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

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 06:04:29 -0500, jeff miller
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:04:11 -0500, Jeff wrote:


wrote:



......there's more, but i suspect these will be sufficient for
your critique and counterpoints.


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

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,

OK...elaborate on the two singled out, above - convince me that it's not
just some grandiose idea or just something you pulled out of your ass
that sounds good.

not a washington dc insider, objective...

it's clear you want something specific in terms of qualification or
ability,

And it's becoming clear that many folks who I'd have thought felt the
same way, don't...unfortunately...

but seem unwilling to accept this guy is capable of doing the
job.

Um, how do you figure? I've said plain and direct - "convince me with
some facts" and thus far, I've gotten laundry lists of unsupported,
subjective opinions and a reminder that he wrote a book...heck, he
wrote, or "wrote," at least two, but I'm not sure what that has to do
with it...Paris Hilton wrote at least one, too...

mccain meets your criteria?

Entirely? No.

hillary?

Not even close. But admittedly, she has a VERY limited number of
qualities that would serve a POTUS well.

there are 3 choices available.

Um, well, right now, there are NO choices available, but on election
day, there is unlimited choice, including the choice not to vote at all,
available to voters.

who do you choose?

If I were voting today, and the (practical) choice was McCain or
Hillary or Obama, I'd say McCain.

why?

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

what compels, inspires or persuades your vote?

Why do you assume and take it for granted that I am a US voter?

give us your rational, objective reason.

See above.

assuming you could pick the one living person who you believe is the
one, among all others, who meets your criteria...who is it??

I doubt anyone that qualified would have any real interest in or take
the job, but off the top of my head and in the current situation, I'd
offer folks such as Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, or maybe even
Haley Barbour (Gov. of MS). Of the recent crop of candidates, I'd say
Richardson and McCain, flip for POTUS, was probably the "best" possible
choice in the pack. Heck, I'm completely serious when I say I think
Obama would be a good choice as veep with McCain - I think it would give
him a chance to show his stuff (or not, as the case may be) and give a
mandate-level vote to _some_ "team." As I've also said, completely
seriously, IMO, not much "change" can occur if the vote is yet another
50.01% versus 49.99% squeaker regardless of who actually "wins."

TC,
R

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

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:40:36 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


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.

Um...for whom? Besides, I think he finally lost his desire - yeah,
really - to beat his head against the "broken" wall of US
politics...which, IMO, illustrates _the_ major problem: none of the
"best" people really want the job THAT ****in' badly...

TC,
R
Tom

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

"Jim Edmondson" wrote in message
global.net...


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

In other words, you're saying that you don't know what the **** you are
saying, right.

You want folks who might chose to support Obama to cite a litany of
experiences that should *supposedly* have to qualify him for the White
House, yet you are unable to do so yourself for any particular candidate?

Last I checked the US Constitution, experience wasn't a requirement for the
position, as Bush has proven so disastrously.

To paraphrase the a rabid conservatives mantra:

If I were voting today, and the (impractical) choices were McCain or
Hillary, and the (practical) choice is Obama, I'd vote Obama hands
down--since there aren't any non-Dems/Repubs on the ballot, so far.

Why?

The same reason I said Nader, twice - he was the best choice in the
(impractical)
field of three, no more, no less.

Op

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

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:07:29 -0500, Opus--Mark H. Bowen "Opus--Mark H.
Bowen" wrote in message
:


"Jim Edmondson" wrote in message
global.net...
[quoted text muted]

In other words, you're saying that you don't know what the **** you are
saying, right.

I'm saying that you are an asshole


You want folks who might chose to support Obama to cite a litany of
experiences that should *supposedly* have to qualify him for the White
House, yet you are unable to do so yourself for any particular candidate?

I am keeping an open mind

Last I checked the US Constitution, experience wasn't a requirement for the
position, as Bush has proven so disastrously.

To paraphrase the a rabid conservatives mantra:

If I were voting today, and the (impractical) choices were McCain or
Hillary, and the (practical) choice is Obama, I'd vote Obama hands
down--since there aren't any non-Dems/Repubs on the ballot, so far.

You are not voting today, so who cares

Why?

See above

The same reason I said Nader, twice - he was the best choice in the
(impractical)
field of three, no more, no less.

Op

That was an effective use of your vote

bye
--
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 Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:07:29 -0500, Opus--Mark H. Bowen "Opus--Mark H.
Bowen" wrote in message
:


"Jim Edmondson" wrote in message
global.net...
[quoted text muted]

In other words, you're saying that you don't know what the **** you are
saying, right.

I'm saying that you are an asshole

No you are saying that *you* believe me to be an asshole. You don't really
know, actually.


You want folks who might chose to support Obama to cite a litany of
experiences that should *supposedly* have to qualify him for the White
House, yet you are unable to do so yourself for any particular candidate?

I am keeping an open mind

Of course you are.


Last I checked the US Constitution, experience wasn't a requirement for
the
position, as Bush has proven so disastrously.

To paraphrase the a rabid conservatives mantra:

If I were voting today, and the (impractical) choices were McCain or
Hillary, and the (practical) choice is Obama, I'd vote Obama hands
down--since there aren't any non-Dems/Repubs on the ballot, so far.

You are not voting today, so who cares

So, if you and no one else cares about this subject, why are you going out
of your way to discuss this irrelevant subject?

Why?

See above

Nothing of any consequence there to view, really!

The same reason I said Nader, twice - he was the best choice in the
(impractical)
field of three, no more, no less.

Op

That was an effective use of your vote

Well those votes were as effective as any votes can be. I mean, they are
merely votes cast afterall.

bye

Where ya headed?

Op

--
?Jim
posted from Ubuntu/Pan

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

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 06:04:29 -0500, jeff miller
wrote:

not a washington
dc insider,

Uhhhh, he made a deal with Teddy Kennedy. *Think* about that for
awhile before you say he is not a dc insider. That's about as
"inside" as they get.....

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

Dave LaCourse wrote in
:


Recovering alcoholic? You be reaching now, young fellow. And *if* he
is a "recovering" alcoholic, that is a *good* thing, not bad.


Dave, I know I'm not reaching, by GW's own admission

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...1w4CKFk7cjyCVA

Is this a good thing? Well, first, we can talk about the wisdom of putting
a recovering alcoholic in the most stressful job in the world, but that's
almost besides the point. Many recovering alcoholics are not normal happy
people. Many are, but many aren't. Just ask some participants in Alanon
(which is not AA, for the confused) how their families started falling
apart once the drinking stopped. In fact, there are some fairly typical
behavioral patterns.

http://www.counterpunch.org/wormer1011.html





--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

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

Dave LaCourse wrote in
:

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.




Yes, he's still in office.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

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

On 16 Feb 2008 18:06:57 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

Just ask some participants in Alanon
(which is not AA, for the confused) how their families started falling
apart once the drinking stopped.

Hmmm. I'd say that Bush's family has not fallen apart.

Do you have any evidence that he is still drinking, still a drunk? If
it was out there, I am sure the NY Times would have had it front page
top fold by now.

Dave

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

Dave LaCourse wrote in
:

On 16 Feb 2008 18:06:57 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

Just ask some participants in Alanon
(which is not AA, for the confused) how their families started falling
apart once the drinking stopped.

Hmmm. I'd say that Bush's family has not fallen apart.

Do you have any evidence that he is still drinking, still a drunk? If
it was out there, I am sure the NY Times would have had it front page
top fold by now.

Dave




First, I haven't ever suggested that Bush is still drinking.

Next, its not really important. In that last link I posted they listed a
whole bunch of symptoms typical of "dry drunk syndrome"-- which is
pretty much associated with recovering alcoholics who no longer drink,
but just don't quite think right. They a


* Exaggerated self-importance and pomposity
* Grandiose behavior
* A rigid, judgmental outlook
* Impatience
* Childish behavior
* Irresponsible behavior
* Irrational rationalization
* Projection
* Overreaction

****
To summarize, George W. Bush manifests all the classic patterns of what
alcoholics in recovery call "the dry drunk." His behavior is consistent
with barely noticeable but meaningful brain damage brought on by years of
heavy drinking and possible cocaine use. All the classic patterns of
addictive thinking that are spelled out in my book are he

the tendency to go to extremes (leading America into a massive 100
billion dollar strike-first war);

* a "kill or be killed mentality;" the tunnel vision;
* "I" as opposed to "we" thinking;
* the black and white polarized thought processes (good versus evil,
all or nothing thinking).
* His drive to finish his father's battles is of no small
significance, psychologically.
******


Does it really make a big difference if he still drank?





--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

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...

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

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 07:14:59 -0500, jeff miller
wrote:

"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?

Apparently it is the Fox network station out of Houston. I've never
judged a man by his religion. If McCain's supporters who are racist
work for him and display racist posters, he should get rid of them.
The man is running for POTUS; he should have NO connection with Che
Guevara or any other Communist revolutionary. Guevara AND Kennedy?
What a team......

Dave

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

Dave LaCourse wrote:
snip
Bush was re-elected by a wide margin because you boys put a traitor,
liar, and womanizer up against him. ...

No matter how many times the Swiftboating of Kerry is proven
to be a pack of despicable lies some wingnuts will repeat it
as truth anyway.

Here's something for your reading pleasure Louie;
Puffing Up John McCain, POW
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/print/12676/

--
Ken Fortenberry

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

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
If McCain's supporters who are racist
work for him and display racist posters, he should get rid of them.

Get rid of them how? He can't fire them if they're volunteers. How could
McCain or any other candidate inspect the personal spaces or vouch for
uniformity of thought for every one of his supporters?

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

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 19:32:29 -0500, jeff miller
wrote:

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?

Probably...at least arguably so...

IAC, the Che thing is a "yesterday's news" kinda non-issue last I heard.
Some vols (not at the Houston HQ) were stupid enough to a) have the
Cuban flag with the Che image on it in the office (on a wall above and
behind a desk), and b) allow a cameraperson to shoot a shot of someone
sitting at the desk. I'm pretty sure no one really thinks Obama
directly "ordered" it.

TC,
R

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

"rb608" wrote in message
news:6aXtj.3519$0%3.2978@trnddc06...
"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
If McCain's supporters who are racist
work for him and display racist posters, he should get rid of them.

Get rid of them how? He can't fire them if they're volunteers.

You know I thought the same, until myself and most of the volunteers who
opened the Perot campaign headquarter in Raleigh and Charlotte, NC were fire
wholesale, and Perot sent in his *Dallas White Shirts back in '92. They
acquired the rented office space from the landlord and changed the door
locks. It happend all over the country. I talked to Perot volunteers in
many state, at that time, who were also let go and replaced by the Dallas
White Shirts.

How could McCain or any other candidate inspect the personal spaces or
vouch for uniformity of thought for every one of his supporters?

Agreed.

Op
*Mostly graduates from Texas Christian University, if memory serves.

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:


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.

Nope, I mean Bush, the younger, and I still think he is/was a better
choice than Kerry was/would have been. But once election day is past,
it's a little too late to get a do-over anyway, so I don't look with
hindsight at what/who "might have happened" as anything more than a
point of rhetorical discussion. I know you know this, but for others,
the idea that, IMO, Bush was a better choice out of a field of two
doesn't translate into my being a "Bush supporter" in general.

TC,
R



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 "uphis leg," and...
 

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 07:49:08 -0500, Dave LaCourse
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 07:14:59 -0500, jeff miller
wrote:

"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?

Apparently it is the Fox network station out of Houston. I've never
judged a man by his religion. If McCain's supporters who are racist
work for him and display racist posters, he should get rid of them.
The man is running for POTUS; he should have NO connection with Che
Guevara or any other Communist revolutionary. Guevara AND Kennedy?
What a team......

You seem to have really taken my mention of Kennedy and run with it.
Here's my "fear" with Kennedy - note it has nothing to do with Teddy's
personal, er, foibles:

I haven't really kept up with Teddy in Congress and at home as of late,
but he's still a Kennedy and I don't see him endorsing Obama (or anyone
else) simply because, gosh darnit, it'd be good for the ol' US of A.
Surely, Obama knew when he got a call from them (the Kennedy machine),
it was a quid pro quo kinda thing, and that's giving him the benefit of
the doubt that HE didn't make the call out. If had been just Caroline
with a little jungle fever and a touch of the old "he's just like my
daddy, St. Jack of Camelot," maybe - not likely, but a slight maybe - it
was simple, genuine rah, rah, but with whole machine cranked up? No
way, no how. So, IAC, Obama deals or he doesn't. Obama takes the call.
That leaves only a coupla-three explanations: first, he is a pol, and
that's what young pols do - take scratch-my-back calls from old pols,
or, two, he's politically VERY naive and actually told himself that
Kennedy was just another rich white swooner with a man-crush, or three,
he's dumber than a sack of wet biscuits. Personally, I pretty much
scratch option three smooth off the list and two don't look real
promising either, so that leaves us with option one. For all the
rah-rah and hope horse****, at the end of the day, he's a pol. Good.
He's running for POTUS. He damned well better be. I didn't think he
was out to dinner one night several years ago, got slipped a mickey, and
awoke to find that he had been Shanghaied into the Illinois House. Which
brings us back to a paraphrasing of my question: just what kind of pol
is this sumbitch, what did that piece of **** Kennedy get out of the
deal, and just bad is it gonna wind up ****ing _me_?

TC,
R

Dave

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

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 09:55:56 -0600, wrote:

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


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.

Nope, I mean Bush, the younger, and I still think he is/was a better
choice than Kerry was/would have been. But once election day is past,
it's a little too late to get a do-over anyway, so I don't look with
hindsight at what/who "might have happened" as anything more than a
point of rhetorical discussion.

cough

I know you know this, but for others,
the idea that, IMO, Bush was a better choice out of a field of two
doesn't translate into my being a "Bush supporter" in general.

TC,
R

Oh, gee, no, of course!

(ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!)

/daytripper (aren't you just the li'l cutest pipsqueek, ever! ;-)

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

wrote in message
If had been just Caroline with a little jungle fever

Racist.

Joe F.

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

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 07:22:56 -0600, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

No matter how many times the Swiftboating of Kerry is proven
to be a pack of despicable lies some wingnuts will repeat it
as truth anyway.


Who said anything about Swiftboats? I am talking about the lies he
*testified* to, under oath, before Congress. I am talking about his
trip to Paris to secretly meet with the deligation from North Vie Nam
*while in uniform*. I am talking about his medals that he threw over
the fence. All of these are acts of a traitorous pig, and you praise
him simply because he is a liberal Democrat. If he was a Republican,
you would be on him like white on rice.

Dave

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

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:04:50 GMT, "rb608"
wrote:

Get rid of them how? He can't fire them if they're volunteers. How could
McCain or any other candidate inspect the personal spaces or vouch for
uniformity of thought for every one of his supporters?

In this time of easy communications, I am sure either of them could
find a way. For starters, wouldn't it be nice if Obama told his
Houston office to remove the poster? A simple mandate, "Do not
embarass me," should suffice. I am not saying that Obama is praising
Guevara, but his *people* are. He should be able to control that. If
not, how in the hell is he going to run a *country* if he can't run a
simple campaign office?

Dave

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

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 10:23:19 -0600, wrote:

just what kind of pol
is this sumbitch, what did that piece of **** Kennedy get out of the
deal, and just bad is it gonna wind up ****ing _me_?

Exactamundo. buzzer

"We have a winner in the balcony, Doctor."

Dave

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

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
Tom, given the choice, most folks couldn't vote for Kerry.

assuming 'most' to mean 51%, you are correct.
Tom

.....still, I don't think they were right to do so. A message should have
been sent at that point in the Bush presidency.

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

"Bob Weinberger" wrote in
news:ilItj.3757$FK2.698@trndny08:

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:


Your absolutely right. Watch any of those (us) folks run for pres, and
lets see what happens
--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

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

Ken Fortenberry wrote in news:QyWtj.679
:

No matter how many times the Swiftboating of Kerry is proven
to be a pack of despicable lies some wingnuts will repeat it
as truth anyway.

Let alone the swiftboating of McCain. We've yet to see how letting the
Bush team roll all over him will impact his electability.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

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

Dave LaCourse wrote in
:

Tom, that Gore
should never have lost in 2000. If he had carried his homestate, he
would have won.


If Bush carried Florida, he would have won.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

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

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 02:07:30 -0500, "Opus--Mark H. Bowen"
wrote:

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.

Where did I say anything about *Swiftboats", Mark? I am talking about
is lying, under oath, before congress, while still in uniform. I am
talking about his trip to Paris to meet secretly with the deligation
from North Viet Nam, while still in uniform. Both actions gave
comfort and support to our enemy. The man did not receive an
honorable discharge from the Navy (which has nothing to do with
treason, but *does* speak volumes of his character).

Davie

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

funny, the Fox link doesn't work, and there is an obvious disclaimer that
the office pictured is not affiliated with the campaign of Obama. Sounds
like the BS machine is trying to start up anew against Obama from the right,
but I think they might find his people ready to deal with it better than
Kerry did......
Tom

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

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
not, how in the hell is he going to run a *country* if he can't run a
simple campaign office?

Dave


the website clearly states(Fox website) that the office pictured WAS NOT a
campaign office, but merely belonged to a group of folks who volunteered to
work on his campaign. Spare me a leader who would be control freak enough to
tell those who support him on general principles HOW to think. We've seen
enough of that sort of all or nothing political thought, IMO.
Tom

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

Dave LaCourse wrote in
:

Both actions gave
comfort and support to our enemy.

So did the US evacuation of the Bin Laden family when every other
nonmilitary flight was grounded.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply