republican. He at least believed in evolution! And was willing to admit that 
> there might be something to climate change...
> 
> Obama will win, and thank goodness!
> 
> Scott Perry
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anthony Docimo" <keenir@hotmail.com>
> To: <tyazbeck@comcast.net>; <dinosaur@usc.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 9:29 PM
> Subject: RE: 2012 US presidential race
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 00:20:59 +0000
>> From: tyazbeck@comcast.net
>> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
>> Subject: 2012 US presidential race
>> 
>> I know it's a little late, but...who do you all think is the best US 
>> presidential candidate, for scientists President Robert Bakker Vice 
>> President Jennifer Clack > (including Obama!)? I personally think Newt 
>> gingrich is the best for science BY FAR, and i would say Santorum too, but 
>> he dropped out :( I am a conservative Roman Catholic just like him. But I'd 
>> be happy with anyone other than Obama, Ron Paul, Vermin Supreme (look him 
>> up!)or any obvious saboteurs( i.e. muslim brotherhood, nazi party etc.). I 
>> understand most scientists in the USA are Democrats...
>