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

On 15 Feb 2008 23:22:18 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

I'm not complaining, Dave. I'm pointing out that the GOP did not need to
let this guy kill your party. Bush said "Trust me, guys", and he really
meant "Bend over, guys". When it became clear that the man could barely
manage flushing a toilet bowl, let alone a war, it should have been the
Republicans in the lead demanding simple competence. It should have
started right after the last election. If a high profile conservative took
the lead, that man would have been a strong contender in this race.

He won an election in 2000 that he should not have won. His opponent,
Al Gore, was just leaving an administration that was supposed to be
outstanding; the Whitehouse was Gore's, yet he didn't even carry his
own state. Something wrong there.

Bush was re-elected by a wide margin because you boys put a traitor,
liar, and womanizer up against him. And you say it is the
Republicans' fault? When are youse guys gonna learn? Now you have
Clinton (polarizer) and Obama (totally untested, who wrote a book).

Congress passed just about everything the Dems are complaining about.
There are any number of sound/video bites out there about everyone
from both Clintons, Pelosi, former Sec of States, et al who said there
were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Congressed passed the ok to
go to war, and have financed it since then.

Inflation is low, interest rates are low, and unemployment is normal.
And, I and mine are safe. Well, at least for the time being.

Dave

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:18:59 -0500, Jeff wrote:

Jeezus, I
always chuckle about the "experience" argument, especially when made by
republicans who exalt the election of ronnie reagan.

Uh, Jeff..... Reagan was a successful governor of our largest (most
populated) state for eight years. He was re-elected by a land-slide.

Obama has done nothing in the Senate. He started running for POTUS
upon his election and has done nothing except write a book. He is
neither tested nor with any kind of leadership skills. But the
number one thing wrong with him is Teddy Kennedy's endorsement. THAT
is enough to turn me sour.

Dave

Hello jeff,


Jim
mailto: j.g.edmondson at att dot net

Jim Edmondson wrote:

mccain has now been fully revealed...he's a
chameleon...and old! g
jeff

Jeff, do you ever hire/train any young people on the job? They are
very personable, socially aware, "different", they love change, but
they can't do jack **** without someone holding their hand for awhile
- who's gonna be holding Obama's hand?

not persuasive or applicable, imo. He's been "on the job".... Jeezus,
I always chuckle about the "experience" argument, especially when made
by republicans who exalt the election of ronnie reagan.


and your "feel good" arguments are supposed to be persuasive?
and your answer is to ignore any scrutiny of qualifications when hiring (voting
for) someone?

he's been nowhere to be seen except on the campaign trail
if he's been "on the job", I'll ask again what is it that he has he accomplished?

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

wrote:



...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, not a washington
dc insider...there's more, but i suspect these will be sufficient for
your critique and counterpoints.

jeff

...and oh, BTW, did you simply
forget to add "objective" to your list, or did you not think him such?


see above "there's more". it was a hurried response to provide fodder...
he certainly seems to be rationally objective based on his writings
(audacity...).

Lordy-lordy, I read and enjoyed "2001" and "The Runaway Jury"...they
didn't, um, persuade me Clarke was a good astronaut or Grisham was a
good...um, well, let's just leave that one alone...

****, I even heard Jimmy Breslin say good things about
him today on Public Radio.

PUBLIC RADIO!? They probably slipped him some Portuguese PCP or
something...

Folks who call others "inspiring" or "persuasive" have always both
saddened and amused me when they do so.

so what do you call someone you believe to be inspirational or persuasive?

who is a public figure you thought inspirational; ...persuasive? not on
an isolated basis, but overall.

Overall? None, ever. At least none that were attempting to be either.
For example, I find Danny Thomas' story St. Jude's "inspiring" but
AFAIK, he never ran for national office on it (or otherwise). Also,
I've found various well-reasoned arguments (many with whose entire
premise I disagreed) persuasive - Bill Bradley comes to mind. I'd think
a politician seeking office who many found "inspirational" and
"persuasive" _overall_ AND the whole thing was this weird,
non-quantifiable "he just is..." shtick, that such would make a rational
thinker pretty nervous...apparently, your mileage does vary...

(i mean, nobody is suggesting elysian fields or perfection here)

Whew, that's a relief...I mean, we're already bordering on canonization
here...

I can fully appreciate the
_specifically_ _inspired_ or _persuaded_, such as a young black man
saying that Obama's life thus far inspired him to run for Congress, etc.
or someone saying that Obama's argument in favor of premise "x"
persuaded them that he was right on that issue, but to call someone
generally "inspiring" and/or "persuasive" is the first step in, to touch
upon your words, the formation of a cult of personality...at least...

i think those would be charles krauthammer's words...but i understand
the motivation behind them. Did you happen to see the N. Kristof piece
about the poor guy at GITMO?

Nope.

I am inspired and persuaded to believe Obama will not allow such things
to continue.

Obama, on his own, and assuming he wins in what will be a real squeaker,
doesn't have and won't have the political muscle to allow or not allow
****. My, well, "fear" isn't the right word exactly, but let's use it
in a broad sense - my "fear" is that Obama will be the distraction for a
lot of REALLY avaricious people (The Clintons, Brazile, Begala,
Carville, McAuliffe, Schumer and Reid- but probably not Pelosi, etc.) to
really set about running amok and looting the store. I know that many
here at least seem to think that Bush and Cheney did such, but honestly,
do you really see either of them (or even Al Gore or Ted Kennedy)
pulling the same BS as these "white trash" (yeah, after Donna's Katrina
stunt, she honorary "white trash"...) wannabes?

i'm definitely a member of that cult.

Uh-oh...


Um, well, as to "true colors," I'd offer that there have been little
more than hints, even assuming they are not red herrings, in "revealing"
Obama, but those few hints indicate that he ain't exactly married to
this color or that (and while a pun isn't exactly _intended_, it ain't
not intended, either...). And if Obama is "the real deal," and
literally means what he says, I'd offer that he doesn't want your
support, at least until you can get past being so rabidly anti-GOP...
after all, they were, IIRC, the party of ideas not so long ago...


not in my lifetime IIRC, but they have generally been the better party
for soundbites and political propaganda... hell, it was a bunch of NC
republicans (carter wrenn, jesse helms, etc) that near-bout perfected
the fine art of negative, smear campaigns.

though i know he was attempting to make a point about them being the
party of wrong ideas, i've never said Obama was perfect. however, he's
the best of what we have and what we need at this time, imo.

i lost all respect for mccain when he did his waterboarding whirl and
started the loud slurping and suckling at the teat of the fundamental
religious and conservative right.

And yet, Obama's slurping at any teat that happens to land nearby is OK
with you? Hell, I'd want my guy telling those that we disagreed with
where to get off and stating it plain. If they wanted to come around to
our point of view, there'd be welcome and there would be no hard
feelings, but I'd not want him _starting out_ by pandering to anyone and
everyone and giving concessions to them.

i only hope he will remain consistent
in his dogmatic iraq plan...

i am not rabidly anti-GOP -

Well, OK, if you say so...but you might want to wipe the froth from your
mouth BEFORE you say such...

just the particular brand we have endured the last 7+ years...

Ah, so you ARE rabidly anti-GOP, depending on the brand...

i know Obama is more moderate than me -

OK, so it shouldn't be so hard to explain what his positions are and how
you know he is more moderate, right?

look again at the characteristics i listed.

I really don't need to...they are the same vague, subjective ones every
Obama supporter lists...

jeff (pass the kool-aid g)

I think you've had plenty enough already...

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

Jim Edmondson wrote:

he's been nowhere to be seen except on the campaign trail
if he's been "on the job", I'll ask again what is it that he has he
accomplished?

You just haven't been paying attention. Obama was on the floor
of the Senate during the FISA vote, Hillary wasn't. In fact
CNN showed Obama and McCain yukking it up before the vote was
taken. His list of legislative accomplishments in the Illinois
Senate is long and distinguished and includes ethics reform,
tax credits for low-income workers, welfare reform, child care
subsidies and legislation requiring that all interrogations
during a homicide investigation be videotaped among many others.

In the US Senate he won passage of the Coburn-Obama Transparency
Act over the objections of many senior pork addicted members of
his own party wich led to this http://usaspending.gov/ a
website where any journalist or citizen can see for themselves
where the federal money goes. It is historic.

He co-sponsored legislation with Feingold and Schumer to clean
up election laws and with John McCain on a climate change bill
to reduce greenhouse gasses. Obama's list of legislative
accomplishments is not an issue except to the exceptionally
uninformed and ignorant.

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Jim Edmondson" wrote in message
global.net...
Hello jeff,


Jim
mailto: j.g.edmondson at att dot net

Jim Edmondson wrote:

mccain has now been fully revealed...he's a
chameleon...and old! g
jeff

Jeff, do you ever hire/train any young people on the job? They are
very personable, socially aware, "different", they love change, but
they can't do jack **** without someone holding their hand for awhile
- who's gonna be holding Obama's hand?

not persuasive or applicable, imo. He's been "on the job".... Jeezus,
I always chuckle about the "experience" argument, especially when made
by republicans who exalt the election of ronnie reagan.


and your "feel good" arguments are supposed to be persuasive?
and your answer is to ignore any scrutiny of qualifications when hiring
(voting for) someone?

he's been nowhere to be seen except on the campaign trail
if he's been "on the job", I'll ask again what is it that he has he
accomplished?

So are you suggesting that we should vote for either Clinton or McCain,
right. I mean both of them are *supposed* to have the experience, right.
Personally, I'd vote for a convicted child-molester before voting for either
of them, so that leaves me with Obama, if I chose to vote at all.

As a non-Dem and Non-Repub, I can only say that Obama can't do any worse
than what we have presently.

Op

On 15 Feb 2008 23:47:53 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

and I do think
he should be impeached.

The Dems in the House don't seem to think so. When any of their
members call for it, it is pushed aside, squashed.

Dave

Dave LaCourse wrote in
:

Congress passed just about everything the Dems are complaining about.

Yes, Dave, I've already said I think the Dems should dig their heels in and
do what's right, and I'm disappointed in them for not doing so. I've
written my members of Congress to tell them this. I feel free to express
my disappointment when my elected leaders let me down.

There are any number of sound/video bites out there about everyone
from both Clintons, Pelosi, former Sec of States, et al who said there
were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Congressed passed the ok to
go to war, and have financed it since then.


Yes, and the source of information for all those Dems is the White House.
Shame on them for assuming that the President was a man of honor, and not
the scumbag and recovering alcoholic that he is.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:45:24 -0500, "Opus--Mark H. Bowen"
wrote:

I can only say that Obama can't do any worse
than what we have presently.

I said that once about a commanding officer. Boy, was I wrong. It
*can* be worse.

Dave

Dave LaCourse wrote in
:

On 15 Feb 2008 23:47:53 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

and I do think
he should be impeached.

The Dems in the House don't seem to think so. When any of their
members call for it, it is pushed aside, squashed.

Dave




I have written to my House rep about this. Unfortunately, my House
Representative is an idiot named Randy Kuhl. He got all ****ed at me when
he voted against the NIH budget increase that got vetoed, and he was one of
a few House Members that could provide a veto-proof majority. I pointed
out to the local press that the largest employer of families in his
District depends on that budget, and that he voted against it. Then I
wrote him telling him to expect a phone call on the issue from the local
press.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply