So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
 

yawn

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
 

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
Snip
Many recovering alcoholics are not normal happy
people. Many are, but many aren't.
Snip

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Scott,
Try substituting any of the following words for "recovering alcoholics" in
your above statement and please explain to me how the changed statement is
any less valid than your original:
teetotalers
drunks
doctors
lawyers
indian chiefs
medical researchers
engineers
rat gutters
welders
retired people
white collar workers
blue collar workers
teenagers
baby boomers
senior citizens
Roffians
politicians
voters
(ad infinitum)


Bob Weinberger

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg,"and...
 

Bob Weinberger wrote:
"Scott Seidman" wrote:
Snip
Many recovering alcoholics are not normal happy
people. Many are, but many aren't.
Snip

Scott,
Try substituting any of the following words for "recovering alcoholics" in
your above statement and please explain to me how the changed statement is
any less valid than your original:
snip

Bob,

Try not snipping away all the context from Scott's post and
then please explain to me how your commentary isn't silly.

--
Ken Fortenberry

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
 

Dave

ok dave...8 years as gub of califoricatya. and his experience before
attaining that exalted proving ground? and that prepared him to be
president how? and reagan's gubernatorial time is better, superior,
more compelling than obama's state legislative experience, education,
senate experience how?


FWIW, gubernatorial experience is at least arguably more practical than
congressional because it is executive rather than legislative or
judicial. Moreover, given the system as it is in the US, a legislator
is has no (direct) duty to those not his (direct) constituents, and
arguably has a duty to put those citizens he/she represents "in front"
of those of colleagues or in other "non-constituent" categories, whereas
the POTUS' (direct) constituents, at least in theory, are all citizens
and he has a more direct duty to visitors and guests of or to the US,
protectorates, etc.

TC,
R


arguably?? is that it?

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
 

wrote in message
...
The same reason I said Bush, twice - he is the best in the (practical)
field of two, no more, no less.

gawd, I hope you are referring to Bush as in GHW, as I am astounded that
anyone of sound mind could look back on the second vote for George W as
anything based upon good sense.



seriously, IMO, not much "change" can occur if the vote is yet another
50.01% versus 49.99% squeaker regardless of who actually "wins."

and this much I do agree with. Somewhere along the way, something of a
consensus has to be built, or the nation will continue to blunder forward,
to the detriment of us all.

Tom

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg,"and...
 

Jim Edmondson wrote:

I'll ask again what is it that he has he
accomplished?



http://amadeo.blogsome.com/2008/02/0...-the-darkness/

http://www.obama08-wa.com/files/experience.pdf

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsid...ack_obama.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...010303303.html

"death penalty reform, tax cuts for low income families, ethics reform,
non-proliferation initiatives. stood his ground on the most pressing
issue of his generation and was RIGHT on day 1."

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
 

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 00:50:31 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:

gawd, I hope you are referring to Bush as in GHW, as I am astounded that
anyone of sound mind could look back on the second vote for George W as
anything based upon good sense.

Tom, given the choice, most folks couldn't vote for Kerry. What he
did after the war was unforgivable to many. Hell, even folks in his
own home state question his patriotism -- yeah, yeah, I know, we
elected him to the Senate, but no one has ever run against him.

Of the two choices, Bush had to be my choice. I could not vote for
Kerry because I feel he is a traitor. The problem is, Tom, that Gore
should never have lost in 2000. If he had carried his homestate, he
would have won.

Dave

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphis leg," and...
 

Jeff, look at the following link:

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/myfox/pa...Y&pageId=1.1.1

Notice Obama's staffers in Texas celebrating Super Tuesday results.

Is that a poster of Che Guevara on the wall. What's with that?
First Teddy Kennedy and now Che Guevara?

Dave

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
 

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 00:50:31 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:

gawd, I hope you are referring to Bush as in GHW, as I am astounded that
anyone of sound mind could look back on the second vote for George W as
anything based upon good sense.

Tom, given the choice, most folks couldn't vote for Kerry. What he
did after the war was unforgivable to many. Hell, even folks in his
own home state question his patriotism -- yeah, yeah, I know, we
elected him to the Senate, but no one has ever run against him.

Of the two choices, Bush had to be my choice. I could not vote for
Kerry because I feel he is a traitor. The problem is, Tom, that Gore
should never have lost in 2000. If he had carried his homestate, he
would have won.

Dave

Traitor? When was Kerry convicted as a traitor? Or are your feelings enough
to convict a person of high crimes?

This is not a difficult question, but if you are going to continue to
"Swiftboat" Kerry, you should at least be able to provide the evidence.

Just in case you are not familiar with the legalality of the term "traitor":
"As in any other criminal trial in the United States, a defendant charged
with treason is presumed innocent until proved guilty Beyond a Reasonable
Doubt. Treason may be proved by a voluntary confession in open court or by
evidence that the defendant committed an Overt Act of treason. Each overt
act must be witnessed by at least two people, or a conviction for treason
will not stand. By requiring this type of direct evidence, the Constitution
minimizes the danger of convicting an innocent person and forestalls the
possibility of partisan witch-hunts waged by a single adversary."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/traitor

Op

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
 

Dave LaCourse wrote:
Jeff, look at the following link:

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/myfox/pa...Y&pageId=1.1.1

Notice Obama's staffers in Texas celebrating Super Tuesday results.

Is that a poster of Che Guevara on the wall. What's with that?
First Teddy Kennedy and now Che Guevara?

Dave



i tried to open that fox site, but my computer barfed and i can't get it
loaded.

yikes...maybe it's a revolution. we're all gonna be murdered in our sleep!

"myfoxhouston"? what's with that? you're not one of those who think
obama is a muslim too, are you? i know mccain supporters who are
blatantly and unapologetically racist...does that identify your guy?

waterboarders unite...you've important work to do...now che is
terrorizing us too. g

c'mon dave...