| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
I wish I'd been there
|
I wish I'd been there
|
I wish I'd been there
"Daniel-San" wrote in message . com... "rw" wrote ... http://tinyurl.com/hbo8m Video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=lcIRXur61II Kind of was looking forward to watching that, but it was actually pretty lame. |
I wish I'd been there
"jeffc" wrote ... "Daniel-San" wrote ... Video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=lcIRXur61II Kind of was looking forward to watching that, but it was actually pretty lame. Some of it was quite funny, but the funny lines were buried in a lot of filler-BS. IMO, it needed to be cut in half, time-wise. Dan |
I wish I'd been there
On Mon, 01 May 2006 12:15:06 GMT, "jeffc" wrote:
Kind of was looking forward to watching that, but it was actually pretty lame. Wasn't nearly as good as Don Imus roasting Bill and Hillary. |
I wish I'd been there
"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
... On Mon, 01 May 2006 12:15:06 GMT, "jeffc" wrote: Kind of was looking forward to watching that, but it was actually pretty lame. Wasn't nearly as good as Don Imus roasting Bill and Hillary. I really hate Bill and our up-coming inept second time around president. I am really scared of whats going to happen when Hilary is president again this next election... **shudder** Its my theory that the plan all along was for Kerry to lose so that Hilary would win the election again.... and I'm pretty sure she will. I'll be getting ready to lose my hunting and fishing gear right away. *sigh* Anyway, I am thinking that tearing up Hilary, GW, or any other crooked politian that ends up in office is a dangerous bit of business. I think its great that we all have this sort of freedom to voice our criticisms and write our opinions and all that. I really think its great and appreciate that people have died for us to be able to do that. But I would rather the other countries of the world see us rally behind our leaders and act as a whole unit. United we stand... sort of image. Deep party divisions and screaming activists that don't know their cause or much less how to properly change their government might be our ultimate undoing. -- flies from $5.60 per DOZEN! Rods/Reels and Gear www.fly-fishing-flies.com |
I wish I'd been there
"Sprattoo" wrote But I would rather the other countries of the world see us rally behind our leaders and act as a whole unit. United we stand... sort of image. Deep party divisions and screaming activists that don't know their cause or much less how to properly change their government might be our ultimate undoing. well, that's kinda the way it worked back in the late 18th century for the "ruling party", ain't it? it's just a roots thang, doncha know... oh, and if you want to know, i will take hillary over any of w's first ten choices. wayno -- flies from $5.60 per DOZEN! Rods/Reels and Gear www.fly-fishing-flies.com |
I wish I'd been there
"Sprattoo" wrote in news:4457f542
@news.sacoriver.net: I am really scared of whats going to happen when Hilary is president again this next election... **shudder** Yeah, maybe we'll get involved in two wars, at least one of them being unnecessary and forcing our attention from the real battle. Maybe she'll even exaggerate (or baldly lie) about intelligence we might hold to make this happen. Maybe we'll have some natural catastrophe, and LOSE AN AMERICAN CITY. If this does happen, we might even find that our entire emergency response system is a farce that might stick its thumb up its butt while it watches 1,300 American Citizens die. Maybe we'll start an expensive, unnecessarily complex Medicaid addon that won't roll out smoothly. Could even be that any whistleblower that threatens to illuminate Congress as to the real cost of the plan might be threatened with loss of his job. Maybe Hillary would have Congress so tied up in knots that they'll have no response when she tries to spy on citizens with no warrant. But I would rather the other countries of the world see us rally behind our leaders and act as a whole unit. I'll gladly shout from the rooftops that our leader is a unit, if you think it would help. -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
I wish I'd been there
"Scott Seidman" wrote in message . 1.4... "Sprattoo" wrote in news:4457f542 @news.sacoriver.net: I am really scared of whats going to happen when Hilary is president again this next election... **shudder** If you actually believe that she will become the dems candidate, you are an even bigger idiot than you make yourself out to be! Op |
I wish I'd been there
Opie wrote:
"Scott Seidman" wrote in message . 1.4... "Sprattoo" wrote in news:4457f542 : I am really scared of whats going to happen when Hilary is president again this next election... **shudder** If you actually believe that she will become the dems candidate, you are an even bigger idiot than you make yourself out to be! I think there's a decent chance she'll be nominated, and if she is I'll support her (unless the Republicans nominate someone better, which has vanishing probability). However, she's way, way down on my list of preferences, mainly because she's cynically moved to the right to position herself for the race. My preferences at the moment, in order, are Wes Clark, Russ Feingold, Al Gore, and John Kerry. I'd be enthusiastic about any of them. The main thing is to stop one-party government. If we're really lucky there will be a third-party right-wing challenge, splitting the Republican vote. There's a lot of disaffection on the political right because of the Republicans' reckless fiscal policies, disdain for our Constitutional rights, and corruption. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
I wish I'd been there
rw wrote in news:sW56g.735$Ae1.548
@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net: However, she's way, way down on my list of preferences, mainly because she's cynically moved to the right to position herself for the race. She's down on my list just because I think she's too divisive a character to be electable. I could be wrong, as the talking heads have been saying that the 35 year old waitresses making $20000 a year will turn out for her in droves. I can tell you she's been a pretty good Senator from the upstate NY point of view. I could give two ****s about her left/right position, and some silly ass flag burning bill. Hell, I could even vote for certain Republicans under certain situations. -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
I wish I'd been there
"Scott Seidman" wrote in message . 4... rw wrote in news:sW56g.735$Ae1.548 @newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net: However, she's way, way down on my list of preferences, mainly because she's cynically moved to the right to position herself for the race. She's down on my list just because I think she's too divisive a character to be electable. I could be wrong, as the talking heads have been saying that the 35 year old waitresses making $20000 a year will turn out for her in droves. I can tell you she's been a pretty good Senator from the upstate NY point of view. I could give two ****s about her left/right position, and some silly ass flag burning bill. Hell, I could even vote for certain Republicans under certain situations. -- Scott Reverse name to reply If she is nominated by the Dems, you can figure another 4 years of neo-con control! Op |
I wish I'd been there
"Opie" wrote in
: If she is nominated by the Dems, you can figure another 4 years of neo-con control! Op Not every republican is a neo-con. Let's say Guliani wins. Personally, I think there are some real problems with him, in that many of his "quality of life" law enforcement issues may have had some real problems with civil liberties, and I think he might lean toward Ramboism during war. But, he can get things done, he's fairly fiscally responsible, and the Christian Conservatives would be essentially out of the loop. Do you consider him a neo-con? I would have though McCain would be a reasonable candidate, as well, but I've lost a ton of respect for him in recent months. I think even Republicans realize that the current level of partisanism is doing bad things to our country. I also think that the current admin has been trying to keep things this way, for God knows what reason. If the Republicans don't choose wisely, they could hand over the White House keys, even to a Hillary. BTW, I can even understand the vitriolic hatred of Kerry more than I can understand the knee jerk reaction to Hillary. In any case, thank God for term limits. This thread started off by calling for a rally behind the Pres to show the world something. I think the most positive thing we can show the world at this point is how quickly a strong representative democracy can recover from this train wreck of an Administration. -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
I wish I'd been there
"Scott Seidman" wrote in message . 1.4... "Opie" wrote in : If she is nominated by the Dems, you can figure another 4 years of neo-con control! Op Not every republican is a neo-con. Let's say Guliani wins. Personally, I think there are some real problems with him, in that many of his "quality of life" law enforcement issues may have had some real problems with civil liberties, and I think he might lean toward Ramboism during war. But, he can get things done, he's fairly fiscally responsible, and the Christian Conservatives would be essentially out of the loop. Do you consider him a neo-con? I would have though McCain would be a reasonable candidate, as well, but I've lost a ton of respect for him in recent months. I meant exactly what I said. If Hillary is the Dems candidate, then we can look forward to another four years so neo-con control. The Republicans won't pick a relative moderate to run against her. Karl Rove will trot out and beat the drums for some neo-con religious fanatic to combat the homo-loving, anti-christian elites. Rooty ain't goin' nowhere. And neither is Hillary. McCain's a has been. Op I think even Republicans realize that the current level of partisanism is doing bad things to our country. I also think that the current admin has been trying to keep things this way, for God knows what reason. If the Republicans don't choose wisely, they could hand over the White House keys, even to a Hillary. BTW, I can even understand the vitriolic hatred of Kerry more than I can understand the knee jerk reaction to Hillary. In any case, thank God for term limits. This thread started off by calling for a rally behind the Pres to show the world something. I think the most positive thing we can show the world at this point is how quickly a strong representative democracy can recover from this train wreck of an Administration. -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
I wish I'd been there
|
I wish I'd been there
Opie wrote:
If she is nominated by the Dems, you can figure another 4 years of neo-con control! Especially if Nader runs again. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
I wish I'd been there
"rw" wrote in message nk.net... Opie wrote: If she is nominated by the Dems, you can figure another 4 years of neo-con control! Especially if Nader runs again. Get you a good mirror and a decent set of forceps, and pull that Nader bug out of your swollen ass! If the Dems want to shout themselves in the head--again--they should go ahead and nominate Hillary. I certainly won't vote for her, and I'm far from a Republican. I'm registered "Unaffiliated." the Dems will lose fro the same reasons that they lost the last two times--they ain't got no decent candidates to run up against an electorate that can be led around by bible thumping, security scare fanatics! Go ahead Putz, get her nominated. Op |
I wish I'd been there
"Mr. Opus McDopus" wrote in news:qo96g.9777
: I certainly won't vote for her, May I ask why? -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
I wish I'd been there
wrote in message ... In article , says... "Scott Seidman" wrote in message . 4... I can tell you she's been a pretty good Senator from the upstate NY point of view. I could give two ****s about her left/right position, and some silly ass flag burning bill. Hell, I could even vote for certain Republicans under certain situations. -- Scott Reverse name to reply If she is nominated by the Dems, you can figure another 4 years of neo-con control! Op I'm pondering changing my voter registration to Democrat (from not affiliated with any party) just to try to get the Dems to run somebody decent. They have to realize that they are going to get stomped on if they run Hillary. Right? - Ken Do it. Hopefully it will be someone with some executive and leadership experiences. Considering who the R likelies are right now, and R control of the Congress and the judiciary, I could consider voting for Hillary (without joy) as a vote against the "One party State." RWs list is plausible. Dave |
I wish I'd been there
"Scott Seidman" wrote in message May I ask why? I can't answer for Op, but will state clearly that I will not ever vote for her, as I feel she is an unprincipled, power hungry, shallow politician(using "politician" here as a perjorative). Literally, I would refuse to vote for her, even if she ran against Santorum, and I am a lifelong Democrat. Tom |
I wish I'd been there
"Tom Littleton" wrote in
news:2J96g.790$yh.678@trnddc04: "Scott Seidman" wrote in message May I ask why? I can't answer for Op, but will state clearly that I will not ever vote for her, as I feel she is an unprincipled, power hungry, shallow politician(using "politician" here as a perjorative). Literally, I would refuse to vote for her, even if she ran against Santorum, and I am a lifelong Democrat. Tom I know many people share that opinion, but I can't for the life of me figure out where it comes from. There's the whole carpetbagger thing, of course, and she is obviously ambitious. But, I'm looking for the actions or votes that sum up to the "unprincipled" part. I mean, Ken Starr had her under a microscope for years, and couldn't find anything indictable. "Power Hungry", I can live with. "Shallow" I'm not sure of, but I do know that Kerry is not shallow and gets tons of abuse piled on him because his message is complicated. So, is it a case of "I know it in my bones that she's no good"?--not that there's anything wrong with that. Obviously, strong feelings get generated for some reason, I'm just trying to pin this one down a little better, because it's fairly common, and I just don't follow it. (This would be a great time to say "She didn't earn her Purple Hearts)! -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
I wish I'd been there
"Scott Seidman" wrote in message . 1.4... "Mr. Opus McDopus" wrote in news:qo96g.9777 : I certainly won't vote for her, May I ask why? -- Scott She too divisive, she is an ego-maniac--IMMHO-, she part of the entrenched political establishment that has brought us to where we are today, she lusts for power and she is a Democrat! Op |
I wish I'd been there
"Mr. Opus McDopus" wrote in
: "Scott Seidman" wrote in message . 1.4... "Mr. Opus McDopus" wrote in news:qo96g.9777 : I certainly won't vote for her, May I ask why? -- Scott She too divisive, she is an ego-maniac--IMMHO-, she part of the entrenched political establishment that has brought us to where we are today, she lusts for power and she is a Democrat! Op I agree with the divisive part. That might be why many people won't vote for her, or why a Democrat wouldn't vote for her in a primary. Everything else, though, with the exception of "she", could describe Kerry almost as well. -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
I wish I'd been there
"Scott Seidman" wrote in message . 1.4... "Mr. Opus McDopus" wrote in : "Scott Seidman" wrote in message . 1.4... "Mr. Opus McDopus" wrote in news:qo96g.9777 : I certainly won't vote for her, May I ask why? -- Scott She too divisive, she is an ego-maniac--IMMHO-, she part of the entrenched political establishment that has brought us to where we are today, she lusts for power and she is a Democrat! Op I agree with the divisive part. That might be why many people won't vote for her, or why a Democrat wouldn't vote for her in a primary. Everything else, though, with the exception of "she", could describe Kerry almost as well. I didn't vote for Kerry either. You might note rw's objections to the way in which I cast *my* ballot. Op -- Scott |
I wish I'd been there
Mr. Opus McDopus wrote:
"rw" wrote in message nk.net... Opie wrote: If she is nominated by the Dems, you can figure another 4 years of neo-con control! Especially if Nader runs again. Get you a good mirror and a decent set of forceps, and pull that Nader bug out of your swollen ass! If the Dems want to shout themselves in the head--again--they should go ahead and nominate Hillary. I certainly won't vote for her, and I'm far from a Republican. I'm registered "Unaffiliated." the Dems will lose fro the same reasons that they lost the last two times--they ain't got no decent candidates to run up against an electorate that can be led around by bible thumping, security scare fanatics! Go ahead Putz, get her nominated. It fun to see that I can raise your blood pressure as easily as Fortenberry raises LaCourse's. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
I wish I'd been there
"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
Everything else, though, with the exception of "she", could describe Kerry almost as well. I don't believe Kerry would never be such a putz as to sponsor anti-flag burning legislation. I like HRC, I really do; but that idiotic stunt really soured me on her as a serious candidate. WTF was she thinking? Joe F. |
I wish I'd been there
"rb608" wrote in message
I don't believe Kerry would never be such a putz Um, that's "ever be such a putz" |
I wish I'd been there
David Snedeker wrote: wrote in message ... In article , says... If she is nominated by the Dems, you can figure another 4 years of neo-con control! Op I'm pondering changing my voter registration to Democrat (from not affiliated with any party) just to try to get the Dems to run somebody decent. They have to realize that they are going to get stomped on if they run Hillary. Right? - Ken Do it. Hopefully it will be someone with some executive and leadership experiences. Considering who the R likelies are right now, and R control of the Congress and the judiciary, I could consider voting for Hillary (without joy) as a vote against the "One party State." RWs list is plausible. Dave I have this nasty habit of actually trying to vote for the best person (which means most of my votes have been "wasted"). Picking the lesser of two weasels makes me sick. Seriously though, if the Dems can't figure out how to put forth someone worth voting for for Pres then I'll vote straight Dem in the House/Senate just to get out of this one party hell. Founding fathers were smart, but they missed that clause. Should have had something that raised the bar (55% of the vote?) for the President if the same party controls both halves of Congress. - Ken |
I wish I'd been there
"rw" wrote in message nk.net... Mr. Opus McDopus wrote: "rw" wrote in message nk.net... Opie wrote: If she is nominated by the Dems, you can figure another 4 years of neo-con control! Especially if Nader runs again. Get you a good mirror and a decent set of forceps, and pull that Nader bug out of your swollen ass! If the Dems want to shout themselves in the head--again--they should go ahead and nominate Hillary. I certainly won't vote for her, and I'm far from a Republican. I'm registered "Unaffiliated." the Dems will lose fro the same reasons that they lost the last two times--they ain't got no decent candidates to run up against an electorate that can be led around by bible thumping, security scare fanatics! Go ahead Putz, get her nominated. It fun to see that I can raise your blood pressure as easily as Fortenberry raises LaCourse's. You've got to be kidding, you silly twit. Why on Earth would I get upset over nonsense? You are no different from Dave L. You won't consider facts. You rely on "truthiness." You have never once admitted to the fact that the Dems lost the two elections, due to their own party's ineffectiveness, lack of ideas, sedentary policies (both foreign and domestic), adherence to special interest platforms and ideals that went against the grain of a great portion of the electorate, acceptance of immoral character (real or imagined by others--think Monica), and a host of other reasons to which you just can't bring yourself to face. Ralph Nader nor any other third, forth, or fifth party candidate, nor those who voted for them caused the Dems to lose those two most critical elections. The Dems--read: DNC and party elites including Gore and Kerry-- did it all by their little pea-brained selves. Love, Op |
I wish I'd been there
Scott Seidman wrote:
SNIP Everything else, though, with the exception of "she", could describe Kerry almost as well. and Kerry looks fat in a pantssuit too. -- Stan Gula (there, I said it, and I'm both ashamed and relieved) (effin' eh, people, lighten up, is it raining *everywhere*?) |
I wish I'd been there
Scott Seidman wrote:
rw wrote in news:sW56g.735$Ae1.548 @newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net: However, she's way, way down on my list of preferences, mainly because she's cynically moved to the right to position herself for the race. She's down on my list just because I think she's too divisive a character to be electable. I could be wrong, as the talking heads have been saying that the 35 year old waitresses making $20000 a year will turn out for her in droves. I can tell you she's been a pretty good Senator from the upstate NY point of view. I could give two ****s about her left/right position, and some silly ass flag burning bill. Hell, I could even vote for certain Republicans under certain situations. hilary will never win the south. we democrats must find a better candidate with national appeal. i think we have a chance if we can find a decent, moderate candidate who is telegenic. g i've (shudder, mea culpa) voted for a republican...once...long ago when democrats ruled congress. i can't see that happening again in the remainder of my years...under any situations. jeff |
I wish I'd been there
Scott Seidman wrote:
"Tom Littleton" wrote in news:2J96g.790$yh.678@trnddc04: "Scott Seidman" wrote in message May I ask why? I can't answer for Op, but will state clearly that I will not ever vote for her, as I feel she is an unprincipled, power hungry, shallow politician(using "politician" here as a perjorative). Literally, I would refuse to vote for her, even if she ran against Santorum, and I am a lifelong Democrat. Tom I know many people share that opinion, but I can't for the life of me figure out where it comes from. There's the whole carpetbagger thing, of course, and she is obviously ambitious. But, I'm looking for the actions or votes that sum up to the "unprincipled" part. I mean, Ken Starr had her under a microscope for years, and couldn't find anything indictable. "Power Hungry", I can live with. "Shallow" I'm not sure of, but I do know that Kerry is not shallow and gets tons of abuse piled on him because his message is complicated. So, is it a case of "I know it in my bones that she's no good"?--not that there's anything wrong with that. Obviously, strong feelings get generated for some reason, I'm just trying to pin this one down a little better, because it's fairly common, and I just don't follow it. (This would be a great time to say "She didn't earn her Purple Hearts)! imo, the mass of the public...the electorate...responds on a superficial basis at the polls. if all were as thoughtful, rational, and equitable as you (and many others who write here) in evaluating candidates, perhaps hillary would have a chance. perception becomes reality for too many voters...and for them, perception is no more than a knee-jerk reaction to a brilliantly-positioned and manipulative 20 second sound bite. most knees jerk pretty quickly at the thought of hillary's candidacy. ....and, the ph, she was certainly injured in service to her country. ....still, i admit i was stunned when she succeeded in getting elected in new york, so who am i to question her national aspirations? but, new york is a unique population as compared to most of the country, eh? jeff |
I wish I'd been there
"jeff" wrote in message if all were as thoughtful, rational, and equitable as you (and many others who write here) in evaluating candidates, perhaps hillary would have a chance. perception becomes reality for too many voters... I might tend to agree....but, what is HRC if not yet another in a string of Dem candidates who merely play to a shallow impression of what the polls tell them?? They haven't even proven too savvy at that. Frankly, I have damn near throttled my in-laws and other supposed Dem heavy-hitters when they touted first Gore(personality of a block of wood, similar speaking presentation), then Kerry (good hair, hardly intelligent or deep, and I never could fathom where anyone sees otherwise) . Despite his personal issues, Bill Clinton has more brains, and legitimate people skills than both of them, and his, um, spouse, put together.....which is why, were he permitted, he could win any election anywhere, anytime, to this day. That fact ****es Republicans off to no end, which is another point I enjoyg. The job of President is a leadership position, and the Dems have not been putting forth leadership material, nor presenting any cohesive notion of governance other than "we aren't Republicans", which, while a good start, just sounds kind of empty for 4 months of heavy campaigning. It IS no wonder they keep losing, I just hope the next election proves different...... Tom |
I wish I'd been there
Mr. Opus McDopus wrote:
"rw" wrote in message nk.net... Mr. Opus McDopus wrote: "rw" wrote in message hlink.net... Opie wrote: If she is nominated by the Dems, you can figure another 4 years of neo-con control! Especially if Nader runs again. Get you a good mirror and a decent set of forceps, and pull that Nader bug out of your swollen ass! If the Dems want to shout themselves in the head--again--they should go ahead and nominate Hillary. I certainly won't vote for her, and I'm far from a Republican. I'm registered "Unaffiliated." the Dems will lose fro the same reasons that they lost the last two times--they ain't got no decent candidates to run up against an electorate that can be led around by bible thumping, security scare fanatics! Go ahead Putz, get her nominated. It fun to see that I can raise your blood pressure as easily as Fortenberry raises LaCourse's. You've got to be kidding, you silly twit. Why on Earth would I get upset over nonsense? You are no different from Dave L. You won't consider facts. You rely on "truthiness." You have never once admitted to the fact that the Dems lost the two elections, due to their own party's ineffectiveness, lack of ideas, sedentary policies (both foreign and domestic), adherence to special interest platforms and ideals that went against the grain of a great portion of the electorate, acceptance of immoral character (real or imagined by others--think Monica), and a host of other reasons to which you just can't bring yourself to face. Ralph Nader nor any other third, forth, or fifth party candidate, nor those who voted for them caused the Dems to lose those two most critical elections. The Dems--read: DNC and party elites including Gore and Kerry-- did it all by their little pea-brained selves. Love, Op odd how opinions of others get formed and expressed here. but, i have absolutely no hesitation in saying that i do not think you are correct in your assessment of rw. imo, he's not a putz or a silly twit or any other derogatory name he has been called on this newsgroup...nor is he like dave or anyone else on this planet. from my personal interaction with him, and from my assessment of his writings here, he is quite unique, thoughtful, engaging, capable, and worthy of respect...whether you agree with his opinions or not. while on occasions, he gets drawn into or initiates some of the disorder, many other thoughtful and unique people are equally culpable. i don't agree with many things said here by folks who i consider to be friends... i frequently (and, admittedly, silently) disagree with the methods of expression more than the underlying concepts being expressed. and, btw, i am recovering just fine from my snakebite and from the u.c. trek...the kentucky bourbon is excellent balm. (twitch, twitch) jeff |
I wish I'd been there
|
I wish I'd been there
Mr. Opus McDopus wrote:
"rw" wrote in message nk.net... Mr. Opus McDopus wrote: "rw" wrote in message hlink.net... Opie wrote: If she is nominated by the Dems, you can figure another 4 years of neo-con control! Especially if Nader runs again. Get you a good mirror and a decent set of forceps, and pull that Nader bug out of your swollen ass! If the Dems want to shout themselves in the head--again--they should go ahead and nominate Hillary. I certainly won't vote for her, and I'm far from a Republican. I'm registered "Unaffiliated." the Dems will lose fro the same reasons that they lost the last two times--they ain't got no decent candidates to run up against an electorate that can be led around by bible thumping, security scare fanatics! Go ahead Putz, get her nominated. It fun to see that I can raise your blood pressure as easily as Fortenberry raises LaCourse's. You've got to be kidding, you silly twit. Why on Earth would I get upset over nonsense? Q.E.D. You have your button and I can push it anytime I want to. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
I wish I'd been there
"rw" wrote in message k.net... Mr. Opus McDopus wrote: "rw" wrote in message nk.net... Mr. Opus McDopus wrote: "rw" wrote in message hlink.net... Opie wrote: If she is nominated by the Dems, you can figure another 4 years of neo-con control! Especially if Nader runs again. Get you a good mirror and a decent set of forceps, and pull that Nader bug out of your swollen ass! If the Dems want to shout themselves in the head--again--they should go ahead and nominate Hillary. I certainly won't vote for her, and I'm far from a Republican. I'm registered "Unaffiliated." the Dems will lose fro the same reasons that they lost the last two times--they ain't got no decent candidates to run up against an electorate that can be led around by bible thumping, security scare fanatics! Go ahead Putz, get her nominated. It fun to see that I can raise your blood pressure as easily as Fortenberry raises LaCourse's. You've got to be kidding, you silly twit. Why on Earth would I get upset over nonsense? Q.E.D. You have your button and I can push it anytime I want to. That you have nothing better to do with your life than to "push" some supposed buttons is quite telling. That you make false statements concerning the previous political elections, and then can't/won't respond to rebuttals proves just how shallow your political knowledge is! Push away Stevie, it's very entertaining. Op |
I wish I'd been there
"jeff" wrote in message news:Yxc6g.10095$9c6.2027@dukeread11... Mr. Opus McDopus wrote: "rw" wrote in message nk.net... Mr. Opus McDopus wrote: "rw" wrote in message hlink.net... Opie wrote: If she is nominated by the Dems, you can figure another 4 years of neo-con control! Especially if Nader runs again. Get you a good mirror and a decent set of forceps, and pull that Nader bug out of your swollen ass! If the Dems want to shout themselves in the head--again--they should go ahead and nominate Hillary. I certainly won't vote for her, and I'm far from a Republican. I'm registered "Unaffiliated." the Dems will lose fro the same reasons that they lost the last two times--they ain't got no decent candidates to run up against an electorate that can be led around by bible thumping, security scare fanatics! Go ahead Putz, get her nominated. It fun to see that I can raise your blood pressure as easily as Fortenberry raises LaCourse's. You've got to be kidding, you silly twit. Why on Earth would I get upset over nonsense? You are no different from Dave L. You won't consider facts. You rely on "truthiness." You have never once admitted to the fact that the Dems lost the two elections, due to their own party's ineffectiveness, lack of ideas, sedentary policies (both foreign and domestic), adherence to special interest platforms and ideals that went against the grain of a great portion of the electorate, acceptance of immoral character (real or imagined by others--think Monica), and a host of other reasons to which you just ca n't bring yourself to face. Ralph Nader nor any other third, forth, or fifth party candidate, nor those who voted for them caused the Dems to lose those two most critical elections. The Dems--read: DNC and party elites including Gore and Kerry-- did it all by their little pea-brained selves. Love, Op odd how opinions of others get formed and expressed here. but, i have absolutely no hesitation in saying that i do not think you are correct in your assessment of rw. imo, he's not a putz or a silly twit or any other derogatory name he has been called on this newsgroup...nor is he like dave or anyone else on this planet. from my personal interaction with him, and from my assessment of his writings here, he is quite unique, thoughtful, engaging, capable, and worthy of respect... Yes, but that's the thing about opinions, they vary widely and wildly, in many cases. I respectflly agree t odisagree, with you, on this matter. whether you agree with his opinions or not. while on occasions, he gets drawn into or initiates some of the disorder, many other thoughtful and unique people are equally culpable. Guilty myself. i don't agree with many things said here by folks who i consider to be friends... i frequently (and, admittedly, silently) disagree with the methods of expression more than the underlying concepts being expressed. Same here. and, btw, i am recovering just fine from my snakebite and from the u.c. trek...the kentucky bourbon is excellent balm. (twitch, twitch) It WAS a good time! thanks for the Eastern Camaraderie Op jeff |
I wish I'd been there
Opie wrote:
Push away Stevie, it's very entertaining. Ralph Nader. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
I wish I'd been there
"rw" wrote in message k.net... ...You have your button and I can push it anytime I want to. Hee, hee, hee. Wolfgang |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:48 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter