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

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 06:04:29 -0500, jeff miller
wrote:

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


wrote:



......there's more, but i suspect these will be sufficient for
your critique and counterpoints.


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

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,

OK...elaborate on the two singled out, above - convince me that it's not
just some grandiose idea or just something you pulled out of your ass
that sounds good.

not a washington dc insider, objective...

it's clear you want something specific in terms of qualification or
ability,

And it's becoming clear that many folks who I'd have thought felt the
same way, don't...unfortunately...

but seem unwilling to accept this guy is capable of doing the
job.

Um, how do you figure? I've said plain and direct - "convince me with
some facts" and thus far, I've gotten laundry lists of unsupported,
subjective opinions and a reminder that he wrote a book...heck, he
wrote, or "wrote," at least two, but I'm not sure what that has to do
with it...Paris Hilton wrote at least one, too...

mccain meets your criteria?

Entirely? No.

hillary?

Not even close. But admittedly, she has a VERY limited number of
qualities that would serve a POTUS well.

there are 3 choices available.

Um, well, right now, there are NO choices available, but on election
day, there is unlimited choice, including the choice not to vote at all,
available to voters.

who do you choose?

If I were voting today, and the (practical) choice was McCain or
Hillary or Obama, I'd say McCain.

why?

The same reason I said Bush, twice - he is the best in the (practical)
field of two, no more, no less.

what compels, inspires or persuades your vote?

Why do you assume and take it for granted that I am a US voter?

give us your rational, objective reason.

See above.

assuming you could pick the one living person who you believe is the
one, among all others, who meets your criteria...who is it??

I doubt anyone that qualified would have any real interest in or take
the job, but off the top of my head and in the current situation, I'd
offer folks such as Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, or maybe even
Haley Barbour (Gov. of MS). Of the recent crop of candidates, I'd say
Richardson and McCain, flip for POTUS, was probably the "best" possible
choice in the pack. Heck, I'm completely serious when I say I think
Obama would be a good choice as veep with McCain - I think it would give
him a chance to show his stuff (or not, as the case may be) and give a
mandate-level vote to _some_ "team." As I've also said, completely
seriously, IMO, not much "change" can occur if the vote is yet another
50.01% versus 49.99% squeaker regardless of who actually "wins."

TC,
R

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:40:36 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
I've found various well-reasoned arguments (many with whose entire
premise I disagreed) persuasive - Bill Bradley comes to mind.

speaking of potential running mates, old Bill B may be a good one.

Um...for whom? Besides, I think he finally lost his desire - yeah,
really - to beat his head against the "broken" wall of US
politics...which, IMO, illustrates _the_ major problem: none of the
"best" people really want the job THAT ****in' badly...

TC,
R
Tom

"Jim Edmondson" wrote in message
global.net...


On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 22:53:48 -0500, Opus--Mark H. Bowen "Opus--Mark
H. Bowen" wrote in message
:

"Opus--Mark H. Bowen" wrote in message
news
[quoted text muted]

Hey there are two dead Republicans on the House side that missed
90.8% and 85.9% of the votes, respectively.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/c.../vote-missers/

How effective can they be as future leaders, I wonder?

Op

hit send too quick on the previous post ...
what I should have said is that only an asshole would write something like
the above
but hey, they might be better than Obama - just less charisma

In other words, you're saying that you don't know what the **** you are
saying, right.

You want folks who might chose to support Obama to cite a litany of
experiences that should *supposedly* have to qualify him for the White
House, yet you are unable to do so yourself for any particular candidate?

Last I checked the US Constitution, experience wasn't a requirement for the
position, as Bush has proven so disastrously.

To paraphrase the a rabid conservatives mantra:

If I were voting today, and the (impractical) choices were McCain or
Hillary, and the (practical) choice is Obama, I'd vote Obama hands
down--since there aren't any non-Dems/Repubs on the ballot, so far.

Why?

The same reason I said Nader, twice - he was the best choice in the
(impractical)
field of three, no more, no less.

Op

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:07:29 -0500, Opus--Mark H. Bowen "Opus--Mark H.
Bowen" wrote in message
:


"Jim Edmondson" wrote in message
global.net...
[quoted text muted]

In other words, you're saying that you don't know what the **** you are
saying, right.

I'm saying that you are an asshole


You want folks who might chose to support Obama to cite a litany of
experiences that should *supposedly* have to qualify him for the White
House, yet you are unable to do so yourself for any particular candidate?

I am keeping an open mind

Last I checked the US Constitution, experience wasn't a requirement for the
position, as Bush has proven so disastrously.

To paraphrase the a rabid conservatives mantra:

If I were voting today, and the (impractical) choices were McCain or
Hillary, and the (practical) choice is Obama, I'd vote Obama hands
down--since there aren't any non-Dems/Repubs on the ballot, so far.

You are not voting today, so who cares

Why?

See above

The same reason I said Nader, twice - he was the best choice in the
(impractical)
field of three, no more, no less.

Op

That was an effective use of your vote

bye
--
Jim
posted from Ubuntu/Pan

"Jim Edmondson" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:07:29 -0500, Opus--Mark H. Bowen "Opus--Mark H.
Bowen" wrote in message
:


"Jim Edmondson" wrote in message
global.net...
[quoted text muted]

In other words, you're saying that you don't know what the **** you are
saying, right.

I'm saying that you are an asshole

No you are saying that *you* believe me to be an asshole. You don't really
know, actually.


You want folks who might chose to support Obama to cite a litany of
experiences that should *supposedly* have to qualify him for the White
House, yet you are unable to do so yourself for any particular candidate?

I am keeping an open mind

Of course you are.


Last I checked the US Constitution, experience wasn't a requirement for
the
position, as Bush has proven so disastrously.

To paraphrase the a rabid conservatives mantra:

If I were voting today, and the (impractical) choices were McCain or
Hillary, and the (practical) choice is Obama, I'd vote Obama hands
down--since there aren't any non-Dems/Repubs on the ballot, so far.

You are not voting today, so who cares

So, if you and no one else cares about this subject, why are you going out
of your way to discuss this irrelevant subject?

Why?

See above

Nothing of any consequence there to view, really!

The same reason I said Nader, twice - he was the best choice in the
(impractical)
field of three, no more, no less.

Op

That was an effective use of your vote

Well those votes were as effective as any votes can be. I mean, they are
merely votes cast afterall.

bye

Where ya headed?

Op

--
?Jim
posted from Ubuntu/Pan

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 06:04:29 -0500, jeff miller
wrote:

not a washington
dc insider,

Uhhhh, he made a deal with Teddy Kennedy. *Think* about that for
awhile before you say he is not a dc insider. That's about as
"inside" as they get.....

Dave LaCourse wrote in
:


Recovering alcoholic? You be reaching now, young fellow. And *if* he
is a "recovering" alcoholic, that is a *good* thing, not bad.


Dave, I know I'm not reaching, by GW's own admission

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...1w4CKFk7cjyCVA

Is this a good thing? Well, first, we can talk about the wisdom of putting
a recovering alcoholic in the most stressful job in the world, but that's
almost besides the point. Many recovering alcoholics are not normal happy
people. Many are, but many aren't. Just ask some participants in Alanon
(which is not AA, for the confused) how their families started falling
apart once the drinking stopped. In fact, there are some fairly typical
behavioral patterns.

http://www.counterpunch.org/wormer1011.html





--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Dave LaCourse wrote in
:

On 16 Feb 2008 01:03:13 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

Then I
wrote him telling him to expect a phone call on the issue from the local
press.

Is he still in office? Mine are.




Yes, he's still in office.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On 16 Feb 2008 18:06:57 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

Just ask some participants in Alanon
(which is not AA, for the confused) how their families started falling
apart once the drinking stopped.

Hmmm. I'd say that Bush's family has not fallen apart.

Do you have any evidence that he is still drinking, still a drunk? If
it was out there, I am sure the NY Times would have had it front page
top fold by now.

Dave

Dave LaCourse wrote in
:

On 16 Feb 2008 18:06:57 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

Just ask some participants in Alanon
(which is not AA, for the confused) how their families started falling
apart once the drinking stopped.

Hmmm. I'd say that Bush's family has not fallen apart.

Do you have any evidence that he is still drinking, still a drunk? If
it was out there, I am sure the NY Times would have had it front page
top fold by now.

Dave




First, I haven't ever suggested that Bush is still drinking.

Next, its not really important. In that last link I posted they listed a
whole bunch of symptoms typical of "dry drunk syndrome"-- which is
pretty much associated with recovering alcoholics who no longer drink,
but just don't quite think right. They a


* Exaggerated self-importance and pomposity
* Grandiose behavior
* A rigid, judgmental outlook
* Impatience
* Childish behavior
* Irresponsible behavior
* Irrational rationalization
* Projection
* Overreaction

****
To summarize, George W. Bush manifests all the classic patterns of what
alcoholics in recovery call "the dry drunk." His behavior is consistent
with barely noticeable but meaningful brain damage brought on by years of
heavy drinking and possible cocaine use. All the classic patterns of
addictive thinking that are spelled out in my book are he

the tendency to go to extremes (leading America into a massive 100
billion dollar strike-first war);

* a "kill or be killed mentality;" the tunnel vision;
* "I" as opposed to "we" thinking;
* the black and white polarized thought processes (good versus evil,
all or nothing thinking).
* His drive to finish his father's battles is of no small
significance, psychologically.
******


Does it really make a big difference if he still drank?





--
Scott
Reverse name to reply