|
|
So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
Dave LaCourse wrote in
: ABC: Anyone But Clinton It's not looking like it will be her, but should it happen, remember to thank all the Republicans who did nothing to reign in the Unitary Executive with no common sense. -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphis leg," and...
|
So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphis leg," and...
|
So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
On 15 Feb 2008 23:01:39 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote: It's not looking like it will be her, but should it happen, remember to thank all the Republicans who did nothing to reign in the Unitary Executive with no common sense. You mean to tell me that Hillary is running because Bush is POTUS? She'd be running and complaining if Jesus Christ Himself was POTUS. The Dems control the House, yet I see no impeachment proceedings. Until then, all of your complaints are worthless, Scott. Dave |
So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:29:32 -0700, rw
wrote: McCain will probably pick an extreme right-wing candidate for VP to suck up to the Republican base, which detests him. If he dies or becomes incapacitated in office, which given his age is not unlikely, we'll be stuck with another fool. You are such a cheerless person. Do you get up that way, or is your life so miserable that it continues to come on the more you are awake. |
So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
Jim Edmondson wrote:
mccain has now been fully revealed...he's a chameleon...and old! g jeff Jeff, do you ever hire/train any young people on the job? They are very personable, socially aware, "different", they love change, but they can't do jack **** without someone holding their hand for awhile - who's gonna be holding Obama's hand? not persuasive or applicable, imo. He's been "on the job".... Jeezus, I always chuckle about the "experience" argument, especially when made by republicans who exalt the election of ronnie reagan. |
So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
Dave LaCourse wrote in
: On 15 Feb 2008 23:01:39 GMT, Scott Seidman wrote: It's not looking like it will be her, but should it happen, remember to thank all the Republicans who did nothing to reign in the Unitary Executive with no common sense. You mean to tell me that Hillary is running because Bush is POTUS? She'd be running and complaining if Jesus Christ Himself was POTUS. The Dems control the House, yet I see no impeachment proceedings. Until then, all of your complaints are worthless, Scott. Dave No, I mean to say that if Hillary is the nominee, she will win because Bush is POTUS. You don't need impeachment proceedings to rope the guy in-- and he has been pretty well impotent since the Dems got the majority. In fairness, I would like to see the Dems do more. If the Dems demand a timetable, they would get it. It's Bush who is over the barrel. You don't need the 60 votes for cloture-- its the 51 votes you need for passage that hold the most power. I think the Dems are foolishly trying to avoid an even worse "do-nothing" label. -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
Dave LaCourse wrote in
: Until then, all of your complaints are worthless, Scott. I'm not complaining, Dave. I'm pointing out that the GOP did not need to let this guy kill your party. Bush said "Trust me, guys", and he really meant "Bend over, guys". When it became clear that the man could barely manage flushing a toilet bowl, let alone a war, it should have been the Republicans in the lead demanding simple competence. It should have started right after the last election. If a high profile conservative took the lead, that man would have been a strong contender in this race. -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
On 15 Feb 2008 23:19:00 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote: I think the Dems are foolishly trying to avoid an even worse "do-nothing" label VBG They *already* have a "do-nothing" label. Their rating is *below* that of Bush. If Bush is the worse president ever (and I think Jimmy Carter holds that record what with double digit inflation, unemployment, AND interest rates causi nga new term, "stagflation", to describe the mess he made), this Congress *has* to be the worse ever. Very poor leadership in both Houses. If Bush did wrong, he should have been impeached. Congress is to blame for that, and no one else. Dave |
So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
Dave LaCourse wrote in
: If Bush did wrong, he should have been impeached. I think there's plenty that Bush did wrong. The question is whether it reached the "high crimes" level. There's a difference between being a ****up and committing a crime. That said, I think he knowingly trumped up the case for war, and I do think he should be impeached. -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
On 15 Feb 2008 23:22:18 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote: I'm not complaining, Dave. I'm pointing out that the GOP did not need to let this guy kill your party. Bush said "Trust me, guys", and he really meant "Bend over, guys". When it became clear that the man could barely manage flushing a toilet bowl, let alone a war, it should have been the Republicans in the lead demanding simple competence. It should have started right after the last election. If a high profile conservative took the lead, that man would have been a strong contender in this race. He won an election in 2000 that he should not have won. His opponent, Al Gore, was just leaving an administration that was supposed to be outstanding; the Whitehouse was Gore's, yet he didn't even carry his own state. Something wrong there. Bush was re-elected by a wide margin because you boys put a traitor, liar, and womanizer up against him. And you say it is the Republicans' fault? When are youse guys gonna learn? Now you have Clinton (polarizer) and Obama (totally untested, who wrote a book). Congress passed just about everything the Dems are complaining about. There are any number of sound/video bites out there about everyone from both Clintons, Pelosi, former Sec of States, et al who said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Congressed passed the ok to go to war, and have financed it since then. Inflation is low, interest rates are low, and unemployment is normal. And, I and mine are safe. Well, at least for the time being. Dave |
So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphis leg," and...
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:18:59 -0500, Jeff wrote:
Jeezus, I always chuckle about the "experience" argument, especially when made by republicans who exalt the election of ronnie reagan. Uh, Jeff..... Reagan was a successful governor of our largest (most populated) state for eight years. He was re-elected by a land-slide. Obama has done nothing in the Senate. He started running for POTUS upon his election and has done nothing except write a book. He is neither tested nor with any kind of leadership skills. But the number one thing wrong with him is Teddy Kennedy's endorsement. THAT is enough to turn me sour. Dave |
So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
Hello jeff,
Jim mailto: j.g.edmondson at att dot net Jim Edmondson wrote: mccain has now been fully revealed...he's a chameleon...and old! g jeff Jeff, do you ever hire/train any young people on the job? They are very personable, socially aware, "different", they love change, but they can't do jack **** without someone holding their hand for awhile - who's gonna be holding Obama's hand? not persuasive or applicable, imo. He's been "on the job".... Jeezus, I always chuckle about the "experience" argument, especially when made by republicans who exalt the election of ronnie reagan. and your "feel good" arguments are supposed to be persuasive? and your answer is to ignore any scrutiny of qualifications when hiring (voting for) someone? he's been nowhere to be seen except on the campaign trail if he's been "on the job", I'll ask again what is it that he has he accomplished? |
So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:04:11 -0500, Jeff wrote:
wrote: ...youth, intelligence, tolerance, gifted, persuasive, redemptive, inspiring, unifying, empowering, thoughtful/insightful, problem-solving skills, hope, hope, hope, symbolic power, listens, collaborative, notbush, nothillaryclinton, notmccain, respect for balance of powers in federal system, adapts and adjusts effectively, small government/big government experience in elected office, understands/recognizes racial and socioeconomic problems from a unique perspective, not a washington dc insider...there's more, but i suspect these will be sufficient for your critique and counterpoints. jeff ...and oh, BTW, did you simply forget to add "objective" to your list, or did you not think him such? see above "there's more". it was a hurried response to provide fodder... he certainly seems to be rationally objective based on his writings (audacity...). Lordy-lordy, I read and enjoyed "2001" and "The Runaway Jury"...they didn't, um, persuade me Clarke was a good astronaut or Grisham was a good...um, well, let's just leave that one alone... ****, I even heard Jimmy Breslin say good things about him today on Public Radio. PUBLIC RADIO!? They probably slipped him some Portuguese PCP or something... Folks who call others "inspiring" or "persuasive" have always both saddened and amused me when they do so. so what do you call someone you believe to be inspirational or persuasive? who is a public figure you thought inspirational; ...persuasive? not on an isolated basis, but overall. Overall? None, ever. At least none that were attempting to be either. For example, I find Danny Thomas' story St. Jude's "inspiring" but AFAIK, he never ran for national office on it (or otherwise). Also, I've found various well-reasoned arguments (many with whose entire premise I disagreed) persuasive - Bill Bradley comes to mind. I'd think a politician seeking office who many found "inspirational" and "persuasive" _overall_ AND the whole thing was this weird, non-quantifiable "he just is..." shtick, that such would make a rational thinker pretty nervous...apparently, your mileage does vary... (i mean, nobody is suggesting elysian fields or perfection here) Whew, that's a relief...I mean, we're already bordering on canonization here... I can fully appreciate the _specifically_ _inspired_ or _persuaded_, such as a young black man saying that Obama's life thus far inspired him to run for Congress, etc. or someone saying that Obama's argument in favor of premise "x" persuaded them that he was right on that issue, but to call someone generally "inspiring" and/or "persuasive" is the first step in, to touch upon your words, the formation of a cult of personality...at least... i think those would be charles krauthammer's words...but i understand the motivation behind them. Did you happen to see the N. Kristof piece about the poor guy at GITMO? Nope. I am inspired and persuaded to believe Obama will not allow such things to continue. Obama, on his own, and assuming he wins in what will be a real squeaker, doesn't have and won't have the political muscle to allow or not allow ****. My, well, "fear" isn't the right word exactly, but let's use it in a broad sense - my "fear" is that Obama will be the distraction for a lot of REALLY avaricious people (The Clintons, Brazile, Begala, Carville, McAuliffe, Schumer and Reid- but probably not Pelosi, etc.) to really set about running amok and looting the store. I know that many here at least seem to think that Bush and Cheney did such, but honestly, do you really see either of them (or even Al Gore or Ted Kennedy) pulling the same BS as these "white trash" (yeah, after Donna's Katrina stunt, she honorary "white trash"...) wannabes? i'm definitely a member of that cult. Uh-oh... Um, well, as to "true colors," I'd offer that there have been little more than hints, even assuming they are not red herrings, in "revealing" Obama, but those few hints indicate that he ain't exactly married to this color or that (and while a pun isn't exactly _intended_, it ain't not intended, either...). And if Obama is "the real deal," and literally means what he says, I'd offer that he doesn't want your support, at least until you can get past being so rabidly anti-GOP... after all, they were, IIRC, the party of ideas not so long ago... not in my lifetime IIRC, but they have generally been the better party for soundbites and political propaganda... hell, it was a bunch of NC republicans (carter wrenn, jesse helms, etc) that near-bout perfected the fine art of negative, smear campaigns. though i know he was attempting to make a point about them being the party of wrong ideas, i've never said Obama was perfect. however, he's the best of what we have and what we need at this time, imo. i lost all respect for mccain when he did his waterboarding whirl and started the loud slurping and suckling at the teat of the fundamental religious and conservative right. And yet, Obama's slurping at any teat that happens to land nearby is OK with you? Hell, I'd want my guy telling those that we disagreed with where to get off and stating it plain. If they wanted to come around to our point of view, there'd be welcome and there would be no hard feelings, but I'd not want him _starting out_ by pandering to anyone and everyone and giving concessions to them. i only hope he will remain consistent in his dogmatic iraq plan... i am not rabidly anti-GOP - Well, OK, if you say so...but you might want to wipe the froth from your mouth BEFORE you say such... just the particular brand we have endured the last 7+ years... Ah, so you ARE rabidly anti-GOP, depending on the brand... i know Obama is more moderate than me - OK, so it shouldn't be so hard to explain what his positions are and how you know he is more moderate, right? look again at the characteristics i listed. I really don't need to...they are the same vague, subjective ones every Obama supporter lists... jeff (pass the kool-aid g) I think you've had plenty enough already... Look, I'm willing to give the man a chance if someone is willing to give me a rational, objective reason as to why I should... TC, R |
So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg,"and...
Jim Edmondson wrote:
he's been nowhere to be seen except on the campaign trail if he's been "on the job", I'll ask again what is it that he has he accomplished? You just haven't been paying attention. Obama was on the floor of the Senate during the FISA vote, Hillary wasn't. In fact CNN showed Obama and McCain yukking it up before the vote was taken. His list of legislative accomplishments in the Illinois Senate is long and distinguished and includes ethics reform, tax credits for low-income workers, welfare reform, child care subsidies and legislation requiring that all interrogations during a homicide investigation be videotaped among many others. In the US Senate he won passage of the Coburn-Obama Transparency Act over the objections of many senior pork addicted members of his own party wich led to this http://usaspending.gov/ a website where any journalist or citizen can see for themselves where the federal money goes. It is historic. He co-sponsored legislation with Feingold and Schumer to clean up election laws and with John McCain on a climate change bill to reduce greenhouse gasses. Obama's list of legislative accomplishments is not an issue except to the exceptionally uninformed and ignorant. -- Ken Fortenberry |
So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
"Jim Edmondson" wrote in message global.net... Hello jeff, Jim mailto: j.g.edmondson at att dot net Jim Edmondson wrote: mccain has now been fully revealed...he's a chameleon...and old! g jeff Jeff, do you ever hire/train any young people on the job? They are very personable, socially aware, "different", they love change, but they can't do jack **** without someone holding their hand for awhile - who's gonna be holding Obama's hand? not persuasive or applicable, imo. He's been "on the job".... Jeezus, I always chuckle about the "experience" argument, especially when made by republicans who exalt the election of ronnie reagan. and your "feel good" arguments are supposed to be persuasive? and your answer is to ignore any scrutiny of qualifications when hiring (voting for) someone? he's been nowhere to be seen except on the campaign trail if he's been "on the job", I'll ask again what is it that he has he accomplished? So are you suggesting that we should vote for either Clinton or McCain, right. I mean both of them are *supposed* to have the experience, right. Personally, I'd vote for a convicted child-molester before voting for either of them, so that leaves me with Obama, if I chose to vote at all. As a non-Dem and Non-Repub, I can only say that Obama can't do any worse than what we have presently. Op |
So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
On 15 Feb 2008 23:47:53 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote: and I do think he should be impeached. The Dems in the House don't seem to think so. When any of their members call for it, it is pushed aside, squashed. Dave |
So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
Dave LaCourse wrote in
: Congress passed just about everything the Dems are complaining about. Yes, Dave, I've already said I think the Dems should dig their heels in and do what's right, and I'm disappointed in them for not doing so. I've written my members of Congress to tell them this. I feel free to express my disappointment when my elected leaders let me down. There are any number of sound/video bites out there about everyone from both Clintons, Pelosi, former Sec of States, et al who said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Congressed passed the ok to go to war, and have financed it since then. Yes, and the source of information for all those Dems is the White House. Shame on them for assuming that the President was a man of honor, and not the scumbag and recovering alcoholic that he is. -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:45:24 -0500, "Opus--Mark H. Bowen"
wrote: I can only say that Obama can't do any worse than what we have presently. I said that once about a commanding officer. Boy, was I wrong. It *can* be worse. Dave |
So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
Dave LaCourse wrote in
: On 15 Feb 2008 23:47:53 GMT, Scott Seidman wrote: and I do think he should be impeached. The Dems in the House don't seem to think so. When any of their members call for it, it is pushed aside, squashed. Dave I have written to my House rep about this. Unfortunately, my House Representative is an idiot named Randy Kuhl. He got all ****ed at me when he voted against the NIH budget increase that got vetoed, and he was one of a few House Members that could provide a veto-proof majority. I pointed out to the local press that the largest employer of families in his District depends on that budget, and that he voted against it. Then I wrote him telling him to expect a phone call on the issue from the local press. -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
Dave LaCourse wrote in
: I said that once about a commanding officer. Boy, was I wrong. It *can* be worse. Dave During the Clinton years, you probably said that about the Commander in Chief, and Boy, were you wrong. -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg,"and...
Hello Ken,
Jim mailto: j.g.edmondson at att dot net Jim Edmondson wrote: he's been nowhere to be seen except on the campaign trail if he's been "on the job", I'll ask again what is it that he has he accomplished? Obama was on the floor of the Senate during the FISA vote, Hillary wasn't. OK, he showed when the cameras were on. According to the Washingtom Post, he missed 38.8% of votes during the current Congress, a pretty dismal record. In fact, he was third in the Senate (McCain was second missing 55.7% and Hillary was seventh at 27.1%). His list of legislative accomplishments in the Illinois Senate is long and distinguished and includes ethics reform, tax credits for low-income workers, welfare reform, child care subsidies and legislation requiring that all interrogations during a homicide investigation be videotaped among many others. I'm underwhelmed In the US Senate he won passage of the Coburn-Obama Transparency Act over the objections of many senior pork addicted members of his own party wich led to this http://usaspending.gov/ a website where any journalist or citizen can see for themselves where the federal money goes. It is historic. OK, he shows us the waste, but what would be "historic" is actually doing something about it. He garnered quite a record for earmark spending for a junior senator, something like $400 miliion in 3 years (less than Hillary, but more than McCain's $0). He co-sponsored legislation with Feingold and Schumer to clean up election laws and with John McCain on a climate change bill to reduce greenhouse gasses. Actually the reduction is in man-made CO2 emissions which are a very small amount of the total "greenhouse gasses" and which have has an insignificant effect on climate. As an aside, I notice how now it is "cimate change" as opposed to "global warming". This way it can encompass any change in the climate which, of course, is continually changing. Great strategy to confuse the masses and support the ultimate agenda. |
So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphis leg," and...
Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:29:32 -0700, rw wrote: McCain will probably pick an extreme right-wing candidate for VP to suck up to the Republican base, which detests him. If he dies or becomes incapacitated in office, which given his age is not unlikely, we'll be stuck with another fool. You are such a cheerless person. Do you get up that way, or is your life so miserable that it continues to come on the more you are awake. I have more fun in any one day of my life than you have in a whole year. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:16:05 -0700, rw
wrote: I have more fun in any one day of my life than you have in a whole year. But you are not cheerful, Steve. You seem to be bitter on just about everything. It really is sad being you. |
So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
On 16 Feb 2008 00:57:32 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote: Dave LaCourse wrote in : Congress passed just about everything the Dems are complaining about. Yes, Dave, I've already said I think the Dems should dig their heels in and do what's right, and I'm disappointed in them for not doing so. I've written my members of Congress to tell them this. I feel free to express my disappointment when my elected leaders let me down. I do too. Only trouble is my leaders are Kerry and Kennedy - a traitor and a womanizer/killer. There are any number of sound/video bites out there about everyone from both Clintons, Pelosi, former Sec of States, et al who said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Congressed passed the ok to go to war, and have financed it since then. Yes, and the source of information for all those Dems is the White House. Shame on them for assuming that the President was a man of honor, and not the scumbag and recovering alcoholic that he is. Uhhhhhh, the ones I am talking about all happened during the 1990s, *not* during Bush's time in office. Recovering alcoholic? You be reaching now, young fellow. And *if* he is a "recovering" alcoholic, that is a *good* thing, not bad. Dave (who has fished with many alcoholics, none of them recovering) |
So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
On 16 Feb 2008 01:04:07 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote: Dave LaCourse wrote in : I said that once about a commanding officer. Boy, was I wrong. It *can* be worse. Dave During the Clinton years, you probably said that about the Commander in Chief, and Boy, were you wrong. -- Scott Ever since I said that about my commanding officer way back in 1958 while in Japan, I have never uttered those words again. I feel safer and am better off now than I did/was in 1990. You can not take that away from me. Dave |
So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
On 16 Feb 2008 01:03:13 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote: Then I wrote him telling him to expect a phone call on the issue from the local press. Is he still in office? Mine are. |
So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message ... On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:16:05 -0700, rw wrote: I have more fun in any one day of my life than you have in a whole year. But you are not cheerful, Steve. You seem to be bitter on just about everything. It really is sad being you. And the pot calls the kettle black, once again. Irony meters peg the world over! Op -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg,"and...
"Jim Edmondson" wrote in message global.net... Hello Ken, Jim mailto: j.g.edmondson at att dot net Jim Edmondson wrote: he's been nowhere to be seen except on the campaign trail if he's been "on the job", I'll ask again what is it that he has he accomplished? Obama was on the floor of the Senate during the FISA vote, Hillary wasn't. OK, he showed when the cameras were on. According to the Washingtom Post, he missed 38.8% of votes during the current Congress, a pretty dismal record. In fact, he was third in the Senate (McCain was second missing 55.7% and Hillary was seventh at 27.1%). What you fail to mention is that of the Top 7 Senators who missed voting: the top candidate is out due to a brain hemorrage, making McCain the leader of the field of five campaigning for POTUS, and then there's the staunch conservative Sam Brownback just ahead of Clinton. Your example kinda falls apart, if you are suggesting that we should all jump on either the McCain or Clinton bandwagon. Op |
So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg,"and...
"Opus--Mark H. Bowen" wrote in message ... "Jim Edmondson" wrote in message global.net... Hello Ken, Jim mailto: j.g.edmondson at att dot net Jim Edmondson wrote: he's been nowhere to be seen except on the campaign trail if he's been "on the job", I'll ask again what is it that he has he accomplished? Obama was on the floor of the Senate during the FISA vote, Hillary wasn't. OK, he showed when the cameras were on. According to the Washingtom Post, he missed 38.8% of votes during the current Congress, a pretty dismal record. In fact, he was third in the Senate (McCain was second missing 55.7% and Hillary was seventh at 27.1%). What you fail to mention is that of the Top 7 Senators who missed voting: the top candidate is out due to a brain hemorrage, making McCain the leader of the field of five campaigning for POTUS, and then there's the staunch conservative Sam Brownback just ahead of Clinton. Your example kinda falls apart, if you are suggesting that we should all jump on either the McCain or Clinton bandwagon. Op Hey there are two dead Republicans on the House side that missed 90.8% and 85.9% of the votes, respectively. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/c.../vote-missers/ How effective can they be as future leaders, I wonder? Op |
So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:45:24 -0500, Opus--Mark H. Bowen "Opus--Mark H.
Bowen" wrote in message : "Jim Edmondson" wrote in message global.net... [quoted text muted] Personally, I'd vote for a convicted child-molester before voting for either of them, so that leaves me with Obama, if I chose to vote at all. I'll refrain from exploring the logical inferences one could draw from that set of premises As a non-Dem and Non-Repub, I can only say that Obama can't do any worse than what we have presently. Op Maybe we'll get the chance to if you are correct, but I can imagine lots of ways that "we" would be worse off - you know the saying about never say never -- Jim posted from Ubuntu/Pan |
So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
"Jim Edmondson" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:45:24 -0500, Opus--Mark H. Bowen "Opus--Mark H. Bowen" wrote in message : "Jim Edmondson" wrote in message global.net... [quoted text muted] Personally, I'd vote for a convicted child-molester before voting for either of them, so that leaves me with Obama, if I chose to vote at all. I'll refrain from exploring the logical inferences one could draw from that set of premises Since Obama has never been accused of molesting children, that I'm aware of, the only logical inference that could be drawn form what I said, is that I'd vote for a convicted child-molester before I'd vote for either Hillary Clinton or John McCain. I imagine there are a plethora of *illogical* inferences one might could make about such a statement, but I'd rather not speculate such myself? As a non-Dem and Non-Repub, I can only say that Obama can't do any worse than what we have presently. Op Maybe we'll get the chance to if you are correct, but I can imagine lots of ways that "we" would be worse off - you know the saying about never say never "worse" is such a relative term and dependent upon individual perspective, so I guess perpetual warring could possibly have a silver-lining to some folks? Op -- ?Jim posted from Ubuntu/Pan |
So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg,"and...
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 22:53:48 -0500, Opus--Mark H. Bowen "Opus--Mark H.
Bowen" wrote in message : "Opus--Mark H. Bowen" wrote in message ... [quoted text muted] Hey there are two dead Republicans on the House side that missed 90.8% and 85.9% of the votes, respectively. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/c.../vote-missers/ How effective can they be as future leaders, I wonder? Op if you bothered to read, you would see that they are both dead asshole -- Jim posted from Ubuntu/Pan |
So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg,"and...
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 22:53:48 -0500, Opus--Mark H. Bowen "Opus--Mark H. Bowen" wrote in message : "Opus--Mark H. Bowen" wrote in message ... [quoted text muted] Hey there are two dead Republicans on the House side that missed 90.8% and 85.9% of the votes, respectively. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/c.../vote-missers/ How effective can they be as future leaders, I wonder? Op hit send too quick on the previous post ... what I should have said is that only an asshole would write something like the above but hey, they might be better than Obama - just less charisma |
So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg,"and...
Hello Opus--Mark H. Bowen,
Jim mailto: j.g.edmondson at att dot net "Jim Edmondson" wrote in message global.net... Hello Ken, Jim mailto: j.g.edmondson at att dot net Jim Edmondson wrote: he's been nowhere to be seen except on the campaign trail if he's been "on the job", I'll ask again what is it that he has he accomplished? Obama was on the floor of the Senate during the FISA vote, Hillary wasn't. OK, he showed when the cameras were on. According to the Washingtom Post, he missed 38.8% of votes during the current Congress, a pretty dismal record. In fact, he was third in the Senate (McCain was second missing 55.7% and Hillary was seventh at 27.1%). What you fail to mention is that of the Top 7 Senators who missed voting: the top candidate is out due to a brain hemorrage, making McCain the leader of the field of five campaigning for POTUS, and then there's the staunch conservative Sam Brownback just ahead of Clinton. Your example kinda falls apart, if you are suggesting that we should all jump on either the McCain or Clinton bandwagon. Op I'm not suggesting that you jump on anybody's bandwagon. My "example" was meant to show that although Obama attended the FISC signing, his attendance in general was nothing to brag about as Ken was implying. In the spirit of complete disclosure, I posted the statistics for McCain and Clinton as well. |
So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
wrote in message ... I've found various well-reasoned arguments (many with whose entire premise I disagreed) persuasive - Bill Bradley comes to mind. speaking of potential running mates, old Bill B may be a good one. Tom |
So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphis leg," and...
|
So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:18:59 -0500, Jeff wrote: Jeezus, I always chuckle about the "experience" argument, especially when made by republicans who exalt the election of ronnie reagan. Uh, Jeff..... Reagan was a successful governor of our largest (most populated) state for eight years. He was re-elected by a land-slide. Obama has done nothing in the Senate. He started running for POTUS upon his election and has done nothing except write a book. He is neither tested nor with any kind of leadership skills. But the number one thing wrong with him is Teddy Kennedy's endorsement. THAT is enough to turn me sour. 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? give me a break...reagan was non compos mentis for 2 or more years as prez and you guys loved him for it. jeff |
So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphis leg," and...
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 06:19:20 -0500, jeff miller
wrote: give me a break...reagan was non compos mentis for 2 or more years as prez and you guys loved him for it. The entire *nation* loved the guy. He ended the Cold War, tore down the Berlin Wall, started the longest run in the Bull Market on WS, etc. There will probably never be a more successful or loved president. Dave |
So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphis leg," and...
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 06:19:20 -0500, jeff miller
wrote: Dave LaCourse wrote: On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:18:59 -0500, Jeff wrote: Jeezus, I always chuckle about the "experience" argument, especially when made by republicans who exalt the election of ronnie reagan. Uh, Jeff..... Reagan was a successful governor of our largest (most populated) state for eight years. He was re-elected by a land-slide. Obama has done nothing in the Senate. He started running for POTUS upon his election and has done nothing except write a book. He is neither tested nor with any kind of leadership skills. But the number one thing wrong with him is Teddy Kennedy's endorsement. THAT is enough to turn me sour. 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 give me a break...reagan was non compos mentis for 2 or more years as prez and you guys loved him for it. jeff |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:57 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter