|
|
Obama
I'm driving 120 miles round-trip to the the Democratic Party caucus in
Challis to support Obama. Custer County has one delegate. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
Obama
"rw" I'm driving 120 miles round-trip to the the Democratic Party caucus in Challis to support Obama. good on ya for taking the effort to vote, rw ( best choice of who for, too :-) Custer County has one delegate. to represent how many millions of trout ? seems unfair, to me g Larry L ( who is certain that if trout could vote, only planters would ever vote Republican and then only the very dumbest planters, at that ;-) |
Obama
On Feb 5, 2:36*pm, "Larry L" wrote:
best choice of who for, too I had to read that a couple of times before it sunk in. :-) Joe F. |
Obama
rw wrote:
I'm driving 120 miles round-trip to the the Democratic Party caucus in Challis to support Obama. Custer County has one delegate. I walked exactly 73 paces from my door to the door of the church/polling place in the next block to cast my vote for Barack Obama. There are four delegates out of Illinois' 185 at stake in my district. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Obama
"rb608" I had to read that a couple of times before it sunk in. :-) It's a fact of my life that my efforrts often don't parse well :-( |
Obama
On Feb 5, 1:21*pm, rw wrote:
I'm driving 120 miles round-trip to the the Democratic Party caucus in Challis I'm still drinking out of my Edwards '08 coffee mug, waiting to see whether or not my vote next week has any chance of meaning anything. Joe F. |
Obama
"Larry L" wrote It's a fact of my life that my efforrts often don't parse well :-( or pass spell check |
Obama
"rb608" wrote in message ... On Feb 5, 1:21 pm, rw wrote: I'm driving 120 miles round-trip to the the Democratic Party caucus in Challis I'm still drinking out of my Edwards '08 coffee mug, waiting to see whether or not my vote next week has any chance of meaning anything. Joe F. I still have my McGovern mug from '72. -tom |
Obama
On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 11:21:17 -0700, rw
wrote: I'm driving 120 miles round-trip to the the Democratic Party caucus in Challis to support Obama. Custer County has one delegate. And you're his/her driver? ;-) Ok ok - I reckon we're supposed to make that leap of logic that you are, in fact, the sole Democrat (note there's no "ic" in the party name - and you should know that already ;-) delegate for your country. How many Republican delegates have they? /daytripper (who has been inundated with go-vote-for-me phone calls all day, even though I already voted early this morning....Sheesh - I've never been this popular ;-) |
Obama
On 5-Feb-2008, rw wrote: I'm driving 120 miles round-trip to the the Democratic Party caucus in Challis to support Obama. Custer County has one delegate. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. I just would like to see the current scumbags voted out of office ASAP and resoundingly so! Good luck w Obama I have my doubts whether this country is yet ready for a black man as Prez But my border collie is a better choice than what we have now Fred Fred |
Obama
|
Obama
"Tom Nakashima" wrote in news:foahi3$5e1$1
@news.Stanford.EDU: "rb608" wrote in message ... On Feb 5, 1:21 pm, rw wrote: I'm driving 120 miles round-trip to the the Democratic Party caucus in Challis I'm still drinking out of my Edwards '08 coffee mug, waiting to see whether or not my vote next week has any chance of meaning anything. Joe F. I still have my McGovern mug from '72. -tom I still have my Canuckistanian "No, eh?" anti free trade button from the Reagan years. -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
Obama
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 17:15:23 -0500, "Tim J."
wrote: typed: On 5-Feb-2008, rw wrote: I'm driving 120 miles round-trip to the the Democratic Party caucus in Challis to support Obama. Custer County has one delegate. I just would like to see the current scumbags voted out of office ASAP and resoundingly so! Let us know how you mark the ballot to vote someone out. -- TL, Tim (It must be one of those Florida thingies. . . ) ------------------------- http://css.sbcma.com/timj Nahhh. He's just been smokin' some baaaaad stuff, dontchaknow. |
Obama
rw wrote:
I'm driving 120 miles round-trip to the the Democratic Party caucus in Challis to support Obama. Custer County has one delegate. i'll chip in on your gas bill next time i see you...good work!! i'll be interested in seeing what happens. this has been a facinating primary process on both sides... jeff |
Obama
Steve wrote:
On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 20:22:55 -0500, jeff miller wrote: i'll chip in on your gas bill next time i see you...good work!! Always using the big money to sway the vote. Politics as usual. g |
Obama
"rb608" wrote in message ... On Feb 5, 1:21 pm, rw wrote: I'm driving 120 miles round-trip to the the Democratic Party caucus in Challis I'm still drinking out of my Edwards '08 coffee mug, waiting to see whether or not my vote next week has any chance of meaning anything. Joe F. I got a ****pot load of Perot '92 buttons somewhere. Maybe I should ebay them? Op |
Obama
daytripper wrote:
On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 11:21:17 -0700, rw wrote: I'm driving 120 miles round-trip to the the Democratic Party caucus in Challis to support Obama. Custer County has one delegate. And you're his/her driver? ;-) The caucus went something like 42 for Obama to 8 for Clinton, and I was chosen as the delegate to represent Obama at the state convention. So yes, as it turns out I was the driver of the delegate. :-) -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
Obama
"rw" wrote The caucus went something like 42 for Obama to 8 for Clinton, and I was chosen as the delegate to represent Obama at the state convention. So yes, as it turns out I was the driver of the delegate. :-) Way cool ! |
Obama
rw wrote:
daytripper wrote: On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 11:21:17 -0700, rw wrote: I'm driving 120 miles round-trip to the the Democratic Party caucus in Challis to support Obama. Custer County has one delegate. And you're his/her driver? ;-) The caucus went something like 42 for Obama to 8 for Clinton, and I was chosen as the delegate to represent Obama at the state convention. So yes, as it turns out I was the driver of the delegate. :-) Correction: Obama 50, Clinton 8 Statewide, Obama thrashed Clinton. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
Obama
In article , rw
wrote: The caucus went something like 42 for Obama to 8 for Clinton, and I was chosen as the delegate to represent Obama at the state convention. So yes, as it turns out I was the driver of the delegate. :-) Wow! To this long-time exile, could you, succinctly, explain why Obama is much better than Clinton? I have a republican (as opposed to Republican) dislike for dynasties and she went the wrong way, and he the right way, over Iraq, but beyond that? (There's a nice article in today's Manchester Guardian about this - http://tinyurl.com/37hyjs but it's written by a Brit, and thus inevitably a bit suspect) Lazarus |
Obama
Lazarus Cooke wrote:
In article , rw wrote: The caucus went something like 42 for Obama to 8 for Clinton, and I was chosen as the delegate to represent Obama at the state convention. So yes, as it turns out I was the driver of the delegate. :-) Wow! To this long-time exile, could you, succinctly, explain why Obama is much better than Clinton? Change. Succinct enough? Their policy positions are nearly identical. I'm just sick of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. I don't care about charisma or oratorical skills. I just want something different. I have a republican (as opposed to Republican) dislike for dynasties I feel the same way. and she went the wrong way, and he the right way, over Iraq, but beyond that? Beyond that? That's BIG. That's HUGE! The establishment Democrats, like Hillary Clinton, were afraid to vote against the Iraq war resolution in the wake of 9/11 because they were afraid to be seen as weak on national security. It was a cowardly vote, IMO. If Hillary Clinton end's up the nominee I will enthusiastically vote for her. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
Obama
The last president I voted for was Ross Pereau. The rest of them are just crooked laywers. "Do the Math"! Need some Change Agentry! -- DoubleHaul ------------------------------------------------------------------------ DoubleHaul's Profile: http://www.njflyfishing.com/vBulleti...hp?userid=1306 View this thread: http://www.njflyfishing.com/vBulleti...ad.php?t=13800 ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Obama
"Lazarus Cooke" wrote To this long-time exile, could you, succinctly, explain why Obama is much better than Clinton? I have a republican (as opposed to Republican) dislike for dynasties and she went the wrong way, and he the right way, over Iraq, but beyond that? (There's a nice article in today's Manchester Guardian about this - http://tinyurl.com/37hyjs but it's written by a Brit, and thus inevitably a bit suspect) I think the article you site does a good job ... i.e. there aren't huge 'issue' differences The reasons I prefer Obama include ... he strikes me as extremely intelligent ( a very big change over the last 8 years ), not that Clinton is dumb. Obama has a quality you don't often see in politicians, he actually listens. Let me use this ROFF place to explain how I mean that. Around here, people read ( listen) only until they have something to attack or use to gain points for themselves, often ending up mis-reading in the haste to attack/ defend, this is the typical politicians style too. Obama gives me the impression that he actually tries hard to understand what is being said, and works as hard at finding things to agree with as to disagree with. I base this observation over the long term and not just the last few weeks, where, sadly, Obama has be forced more into a 'sound bite' mode. Obama is bringing LOTS of new people into the process, young people and older folk wanting to hope again. Democracy is about 'the people' and the fact that several TIMES as many people are voting, this Dem primary, as in the past IS ALREADY a wonderful accomplishment for the man. Obama is truly interested in the future, in trying to find common ground and start repairing the damage Rove et al have done to our country. I base this on what he says and my "gut" evaluation of his honesty. Clinton uses much of the same language of "change" and "future" but also slips often into little lapses that, to me, indicate she really wants to go back to the 90's and 'settle some business' .... first you 'can't go home again' ... second, we need a person that really wants to unite, not one with a chip still shouldered. ANY of the Republicans running would be far, Far, FAR, worse than any of the Dems that have. McCain is better than Bush, but who isn't? That said, 'electability' is a big issue ... right now polls show Obama would beat McCain handily, Clinton would lose to him. Many Republicans don't have anyone to vote FOR in this race, but Many, Many would come out to vote AGAINST Hillary. MY Country desperately needs an "image makeover" in the world thanks to Bush ( as you well understand ) IMHO, electing Obama in a country that has our racist history will send a clear massage to the world that we ARE still trying to be a place where anyone can 'make it' and greatly improve our image ( this is my only 'racial' thought about this election ). Electing Clinton II shortly after electing Bush II will increase the impression that we are really becoming a place of dynasties As rw says, if Clinton gets the nomination, I'll vote and work for her since she stands head, shoulders, and bust line g above any on the other side .... but Obama is the first ( mostly for 'gut impression' reasons ) politician in a long time that I have voted FOR ... strictly FOR .... i.e. I didn't vote against Hillary .... I voted FOR Obama |
Obama
P.S.
I read an article ( I tried to find it and link, but couldn't ) by a political analist about 'why Obama won S.C." after that state voted. Two things struck me. First, it was pointed out that Obama's campaign worked much harder ( many statistics were quoted ), much of that work by voluteers. Second, the author said that Obama seemed to have great skill at "picking talent" and went on to outline his paid staff, their achievements, and their dedication. At the time I called my wife to the monitor, had her read the page and asked, "After Bush with his more vacation time than anyone in history and 'you're doing a great job Brownie' ...... what more could we really want from a President than hard work and the ability to surround himself with talent?" The only other thing might be that he actually listen to that talented staff of advisors ... see my previous post G |
Obama
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 23:25:57 GMT, "Larry L"
wrote: "Lazarus Cooke" wrote To this long-time exile, could you, succinctly, explain why Obama is much better than Clinton? I have a republican (as opposed to Republican) dislike for dynasties and she went the wrong way, and he the right way, over Iraq, but beyond that? (There's a nice article in today's Manchester Guardian about this - http://tinyurl.com/37hyjs but it's written by a Brit, and thus inevitably a bit suspect) I think the article you site does a good job ... i.e. there aren't huge 'issue' differences The reasons I prefer Obama include ... he strikes me as extremely intelligent ( a very big change over the last 8 years ), not that Clinton is dumb. Obama has a quality you don't often see in politicians, he actually listens. Let me use this ROFF place to explain how I mean that. Around here, people read ( listen) only until they have something to attack or use to gain points for themselves, often ending up mis-reading in the haste to attack/ defend, this is the typical politicians style too. Obama gives me the impression that he actually tries hard to understand what is being said, and works as hard at finding things to agree with as to disagree with. I base this observation over the long term and not just the last few weeks, where, sadly, Obama has be forced more into a 'sound bite' mode. Obama is bringing LOTS of new people into the process, young people and older folk wanting to hope again. Democracy is about 'the people' and the fact that several TIMES as many people are voting, this Dem primary, as in the past IS ALREADY a wonderful accomplishment for the man. Obama is truly interested in the future, in trying to find common ground and start repairing the damage Rove et al have done to our country. I base this on what he says and my "gut" evaluation of his honesty. Clinton uses much of the same language of "change" and "future" but also slips often into little lapses that, to me, indicate she really wants to go back to the 90's and 'settle some business' .... first you 'can't go home again' ... second, we need a person that really wants to unite, not one with a chip still shouldered. ANY of the Republicans running would be far, Far, FAR, worse than any of the Dems that have. McCain is better than Bush, but who isn't? That said, 'electability' is a big issue ... right now polls show Obama would beat McCain handily, Clinton would lose to him. Many Republicans don't have anyone to vote FOR in this race, but Many, Many would come out to vote AGAINST Hillary. MY Country desperately needs an "image makeover" in the world thanks to Bush ( as you well understand ) IMHO, electing Obama in a country that has our racist history will send a clear massage to the world that we ARE still trying to be a place where anyone can 'make it' and greatly improve our image ( this is my only 'racial' thought about this election ). Electing Clinton II shortly after electing Bush II will increase the impression that we are really becoming a place of dynasties As rw says, if Clinton gets the nomination, I'll vote and work for her since she stands head, shoulders, and bust line g above any on the other side ... but Obama is the first ( mostly for 'gut impression' reasons ) politician in a long time that I have voted FOR ... strictly FOR .... i.e. I didn't vote against Hillary .... I voted FOR Obama Well said and rightly spoken. And thank you for that... /daytripper |
Obama
Larry L wrote:
As rw says, if Clinton gets the nomination, I'll vote and work for her since she stands head, shoulders, and bust line g above any on the other side .... but Obama is the first ( mostly for 'gut impression' reasons ) politician in a long time that I have voted FOR ... strictly FOR .... i.e. I didn't vote against Hillary .... I voted FOR Obama I think Obama will eventually get the nomination, but it might be a brokered convention. That alone would be an entertaining political drama, unseen in America for many years. The Democratic nomination might come down to the "super delegates," who are typically office holders or insiders of some stripe. They can vote for whomever they please. I'm an ordinary delegate. My vote is committed to Obama, the overwhelming favorite (50-8) of my fellow caucus members. My biggest problem with Hillary Clinton is that she could energize the rabid right-wing Republican vote. They hate her. Her campaign would be a get-out-the-vote campaign for the wingers. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
Obama
Thanks, Royal and Larry etc..
You've convinced me. Lazarus |
Obama
Steve wrote:
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:56:54 -0700, rw wrote: My biggest problem with Hillary Clinton is that she could energize the rabid right-wing Republican vote. They hate her. Her campaign would be a get-out-the-vote campaign for the wingers. Even those of us who consider themselves Jeffersonian independents tremble at the thought of 2-4 Supreme Court justices appointed for their policy of activism. She has stated she's a big fan of Ginsburg. A society does not benefit from an activist judiciary. so, um, depends on whether or not the activism is based on service to jeffersonian ideals, eh? jeff |
Obama
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 01:09:25 GMT, Steve wrote:
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:56:54 -0700, rw wrote: My biggest problem with Hillary Clinton is that she could energize the rabid right-wing Republican vote. They hate her. Her campaign would be a get-out-the-vote campaign for the wingers. Even those of us who consider themselves Jeffersonian independents tremble at the thought of 2-4 Supreme Court justices appointed for their policy of activism. She has stated she's a big fan of Ginsburg. A society does not benefit from an activist judiciary. [..../] Irony meter /daytripper (it's gonna be a long political season ;-) |
Obama
"DoubleHaul" wrote in message ... The last president I voted for was Ross Pereau. please, somebody......Google this name and find out who the heck Ross Pereau is. Gawd, I just love a nation where you can vote for someone whose name you cannot even spell correctly!! And, then, we wonder why we, as a nation, elect seeming imbeciles to office. Tom |
Obama
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 18:20:20 -0500, DoubleHaul
wrote: The last president I voted for was Ross Pereau. The rest of them are just crooked laywers. "Do the Math"! Need some Change Agentry! Of which country was "Ross Pereau" the president? France? Belgium? /daytripper (Quebec? ;-) |
Obama
"jeff miller" wrote in message . .. i'll chip in on your gas bill next time i see you...good work!! oh, here we go again. Jeff will put in "Regular" and all hell will break loose...... Tom p.s. What? Doesn't everyone throw a fit over that one? |
Obama
On Feb 6, 3:08 pm, rw wrote:
Their policy positions are nearly identical. I'm just sick of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. I don't care about charisma or oratorical skills. I just want something different. If Hillary Clinton end's up the nominee I will enthusiastically vote for her. You're tired of Bush-Clinton. Want something different. Mad at Clinton for voting for the Iraq war. But if (when) she gets the nomination you'll vote for her regardless? I just don't get people who vote strictly based on party. No wonder both parties keep nominating garbage. - Ken |
Obama
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 20:59:52 -0800 (PST), "
wrote: On Feb 6, 3:08 pm, rw wrote: Their policy positions are nearly identical. I'm just sick of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. I don't care about charisma or oratorical skills. I just want something different. If Hillary Clinton end's up the nominee I will enthusiastically vote for her. You're tired of Bush-Clinton. Want something different. Mad at Clinton for voting for the Iraq war. But if (when) she gets the nomination you'll vote for her regardless? I just don't get people who vote strictly based on party. No wonder both parties keep nominating garbage. - Ken OK, throw out party platforms... For whatever reason, RW is inclined to vote for a democrat, whoever that might be come November. He said he prefers Obama, but implies that he'd take Clinton over any of the republican contenders. So what's the problem? I thought he'd explained his position pretty clearly earlier in this thread. As Larry L. said, this is a person to vote *for*. Besides, what would his options be? If you are of the democrat persuasion, it's down to two people. Don |
Obama
Steve wrote:
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 20:33:57 -0500, jeff miller wrote: so, um, depends on whether or not the activism is based on service to jeffersonian ideals, eh? No, it does not. what is a "jeffersonian independent?" is one who is active in supporting jeffersonian ideals over some other principled philosophy an activist? which ideals? can a judge be a "jeffersonian activist"? you do know that pat robertson and his high priest of judicial activism, jay sekulow, profess to be adherents of jeffersonian ideals? i think most of those you might call an activist have probably cited jefferson in advancing their brand of activism. i have always had difficulty with certain labels...or figuring out how they are meant to apply (other than in the typical pejorative manner). in my mind, everyone is an "activist" of some sort if they have any principled philosophy at all. the idea that the judiciary cannot be "activist" is hard for me to grasp. I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, you would have no problem if the judicial activism suited your thoughtful ideals and philosophy of the purposes to be served by the court. in short, i think activism is in the eye of the beholder. some don't see clarence t. as an "activist" judge. my cryptic point was poorly made and my attempt to have you flesh out your statement was without success. jeff |
Obama
rw wrote in news:47aa44bf$0$14098
: My biggest problem with Hillary Clinton is that she could energize the rabid right-wing Republican vote. They hate her. Her campaign would be a get-out-the-vote campaign for the wingers. Yes, they do hate her, but I don't think that's enough this cycle. We had a 40% Democratic turnout for the primary in my county!!! Also, frankly, a good deal of those rabidly motivated by Hillary might be just as motivated by the thought of keeping a black man out of the White House. Some Dems might think that way too. -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
Obama
daytripper wrote in
: Of which country was "Ross Pereau" the president? France? Belgium? Belgium. He was the first mime elected to high public office. It was in direct response to GW's election win, in a move assured to prevent idiocy from being uttered in the State House. -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
Obama
"Tom Littleton" wrote in message news:GNtqj.6822$Qj3.5214@trndny07... "DoubleHaul" wrote in message ... The last president I voted for was Ross Pereau. please, somebody......Google this name and find out who the heck Ross Pereau is. Gawd, I just love a nation where you can vote for someone whose name you cannot even spell correctly!! And, then, we wonder why we, as a nation, elect seeming imbeciles to office. What's more interesting, I think, is that whoever he is he was president.....and nobody told me till now. Wolfgang always the last to know. |
Obama
"jeff miller" wrote in message . .. ...my cryptic point was poorly made I got it. and my attempt to have you flesh out your statement was without success. Surprise! :) We live in a world in which words like "liberal" and "conservative" are seen as necessarily antithetical. Both are used pejoratively. "Activist" is also used as a slander.....regardless of what one is active in pursuing. None of it is the least bit useful.....but it sure as hell beats the agony of thinking. Wolfgang and who are we to deny anyone the right to amuse and entertain us? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:37 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter