DaveS wrote:
Rick, after 8+ years of your political ****, ass kissing each and
every move of Bush/Cheney and the Greed Interregnum, ignoring the
substance of every move of these clowns against the Constitutional
foundations of the country, putting the most ridiculous
interpretations on the most despicable venal moves and defending
slavishly each and every theft of taxpayer money and trust. . . why in
heaven's name do you think you have any credibility whatsoever in
pretending that yours is an objective or useful assessment of Obama?

The thing most people get, which apparently you do not yet
understand, is that the people, the voters have decided that the
choices you advocated were incompetent crooks and the voters decided
to give the "Ds" a chance to clean up the mess that your team created,
and the mess that you are unwilling to take any responsibility for.
The least you could do is to re-examine your thinking and consider
where you went wrong. Do that for a bit, and maybe you would have some
credibility in this off topic area. Until that happens your stuff
reads "stubborn loser/learning unlikely."

Well and rightly said but our friend Rick Bean Dean lost all
credibility a long time. It was Rick who assured us that Obama
and his team were naifs, babes in the woods, inexperienced,
amateur neophytes who had no chance in hell against the Clinton,
heir apparent juggernaut. Obama trounced them and won the
Democratic nomination going away.

It was Rick who told us in no uncertain terms that Obama and his
team were rank amateurs who hadn't the sense or experience to
take on the best of the best of the GOP. Obama won in an electoral
landslide.

Now it's Rick Bean Dean spouting the same old bull****, (he's
really big on bull**** ;-), about how Obama and his team have no
smarts, experience, common sense or savvy. Yeah, your label fits
perfectly, "stubborn loser/learning unlikely". As for credibility,
well maybe if you borrow the tinfoil hood when the antenna works. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry