Obama
 

"Steve" wrote in message
ews.com...
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:02:19 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:

Meanwhile, we can continue to play this game for as long as you care
to.....and that's just fine with me.

No, I'm through.

No, you're not.....see below. But, o.k., you just go ahead and make
believe.

It's been fun,

It still is.

but the amusement of trying to guess which fallacious
argument you will post next has run it's course.

Yeah, that's all clever and stuff.

Bottom line: everybody else knows (or certainly should by now) what your
position is with regard to interpretation of the law at the highest levels.
It only seems fair that you should too. This is something you should think
about and investigate with whatever paltry tools you have at your disposal.

Wolfgang
here's a hint; you don't like legal decisions that you don't like (which,
incidentally, we all knew before you ever showed up here) and you don't like
people who make legal decisions that you don't like. that should give you a
pretty good start. if not, here's another; it is the supreme court's
purview to interpret law only when and insofar as the majority decision
agrees with your interpretation. the preceding sentence is not quite
entirely accurate......where does it go astray? good luck! :)

Obama
 

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"Steve" wrote in message
ews.com...
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:02:19 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:

Meanwhile, we can continue to play this game for as long as you care
to.....and that's just fine with me.

No, I'm through.

No, you're not.....see below. But, o.k., you just go ahead and make
believe.

It's been fun,

It still is.

but the amusement of trying to guess which fallacious
argument you will post next has run it's course.

Yeah, that's all clever and stuff.

Bottom line: everybody else knows (or certainly should by now) what your
position is with regard to interpretation of the law at the highest
levels. It only seems fair that you should too. This is something you
should think about and investigate with whatever paltry tools you have at
your disposal.

Wolfgang
here's a hint; you don't like legal decisions that you don't like (which,
incidentally, we all knew before you ever showed up here) and you don't
like people who make legal decisions that you don't like. that should
give you a pretty good start. if not, here's another; it is the supreme
court's purview to interpret law only when and insofar as the majority
decision agrees with your interpretation. the preceding sentence is not
quite entirely accurate......where does it go astray? good luck! :)

O.k., o.k., just ONE more hint! You mentioned "fallacious argument[s]".
Lucky guess. I did indeed present some fallacious arguments but, as should
have been eminently clear, they weren't MY arguments. Now, let's see if you
can correctly guess who they rightly belong to. Once again, good luck!

And never forget that I'm the best friend you've got here. You may rest
assured that *I* will never fail to let you know exactly what you've done to
yourself. :)

Hapless putz.

Wolfgang

Obama
 

"Wolfgang" wrote in
:


"Jeff Marso" brachycentrus@hotmaildotcom wrote in message
. 97.136...
"Wolfgang" wrote in
:


"Larry L" wrote in message
...

...Electing Clinton II shortly after electing Bush II will
increase the impression that we are really becoming a place of
dynasties....

Oh, good grief. Does the name Roosevelt ring any bells? No?
Adams?

Wolfgang
well, what can one expect in a world in which some local "sports"
franchise or other wins some parochial championship or other and
everybody starts to bleat about "dynasties"?




Not to mention the Harrisons...wait...I just did....

It's true that Ernie and wayno are old enough to be dynasties unto
themselves but, to the best of my knowledge, they are not closely
related.

Wolfgang
who won't even go into that whole legitimate transfer of power thing.




From their ROFF avatars Ernie and Wayno seem to be fine fellows but I
meant the two Harrison's that were Presidents of the United States. From
the Harrison clan William Henry and Benjamin were the two I had in mind.
They were the only Grandfather/Grandchild pair to have occupied that post
to date. Benjamin was the first president to preside (heh, heh) over a
billion dollar federal budget. I wonder who the first was to a trillion?

Obama
 

"Jeff Marso" brachycentrusbrachycentrus@hotmaildotcom wrote in message
. 97.136...
"Wolfgang" wrote in
:


"Jeff Marso" brachycentrus@hotmaildotcom wrote in message
. 97.136...
"Wolfgang" wrote in
:


"Larry L" wrote in message
...

...Electing Clinton II shortly after electing Bush II will
increase the impression that we are really becoming a place of
dynasties....

Oh, good grief. Does the name Roosevelt ring any bells? No?
Adams?

Wolfgang
well, what can one expect in a world in which some local "sports"
franchise or other wins some parochial championship or other and
everybody starts to bleat about "dynasties"?




Not to mention the Harrisons...wait...I just did....

It's true that Ernie and wayno are old enough to be dynasties unto
themselves but, to the best of my knowledge, they are not closely
related.

Wolfgang
who won't even go into that whole legitimate transfer of power thing.




From their ROFF avatars Ernie and Wayno seem to be fine fellows but I
meant the two Harrison's that were Presidents of the United States. From
the Harrison clan William Henry and Benjamin were the two I had in mind.
They were the only Grandfather/Grandchild pair to have occupied that post
to date. Benjamin was the first president to preside (heh, heh) over a
billion dollar federal budget. I wonder who the first was to a trillion?

Oh, THOSE Harrisons!

The nice thing about American political dynasties is that there's no good
reason for anyone to notice them.

Of course, the Chinese, the Indians and the Egyptians (to name just a few)
probably don't know that and are, as has been noted, doubtless viewing the
trend with increasing unease.

Wolfgang

Obama
 

On Feb 5, 1:21*pm, rw wrote:
I'm driving 120 miles round-trip to the the Democratic Party caucus in
Challis to support Obama.

We finally got to vote here in MD today; and since JRE's exit a couple
weeks ago, I was firmly in the undecided camp. I could still cast a
symbolic tally for JRE and strongly considered that; but in the end, I
decided to choose a viable candidate. Without much daylight between
HRC & BHO, it was a tough choice. Unlike a substantial number of
Americans, I do not hate Hillary. I think she'd be a fine POTUS.
Still, there's no denying the positive groundswell behind Obama, and I
think he's a better contrast against whatever neanderthal the R's put
on the ballot. I went with Obama.

But, since casting that vote this morning, I've continued to weigh the
merits of my choice. Then, in the Senate today, the FISA legislation
has come up for several significant votes that could well determine
the fate of our rights and freedoms as Americans. Barack Obama showed
up and cast his vote as I wished the entire Senate would. Hillary
Clinton didn't bother to show up. I feel a lot better about my choice
this morning.

Joe F.

Obama
 

rb608 wrote:
On Feb 5, 1:21 pm, rw wrote:

I'm driving 120 miles round-trip to the the Democratic Party caucus in
Challis to support Obama.


We finally got to vote here in MD today; and since JRE's exit a couple
weeks ago, I was firmly in the undecided camp. I could still cast a
symbolic tally for JRE and strongly considered that; but in the end, I
decided to choose a viable candidate. Without much daylight between
HRC & BHO, it was a tough choice. Unlike a substantial number of
Americans, I do not hate Hillary. I think she'd be a fine POTUS.
Still, there's no denying the positive groundswell behind Obama, and I
think he's a better contrast against whatever neanderthal the R's put
on the ballot. I went with Obama.

But, since casting that vote this morning, I've continued to weigh the
merits of my choice. Then, in the Senate today, the FISA legislation
has come up for several significant votes that could well determine
the fate of our rights and freedoms as Americans. Barack Obama showed
up and cast his vote as I wished the entire Senate would. Hillary
Clinton didn't bother to show up. I feel a lot better about my choice
this morning.

Joe F.

Obama is kicking ass in Virginia. I just heard that the closing of the
polls in Maryland has been delayed due to bad weather.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Obama
 

rw wrote:

Obama is kicking ass in Virginia. I just heard that the closing of the
polls in Maryland has been delayed due to bad weather.

Came out of my office in DC at 5:30. Truck was evenly coated
with almost a quarter of an inch of ice. Roads awful. People
still going to the polls.

Obama
 

JR wrote:
rw wrote:


Obama is kicking ass in Virginia. I just heard that the closing of the
polls in Maryland has been delayed due to bad weather.


Came out of my office in DC at 5:30. Truck was evenly coated
with almost a quarter of an inch of ice. Roads awful. People
still going to the polls.


Great. That favors Obama because his supporters are more passionate than
Clinton's.

Sorry about the truck.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Obama
 

Wolfgang wrote:


watched tv-broadcast of obama's speech in madison tonight... wow. but,
also caused me to think of that interesting trip when we passed near
there on the way to the kickapoo...

both involved thoughts of traveling toward something new and unique...

the shad are beginning to show in the neuse river down here... still a
bit weak. but, i'm looking forward to the herald of the new fishing
season. the shad are the start of it.

jeff

Obama
 

rb608 wrote:

On Feb 5, 1:21 pm, rw wrote:

I'm driving 120 miles round-trip to the the Democratic Party caucus in
Challis to support Obama.


We finally got to vote here in MD today; and since JRE's exit a couple
weeks ago, I was firmly in the undecided camp. I could still cast a
symbolic tally for JRE and strongly considered that; but in the end, I
decided to choose a viable candidate. Without much daylight between
HRC & BHO, it was a tough choice. Unlike a substantial number of
Americans, I do not hate Hillary. I think she'd be a fine POTUS.
Still, there's no denying the positive groundswell behind Obama, and I
think he's a better contrast against whatever neanderthal the R's put
on the ballot. I went with Obama.

But, since casting that vote this morning, I've continued to weigh the
merits of my choice. Then, in the Senate today, the FISA legislation
has come up for several significant votes that could well determine
the fate of our rights and freedoms as Americans. Barack Obama showed
up and cast his vote as I wished the entire Senate would. Hillary
Clinton didn't bother to show up. I feel a lot better about my choice
this morning.

Joe F.

i think he may actually be the "real thing". i've no doubt about my
vote in our may primary...and, i'm glad to see that my initial feeling
about him (expressed here before he announced his candidacy) have proven
sound so far. i'm actually enthusiastic about a political candidate
again...sadly, it doesn't happen often enough. i really like seeing the
young people who have gotten involved in following/supporting obama.

jeff

Obama
 

"jeff miller" wrote in message
i think he may actually be the "real thing".

If I had any further doubts, his victory speech in Curdistan tonight sealed
it. Damned impressive. Of course, the cutaway to McCain's speech afterward
was a shocking contrast. Hundreds of enthusiastic young people vs. a
handful of half-dead old white folks. There's no doubt remaining that he's
for real.

Joe F.

Obama
 

jeff miller wrote:

.. i'm actually enthusiastic about a political candidate
again...sadly, it doesn't happen often enough. i really like seeing the
young people who have gotten involved in following/supporting obama.

"Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'."


"In my end is my beginning....."

- JR
(effin' agin' hippie, I guess.....)

Obama
 

In article , rw
writes
JR wrote:
rw wrote:


Obama is kicking ass in Virginia. I just heard that the closing of
the polls in Maryland has been delayed due to bad weather.
Came out of my office in DC at 5:30. Truck was evenly coated
with almost a quarter of an inch of ice. Roads awful. People
still going to the polls.


Great. That favors Obama because his supporters are more passionate
than Clinton's.

Quite right - complacency will lose an election every time.
--
Bill Grey

Obama
 

On Feb 12, 10:33*pm, jeff miller wrote:
the shad are beginning to show in the neuse river down here...

No ****? It's February for god's sake. I don't expect to see them up
here until April. I'd expect them to be earlier down there, but
February?

Coincidentally, I was just thinking about shad flies yesterday. Might
be something to this circadian rhytym thing.

Joe F.

Obama
 

"JR" wrote


- JR
(effin' agin' hippie, I guess.....)




Not that that is a bad thing !

Obama
 

On 11-Feb-2008, "Wolfgang" wrote:

ottom line: everybody else knows (or certainly should by now) what your
position is with regard to interpretation of the law at the highest
levels. It only seems fair that you should too. This is something you
should think about and investigate with whatever paltry tools you have
at
your disposal.

Wolfgang
here's a hint; you don't like legal decisions that you don't like
(which,
incidentally, we all knew before you ever showed up here) and you don't
like people who make legal decisions that you don't like. that should
give you a pretty good start. if not, here's another; it is the supreme

court's purview to interpret law only when and insofar as the majority
decision agrees with your interpretation. the preceding sentence is not

quite entirely accurate......where does it go astray? good luck!
:)

O.k., o.k., just ONE more hint! You mentioned "fallacious argument[s]".
Lucky guess. I did indeed present some fallacious arguments but, as
should
have been eminently clear, they weren't MY arguments. Now, let's see if
you
can correctly guess who they rightly belong to. Once again, good luck!

And never forget that I'm the best friend you've got here. You may rest
assured that *I* will never fail to let you know exactly what you've done
to
yourself. :)

Hapless putz.

Wolfgang

Not even one typo!!!
No mispellings

What a wonderful typist!

Sincerely
Fred

Obama
 

wrote in message
...

On 11-Feb-2008, "Wolfgang" wrote:

ottom line: everybody else knows (or certainly should by now) what your
position is with regard to interpretation of the law at the highest
levels. It only seems fair that you should too. This is something you
should think about and investigate with whatever paltry tools you have
at
your disposal.

Wolfgang
here's a hint; you don't like legal decisions that you don't like
(which,
incidentally, we all knew before you ever showed up here) and you don't
like people who make legal decisions that you don't like. that should
give you a pretty good start. if not, here's another; it is the
supreme

court's purview to interpret law only when and insofar as the majority
decision agrees with your interpretation. the preceding sentence is
not

quite entirely accurate......where does it go astray? good luck!
:)

O.k., o.k., just ONE more hint! You mentioned "fallacious argument[s]".
Lucky guess. I did indeed present some fallacious arguments but, as
should
have been eminently clear, they weren't MY arguments. Now, let's see if
you
can correctly guess who they rightly belong to. Once again, good luck!

And never forget that I'm the best friend you've got here. You may rest
assured that *I* will never fail to let you know exactly what you've done
to
yourself. :)

Hapless putz.

Wolfgang

Not even one typo!!!
No mispellings

What a wonderful typist!

Sincerely
Fred

Thank you.

Wolfgang
who sometimes wonders not so much how certain people remember to breath on
their own, but why.