|
|
Oh, he's gotta be kidding...
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...-fist-bumping/
This is supposed to be the guy who can stand up and change things? Now he's letting some dumbass remark by a dip**** on Fox News determine his actions? If he had real stones, he'd have fist-bumped with the kid and then laughed at anyone who mentioned "terrorism" in connection with it...of course, if he had real stones, he'd have let a few more black folks and ladies in headscarfs be seen with him, too... Sheesh, R |
Oh, he's gotta be kidding...
On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:26:16 -0400, daytripper
wrote: Looks like you got suckered, bub... Hopefully we won't all be suckered and left with *change* in our pockets, bub.... |
Oh, he's gotta be kidding...
On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:26:16 -0400, daytripper
wrote: On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 08:34:57 -0500, wrote: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...-fist-bumping/ This is supposed to be the guy who can stand up and change things? Now he's letting some dumbass remark by a dip**** on Fox News determine his actions? If he had real stones, he'd have fist-bumped with the kid and then laughed at anyone who mentioned "terrorism" in connection with it...of course, if he had real stones, he'd have let a few more black folks and ladies in headscarfs be seen with him, too... Sheesh, R http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...bump-not-gone/ Looks like you got suckered, bub... Good. I'm glad the original report was wrong. TC, R |
Oh, he's gotta be kidding...
"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message ... Hopefully we won't all be suckered and left with *change* in our pockets, bub.... yup, in times like these, it's always best to go with the guy who claims economics "isn't my strong suit". Tom ....."bomb, bomb,bomb. Bomb, bomb, Iran." I suspect that little videotaped ditty will be shown whenever McCain attempts to portray himself as the "responsible choice". Time will tell. |
Oh, he's gotta be kidding...
On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 21:27:07 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote: yup, in times like these, it's always best to go with the guy who claims economics "isn't my strong suit". Honesty. A terrrrrible virtue for a politician. No president is an expert at all things. That is what his capinet/advisors are for. What economic experience does "Loose Change" have. At least Mc has more experience in leadership than a jr. senator that has been so for only 143 days (his total time actually serving in the Senate). Dave |
Oh, he's gotta be kidding...
Tom Littleton wrote:
McCain and Abel said: ....economics isn't my strong suit". Tom ...."bomb, bomb,bomb. Bomb, bomb, Iran." I'm not going to try to vilify McCain. Compared to Bush (the dumbest and most dangerous president we've ever had) he's a breath of fresh air. But it is interesting: when a republican presidential hopeful openly admits he's not real strong on economics, that means he's not particularly interesting in it, and also that he buys the stock republican party economics propaganda: .....Government is inherently bad, so no government at all is good. Or, in other words: we're better off when corporations get to do what ever they want, without any regulation, direction or oversight. It also means he'll (like vice-president Bush) do what ever his advisers tell him to do. So why then does McCain even want to be president? Perhaps he's primarily interested in running the Pentagon, he wants to project a strong military presence to the world at large...and he wants to get what he thinks is good for the USA with a strong arm and stiff narrow gaze. Trouble is, it's precisely those two attitudes that got us where we are today: half broke, with a dwindling dollar, Chinese owning most of the infrastructure, sky rocketing deficits, burgeoning mega-rich and a sinking middle class. And we're mired in one war we didn't need, while neglecting another we needed to fight. And there are still lots of people ready and eager to vote for more of the same. That's the depressing part. -- /* Colin (Sandy) Pittendrigh --O0 ** Have code will travel */ |
Oh, he's gotta be kidding...
On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 21:27:07 GMT, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message .. . Hopefully we won't all be suckered and left with *change* in our pockets, bub.... yup, in times like these, it's always best to go with the guy who claims economics "isn't my strong suit". Tom Well, of course ;-) Just like it was best to go with the guy that was a miserable failure at everything he ever did - and demonstrably, still is. ...."bomb, bomb,bomb. Bomb, bomb, Iran." I suspect that little videotaped ditty will be shown whenever McCain attempts to portray himself as the "responsible choice". Time will tell. Yes, there's that telling little ditty. Clearly, diplomacy - on any level - ain't McSame's strong suit, either. But for sheer mileage potential, there's this lovely image of a boy and his dog: http://static.flickr.com/97/247882094_e666b03ed8.jpg Hard to run from that, eh? ;-) And then there's the story behind this: http://tinyurl.com/5e77bx which is sure to endear him with voters of the feminine gland... /daytripper (Oh those wacky, crazy, nutzoid Republicans ;-) |
Oh, he's gotta be kidding...
Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 21:27:07 GMT, "Tom Littleton" wrote: yup, in times like these, it's always best to go with the guy who claims economics "isn't my strong suit". Honesty. A terrrrrible virtue for a politician. No president is an expert at all things. That is what his capinet/advisors are for. What economic experience does "Loose Change" have. At least Mc has more experience in leadership than a jr. senator that has been so for only 143 days (his total time actually serving in the Senate). Dave uh...in a new statement this week, mccain, trying to distinguish himself, said he knows and understands the economy (or some such thing)... he's the typical washington politician, and he's old (in more than just age) too. hell, if he was your man, you'd be claiming LC's 143 days in the washington cesspool was a virtue...one any conservative would approve of - a devotion to less government and all that. g jeff |
Oh, he's gotta be kidding...
|
Oh, he's gotta be kidding...
salmobytes wrote in news:J8udncO-
: But it is interesting: when a republican presidential hopeful openly admits he's not real strong on economics, that means he's not particularly interesting in it, and also that he buys the stock republican party economics propaganda: Now he denies saying he was less than an economic expert. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2008/s...5292190&page=1 -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
Oh, he's gotta be kidding...
On 3 Jul 2008 12:10:32 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote: salmobytes wrote in news:J8udncO- : But it is interesting: when a republican presidential hopeful openly admits he's not real strong on economics, that means he's not particularly interesting in it, and also that he buys the stock republican party economics propaganda: Now he denies saying he was less than an economic expert. He does? http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2008/s...5292190&page=1 Lessee...first, you have the implied meaning of "not exactly an expert." Fairness dictates an admission that such phrasing is at least somewhat "loaded" and accuracy dictates an admission that it appears unlikely and no available evidence indicate(s) that McCain (or Obama) is (are) actually and literally an _economics expert(s)_. That said, let's look at what was said: "'You have admitted that you're not exactly an expert when it comes to the economy,' Roberts began." ""I have not. I have not. I actually have not,' McCain interrupted." The quotes used to "prove" McCain "admitted" he was "not exactly an expert" in _economics_: ""The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should.'" (Something an economics or any other expert might say and feel about the field of their expertise - IAC, saying you don't understand something "as well I should" doesn't translate to someone admitted they "are not exactly an expert.") "'I am not an expert on Wall Street. I am not an expert on some of this stuff.'" Trust me on this or don't, but there are lots of "experts on economics" - economists - who don't understand "Wall Street," either. IAC, admitting to not being an "expert on Wall Street" is not the same as admitting to being "not exactly an expert" on economics or the economy any more than admitting to not being an expert on deep-sea fishing is the same as admitting or claiming anything about trout fishing or fly fishing. And I'd offer that a fair percentage of the posters to and even readers of ROFF would fall into such a category. I'd offer that while it does the process good to bust these guys when they do screw up, it does no good to try to "Michael Moore" them into appearing to have done something wrong when they haven't. Plus, they're politicians, there will be plenty enough to bust them on without resorting to making **** up... TC, R |
Oh, he's gotta be kidding...
On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 06:40:27 -0400, jeff miller
wrote: Dave LaCourse wrote: On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 21:27:07 GMT, "Tom Littleton" wrote: yup, in times like these, it's always best to go with the guy who claims economics "isn't my strong suit". Honesty. A terrrrrible virtue for a politician. No president is an expert at all things. That is what his capinet/advisors are for. What economic experience does "Loose Change" have. At least Mc has more experience in leadership than a jr. senator that has been so for only 143 days (his total time actually serving in the Senate). Dave uh...in a new statement this week, mccain, trying to distinguish himself, said he knows and understands the economy (or some such thing)... he's the typical washington politician, and he's old (in more than just age) too. hell, if he was your man, you'd be claiming LC's 143 days in the washington cesspool was a virtue...one any conservative would approve of - a devotion to less government and all that. g jeff Thus far, both seem equally well-versed about economics...and about as equally well-versed about economics as they are about the surface of Pluto...one need look no further than their silly-assed statements about their ideas about fuel tax holidays and taxing "big oil companies" as ways to reduce gasoline prices in the US for evidence of same... TC, R |
Oh, he's gotta be kidding...
wrote in message ... Thus far, both seem equally well-versed about economics...and about as equally well-versed about economics as they are about the surface of Pluto...one need look no further than their silly-assed statements about their ideas about fuel tax holidays and taxing "big oil companies" as ways to reduce gasoline prices in the US for evidence of same... admittedly quite true.....gawd, I wish someone, sometime, running for President would sell me on a pitch of:: " Look, I have common sense, and a reasonable lack of ideological zeal. I can find, attract and hire talented wonks to actually figure out how to fix some the crap going wrong around here. I'll try to do it without hosing you in taxes for needless stuff, and work at explaining what we are doing and thinking. I'm going to be an executive, not an all around know-it-all about everything." Wouldn't that be refreshing? Tom |
Oh, he's gotta be kidding...
On Jul 3, 7:01*pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
wrote in message ... Thus far, both seem equally well-versed about economics...and about as equally well-versed about economics as they are about the surface of Pluto...one need look no further than their silly-assed statements about their ideas about fuel tax holidays and taxing "big oil companies" as ways to reduce gasoline prices in the US for evidence of same... admittedly quite true.....gawd, I wish someone, sometime, running for President would sell me on a pitch of:: " Look, I have common sense, and a reasonable lack of ideological zeal. I can find, attract and hire talented wonks to actually figure out how to fix some the crap going wrong around here. I'll try to do it without hosing you in taxes for needless stuff, and work at explaining what we are doing and thinking. I'm going to be an executive, not an all around know-it-all about everything." Wouldn't that be refreshing? * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Tom Yep, especially that "lack of ideological zeal(.)" bit. Maybe get us back in touch with our national origins as children of the Enlightenment who value empirisicm, experimentation, tolerance and the scientific method. But then we would have to purge and root out a lot of Hamiltonian Federalists and Randists who have done so much damage to our democratic institutions, our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Dave |
Oh, he's gotta be kidding...
, wrote:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...-fist-bumping/ This is supposed to be the guy snip snip more political drivel snip " in connection with it...of course, if he had real stones, he'd have let a few more black folks and ladies in headscarfs be seen with him, too... Sheesh, R http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...bump-not-gone/ =========== From another post---to show my appreciation of this poster - Panzer: This has something to do with fly fishing ???? FOAD or at least post it in alt.who.cares -- Panzer ====== Does this jerkoff rdean ever post on topic? Luckily I killfiled him But I see his posts reflecrted in other posts Perhaps he will go to a political group and post his crap there. Hiowever He would probably make good fish bait Fred |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:00 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter