OT -- very thoughtful, imho
 

On 26 Oct 2004 22:34:25 GMT, (Tom Littleton) wrote:

RDean suggests:
You want real change? Get rid of McAuliffe and the Clintonistas,

why? I never do get the Clinton thing altogether....it seems, the more I think
about it, that he delivered what the majority of the electorate wanted over his
terms in office: fiscal responsibility, welfare reform,
relative peace, some economic growth, no radical change. The public wanted
healthcare, but that DID get botched, badly.
You blame the Clinton folks for divisiveness, but never mention Tom DeLay.
Neither do you give Newt Gingrich any props, despite the fact that his lack of
ethics and complete saturation in sleazy behavior over a lifetime make Bill, et
al, look like pikers. How can your point be taken seriously?

But have no fear - you'll get the government you
deserve.
There, I will agree....completely.
Tom


Oh, I think DeLay would be just another wannabe ****ant if it weren't for
Clinton and Co.'s antics scaring the hell out of the opposition and allowing
such weasels REALLY loose. What the electorate _wants_ NOW, DAMMIT, and what's
best for the country long-term are almost always two completely different
things. Individual bull****, Gingrich, Jim Wright, et al, was always a part of
the deal, but the wholesale bull**** pulled by Clinton and Co. made it a whole
new ballgame and _they_ delivered little. As to "relative peace," what about
all the death in Somalia, the old Soviet Union (Chechnya, etc.), etc., not to
mention the essentially-unchecked activities of bin Laden, etc. Clinton is a
self-centered, lying degenerate who got VERY lucky, and I think history will
show that he was among the, if not THE most damaging President. Think I'm
wrong? Something to think about - what Dems are REALLY stumping for Kerry,
besides the Clintonistas - even Kennedy? IMO, if it had been Gebhardt and
someone like Dean or Leiberman, you'd have had Carter, etc., even McCain, really
out there for them, and Bush wouldn't stand a real chance. But nope - it's
McAuliffe, The Tadster, Cahill, etc. out there.

TC,
R

OT -- very thoughtful, imho
 

On 26 Oct 2004 22:34:25 GMT, (Tom Littleton) wrote:

RDean suggests:
You want real change? Get rid of McAuliffe and the Clintonistas,

why? I never do get the Clinton thing altogether....it seems, the more I think
about it, that he delivered what the majority of the electorate wanted over his
terms in office: fiscal responsibility, welfare reform,
relative peace, some economic growth, no radical change. The public wanted
healthcare, but that DID get botched, badly.
You blame the Clinton folks for divisiveness, but never mention Tom DeLay.
Neither do you give Newt Gingrich any props, despite the fact that his lack of
ethics and complete saturation in sleazy behavior over a lifetime make Bill, et
al, look like pikers. How can your point be taken seriously?

But have no fear - you'll get the government you
deserve.
There, I will agree....completely.
Tom


Oh, I think DeLay would be just another wannabe ****ant if it weren't for
Clinton and Co.'s antics scaring the hell out of the opposition and allowing
such weasels REALLY loose. What the electorate _wants_ NOW, DAMMIT, and what's
best for the country long-term are almost always two completely different
things. Individual bull****, Gingrich, Jim Wright, et al, was always a part of
the deal, but the wholesale bull**** pulled by Clinton and Co. made it a whole
new ballgame and _they_ delivered little. As to "relative peace," what about
all the death in Somalia, the old Soviet Union (Chechnya, etc.), etc., not to
mention the essentially-unchecked activities of bin Laden, etc. Clinton is a
self-centered, lying degenerate who got VERY lucky, and I think history will
show that he was among the, if not THE most damaging President. Think I'm
wrong? Something to think about - what Dems are REALLY stumping for Kerry,
besides the Clintonistas - even Kennedy? IMO, if it had been Gebhardt and
someone like Dean or Leiberman, you'd have had Carter, etc., even McCain, really
out there for them, and Bush wouldn't stand a real chance. But nope - it's
McAuliffe, The Tadster, Cahill, etc. out there.

TC,
R

OT -- very thoughtful, imho
 

wrote in message
...
On 26 Oct 2004 22:34:25 GMT, (Tom Littleton) wrote:

RDean suggests:
You want real change? Get rid of McAuliffe and the Clintonistas,

why? I never do get the Clinton thing altogether....it seems, the more I
think
about it, that he delivered what the majority of the electorate wanted
over his
terms in office: fiscal responsibility, welfare reform,
relative peace, some economic growth, no radical change. The public
wanted
healthcare, but that DID get botched, badly.
You blame the Clinton folks for divisiveness, but never mention Tom
DeLay.
Neither do you give Newt Gingrich any props, despite the fact that his
lack of
ethics and complete saturation in sleazy behavior over a lifetime make
Bill, et
al, look like pikers. How can your point be taken seriously?

But have no fear - you'll get the government you
deserve.
There, I will agree....completely.
Tom


Oh, I think DeLay would be just another wannabe ****ant if it weren't for
Clinton and Co.'s antics scaring the hell out of the opposition and
allowing
such weasels REALLY loose. What the electorate _wants_ NOW, DAMMIT, and
what's
best for the country long-term are almost always two completely different
things. Individual bull****, Gingrich, Jim Wright, et al, was always a
part of
the deal, but the wholesale bull**** pulled by Clinton and Co. made it a
whole
new ballgame and _they_ delivered little. As to "relative peace," what
about
all the death in Somalia, the old Soviet Union (Chechnya, etc.), etc., not
to
mention the essentially-unchecked activities of bin Laden, etc. Clinton
is a
self-centered, lying degenerate who got VERY lucky, and I think history
will
show that he was among the, if not THE most damaging President. Think I'm
wrong? Something to think about - what Dems are REALLY stumping for
Kerry,
besides the Clintonistas - even Kennedy? IMO, if it had been Gebhardt and
someone like Dean or Leiberman, you'd have had Carter, etc., even McCain,
really
out there for them, and Bush wouldn't stand a real chance. But nope -
it's
McAuliffe, The Tadster, Cahill, etc. out there.


Oh yeah PK. It was that really bad stuff the Clinster did, that welfare
reform and fiscal responsibility stuff, yeah thats the ticket. And you would
really be getting behind Gebhardt. Right.

PK you are a funny. So what was that real bad **** Clinton did again? Play
it again PK. Bahhhhhhhhhhhhhhahahahahahahahahaha!

Dave

OT -- very thoughtful, imho
 

wrote in message
...
On 26 Oct 2004 22:34:25 GMT, (Tom Littleton) wrote:

RDean suggests:
You want real change? Get rid of McAuliffe and the Clintonistas,

why? I never do get the Clinton thing altogether....it seems, the more I
think
about it, that he delivered what the majority of the electorate wanted
over his
terms in office: fiscal responsibility, welfare reform,
relative peace, some economic growth, no radical change. The public
wanted
healthcare, but that DID get botched, badly.
You blame the Clinton folks for divisiveness, but never mention Tom
DeLay.
Neither do you give Newt Gingrich any props, despite the fact that his
lack of
ethics and complete saturation in sleazy behavior over a lifetime make
Bill, et
al, look like pikers. How can your point be taken seriously?

But have no fear - you'll get the government you
deserve.
There, I will agree....completely.
Tom


Oh, I think DeLay would be just another wannabe ****ant if it weren't for
Clinton and Co.'s antics scaring the hell out of the opposition and
allowing
such weasels REALLY loose. What the electorate _wants_ NOW, DAMMIT, and
what's
best for the country long-term are almost always two completely different
things. Individual bull****, Gingrich, Jim Wright, et al, was always a
part of
the deal, but the wholesale bull**** pulled by Clinton and Co. made it a
whole
new ballgame and _they_ delivered little. As to "relative peace," what
about
all the death in Somalia, the old Soviet Union (Chechnya, etc.), etc., not
to
mention the essentially-unchecked activities of bin Laden, etc. Clinton
is a
self-centered, lying degenerate who got VERY lucky, and I think history
will
show that he was among the, if not THE most damaging President. Think I'm
wrong? Something to think about - what Dems are REALLY stumping for
Kerry,
besides the Clintonistas - even Kennedy? IMO, if it had been Gebhardt and
someone like Dean or Leiberman, you'd have had Carter, etc., even McCain,
really
out there for them, and Bush wouldn't stand a real chance. But nope -
it's
McAuliffe, The Tadster, Cahill, etc. out there.


Oh yeah PK. It was that really bad stuff the Clinster did, that welfare
reform and fiscal responsibility stuff, yeah thats the ticket. And you would
really be getting behind Gebhardt. Right.

PK you are a funny. So what was that real bad **** Clinton did again? Play
it again PK. Bahhhhhhhhhhhhhhahahahahahahahahaha!

Dave

OT -- very thoughtful, imho
 

wayno writes:

now, i am simply embarrassed by his lack of integrity.

But Kerry';s lack of integrity doesn't bother you? Strange, but to be
expected, methinks.

OT -- very thoughtful, imho
 

wayno writes:

now, i am simply embarrassed by his lack of integrity.

But Kerry';s lack of integrity doesn't bother you? Strange, but to be
expected, methinks.

OT -- very thoughtful, imho
 

"B J Conner" wrote in message
news:kfBfd.5047$8R.734@trnddc02...


What do you like better, the War or the deficit?
Best of all he likes selling them pickles to Halliburton for $.50 a
slice.


Stealing from the govt and cheating the troops can't be wrong. Have you EVER
heard ONE of these Bush suckups condemn any of the War Profiteering? It must
be patriotic to cheat our troops. Why else would none of these patriots
speak up? Could it be that they love the USA too much to even whimper while
Cheney and company feed at the trough? Yeah, thats the ticket: they love
America too much to let something like war profiteering affect their vote.
And besides, that bad Clinton, he did the bad stuff, right?

Ugh family values, domini vobiscum, drug companies good, medical care bad,
Pell Grants, plop plop, Red, White and Blue, Freedom Fries, Amen.

Dave

OT -- very thoughtful, imho
 

"B J Conner" wrote in message
news:kfBfd.5047$8R.734@trnddc02...


What do you like better, the War or the deficit?
Best of all he likes selling them pickles to Halliburton for $.50 a
slice.


Stealing from the govt and cheating the troops can't be wrong. Have you EVER
heard ONE of these Bush suckups condemn any of the War Profiteering? It must
be patriotic to cheat our troops. Why else would none of these patriots
speak up? Could it be that they love the USA too much to even whimper while
Cheney and company feed at the trough? Yeah, thats the ticket: they love
America too much to let something like war profiteering affect their vote.
And besides, that bad Clinton, he did the bad stuff, right?

Ugh family values, domini vobiscum, drug companies good, medical care bad,
Pell Grants, plop plop, Red, White and Blue, Freedom Fries, Amen.

Dave

OT -- very thoughtful, imho
 

"Larry L" wrote in message
...

...I've already voted, signed, sealed and delivered .... I voted AGAINST
Bush and I don't like negative voting, but I believe I made the best
choice possible for my country ...... and my "tribe" had nothing to do
with it...

Hm.........

Wolfgang
is there an anthropologist in the house?

OT -- very thoughtful, imho
 

"Larry L" wrote in message
...

...I've already voted, signed, sealed and delivered .... I voted AGAINST
Bush and I don't like negative voting, but I believe I made the best
choice possible for my country ...... and my "tribe" had nothing to do
with it...

Hm.........

Wolfgang
is there an anthropologist in the house?