Bobby Jindal: The Future Of The GOP

#1
hatvol96

hatvol96

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
49,979
Likes
18
#1
His reformist, transparent government message has taken root in, of all places, Louisiana. Bye, bye Cool William Jefferson.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#2
#2
I really like this guy. He's got a very straightforward style that I think will resonate.
 
#4
#4
You have to figure that a 30-something Republican whose real name is Piyush must be one hell of a guy to get himself elected in the political cesspool that is Louisiana.
 
#5
#5
GAVol said:
You have to figure that a 30-something Republican whose real name is Piyush must be one hell of a guy to get himself elected in the political cesspool that is Louisiana.
Click to expand...
They love him down here.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#6
#6
his management during Hurricane Gustav is an excellent indicator of his leadership ability.

contrast it with the cluster that Kathleen Blanco and Ray Nagin perpetrated on the people of New Orleans and Louisiana.
 
#7
#7
Well, I will say that I voted for him instead of ole Blanco but the rest of the state was not that bright. Blanco was the root of most of the problems during Katrina. I am happy Jindal is in now. Of course I dont live there anymore but I still think hes great for the state.
 
#8
#8
I think he is going to do great for the state. I know there were a lot of people that didn't want to vote for him mainly because of his race (at least there were around here in this hick town), but now have changed their minds about him and seeing how things are different now than with Blanco.
 
#9
#9
I don't know much about him other than the fact that he is a creationist yokel that thinks the biblical story of genesis is as credible as science.

Maybe he is otherwise a good leader though.
 
#10
#10
rjd970 said:
I don't know much about him other than the fact that he is a creationist yokel that thinks the biblical story of genesis is as credible as science.

Maybe he is otherwise a good leader though.
Click to expand...

hmmm, I'm getting a sense of deja vu. ahh, I remember, you were sputtering similar nonsense, without any credible proof to back up your assertion, about Sarah Palin.
 
#12
#12
Hmmmm ... Jindal. What kind of name is that? What's his middle name? Doesn't he have roots in India or Pakistan and aren't they all Muslim? Hmmmmm.
 
#13
#13
lawgator1 said:
Hmmmm ... Jindal. What kind of name is that? What's his middle name? Doesn't he have roots in India or Pakistan and aren't they all Muslim? Hmmmmm.
Click to expand...

Isn't the big difference here that Obama was raised as a Muslim (for at least some portion of his life), not to mention his ties with people of the Muslim faith.

I don't care if he was raised in India. To my knowledge he doesn't have associations with people of questionable character or Muslim ideology. Then again he hasn't been vetted for the presidency yet.
 
#14
#14
KB5252 said:
Isn't the big difference here that Obama was raised as a Muslim (for at least some portion of his life), not to mention his ties with people of the Muslim faith.

I don't care if he was raised in India. To my knowledge he doesn't have associations with people of questionable character or Muslim ideology. Then again he hasn't been vetted for the presidency yet.
Click to expand...

Obama won because people were sick of the Bush style campaigning. Jindell (sp?) has similiar background problems as Obama. So I wouldn't think a race between the two in 2012 would involve a lot of personal history attacks.
 
#15
#15
MontereyVol said:
Obama won because people were sick of the Bush style campaigning. Jindell (sp?) has similiar background problems as Obama. So I wouldn't think a race between the two in 2012 would involve a lot of personal history attacks.
Click to expand...

What exactly are these "background problems", just curious.
 
#17
#17
KB5252 said:
What exactly are these "background problems", just curious.
Click to expand...

I've 'heard' about exorcisms and weird stuff that he has been involved in. Now, like Obama and the Muslim attachment, it could all be made up BS, but I would guess it is going to be thrown out there and people will believe it without proof just like with Obama.
 
#18
#18
Has someone been listening to Michael Delgoirno Hat? At least I think thats the talk radio host I heard put this name out there.
 
#19
#19
rjd970 said:
I don't know much about him other than the fact that he is a creationist yokel that thinks the biblical story of genesis is as credible as science.
Click to expand...
The Biblical story of Genesis is much more credible than science. The Bible might not be historical fact, but it is most definitely credible truth.
 
#20
#20
therealUT said:
The Biblical story of Genesis is much more credible than science. The Bible might not be historical fact, but it is most definitely credible truth.
Click to expand...


"Historical fact" and "credible truth" are not the same thing?

Listen, I go to church one a month and cosndier myself a Christian, but your sentence right there makes very little sense.
 
#21
#21
lawgator1 said:
"Historical fact" and "credible truth" are not the same thing?

Listen, I go to church one a month and cosndier myself a Christian, but your sentence right there makes very little sense.
Click to expand...
No they are not. While historical fact is always credible truth, credible truth is not always historical fact.
 
#22
#22
therealUT said:
The Biblical story of Genesis is much more credible than science. The Bible might not be historical fact, but it is most definitely credible truth.
Click to expand...

The Bible:

Because scientific explanations will never be as reasonable as believing man was fashioned out of dust and divine breath, by the hand of an almighty God, in the year 4008 b.c.e, in a garden, with a talking snake.

I guess every animal on earth lived within walking distance of Noah's ark too, huh?
 
#23
#23
rjd970 said:
The Bible:

Because scientific explanations will never be as reasonable as believing man was fashioned out of dust and divine breath, by the hand of an almighty God, in the year 4008 b.c.e, in a garden, with a talking snake. I guess every animal on earth lived within walking distance of Noah's ark too, huh?
Click to expand...

Just nitpicking...

1.) It was a jungle...

2.) It was not a snake.... it had wings...
3.) Why wouldn't they have been? They hadn't evovled yet into the billions of species.

:hi:
 
#25
#25
rjd970 said:
The Bible:

Because scientific explanations will never be as reasonable as believing man was fashioned out of dust and divine breath, by the hand of an almighty God, in the year 4008 b.c.e, in a garden, with a talking snake.

I guess every animal on earth lived within walking distance of Noah's ark too, huh?
Click to expand...
I was positive that I stated the Bible was truth, yet not historical fact. Either my memory or your reading comprehension is poor.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top