Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!

On Apr 21, 8:03*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 00:45:52 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:



wrote in message
.. .

What I do not get is that some folks on this group, whose political
preferences have led this country into the ditch, whose support for a
blatantly corrupt, unpatriotic and incompetent administration, an
administration which has yet to capture or kill Ben Laden, an
administration which has run the finest military in the world into the
ground, and whose understanding of foreign affairs remains puerile,
persists in thinking that they have anything to say worthwhile on the
subject of who should lead this country out of the mess that their
votes helped create, and apparently these folk even lack the personal
self discipline to learn from their mistakes or at least keep their
f-----g mouths otherwise occupied. It is truly amazing that said folk
are still saying the same bankrupt ****.

Dave
Go Brandt

wrote in message
...
HAT TRICK!!! HAT TRICK!!!

Looked at in the cold clear light of the next morning, does this still
impress you? Does it still thrill you to know that you are capable of
something like this?

Wolfgang

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:59:20 -0700, rw
wrote:

They're the people who wouldn't mind if he ate their children.

You're weird, Barnard. Really weird.

True.

Meanwhile, Bush eats your children.

Wolfgang
but then, some people like that.

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:25:36 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:

..this occurs to you after, what, a decade or more, on ROFF?g

Yeah, but he never mentioned eating my kids before.

At the dinner table, polite guests do not enquire too closely into the menu.
It's more than a little surprising that he's waited this long.

That is weird,
even for Barnard. Must be the Wolfgag influence on him. g

Could be. But then, the fact that he doesn't learn makes that rather
unlikely, ainna?

Wolfgang

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:51:47 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Apr 21, 8:03*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 00:45:52 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:



wrote in message
.. .

What I do not get is that some folks on this group, whose political
preferences have led this country into the ditch, whose support for a
blatantly corrupt, unpatriotic and incompetent administration, an
administration which has yet to capture or kill Ben Laden, an
administration which has run the finest military in the world into the
ground, and whose understanding of foreign affairs remains puerile,
persists in thinking that they have anything to say worthwhile on the
subject of who should lead this country out of the mess that their
votes helped create, and apparently these folk even lack the personal
self discipline to learn from their mistakes or at least keep their
f-----g mouths otherwise occupied. It is truly amazing that said folk
are still saying the same bankrupt ****.

Yeah, you'd think the first Clinton would have taught you girls
something...

Now this has just gotta help,
R

Dave
Go Brandt

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 00:45:52 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


really? The poll numbers, plus casual conversation here in East Central PA
say otherwise.

Dems better hope PA exit polls aren't reflective of the US as a whole:

"Eleven percent of those voting in the Democratic race said they would
vote for John McCain, the Republicans' presumptive nominee, over
Clinton. Another 6 percent said they would stay home in a race between
McCain and Clinton, the New York senator and former first lady.

Ten percent of Democrats said they would sit on their hands in a
McCain-Obama race, and 15 percent said they would vote for McCain over
the Illinois senator."

From a CNN story, and those aren't the worse numbers I've seen - I saw
one, IIRC from Penn State, that said something like 25% would vote for
McCain - not sit out - _vote for McCain_ - if their preferred Dem wasn't
the nominee. If that were N. Dakota, eh, well, who cares, but PA?
That's pretty bad.

And since they are now calling it Hillary by 10, that's worse..."the
tide is turning"...uh-huh...more like the turd is tiding...right slap in
the punchbowl...Denver's shaping up to be a real ol' fashioned family
picnic...the Manson family...

There ain't enough help,
R
....and at 84 goddamned years old, JC not only had the stones to go,
damned the consequences, but might actually broker some sort of peace,
and y'all are still screwing around with _these_ full-of-****,
self-absorbed assholes...?

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 00:45:52 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


really? The poll numbers, plus casual conversation here in East Central PA
say otherwise.

Dems better hope PA exit polls aren't reflective of the US as a whole:

"Eleven percent of those voting in the Democratic race said they would
vote for John McCain, the Republicans' presumptive nominee, over
Clinton. Another 6 percent said they would stay home in a race between
McCain and Clinton, the New York senator and former first lady.

Ten percent of Democrats said they would sit on their hands in a
McCain-Obama race, and 15 percent said they would vote for McCain over
the Illinois senator."

From a CNN story, and those aren't the worse numbers I've seen - I saw
one, IIRC from Penn State, that said something like 25% would vote for
McCain - not sit out - _vote for McCain_ - if their preferred Dem wasn't
the nominee. If that were N. Dakota, eh, well, who cares, but PA?
That's pretty bad.

And since they are now calling it Hillary by 10, that's worse..."the
tide is turning"...uh-huh...more like the turd is tiding...right slap in
the punchbowl...Denver's shaping up to be a real ol' fashioned family
picnic...the Manson family...

There ain't enough help,
R
...and at 84 goddamned years old, JC not only had the stones to go,
damned the consequences, but might actually broker some sort of peace,
and y'all are still screwing around with _these_ full-of-****,
self-absorbed assholes...?

Well then, tell us who we SHOULD vote for.

Seriously.

Wolfgang

wrote in message
...
There ain't enough help,
R

you know as well as I that the media lives for the ongoing controversy.
Still, Hill is running out of cash on hand, the delegate count didn't move
far, so my prediction of her demise in a month and a half still holds. BTW,
my glowing assessment of Obama's November chances is based on his political
organization, which is pretty darned good for a 'political newcomer'. I
would have never thought he would have been anything but a fleeting
annoyance for Clinton at the outset.
Anyhoo, the numbers over people sitting it out, or voting for McCain are
collected in the heat of the battle. Those won't hold at those levels long
term. Further, the GOP has a serious pair of concerns from:
1. Conservative Christians sitting on their hands and wallets during this
election
2. Bob Barr running as the Libertarian nominee.

...and at 84 goddamned years old, JC not only had the stones to go,
damned the consequences, but might actually broker some sort of peace,

agreed with your observation about Mr.Carter. I always thought he had the
most personal integrity of any Presidential candidate I have thus far voted
for. I don't know as I would characterize Obama as a self-absorbed asshole,
and what he has done in running vs. the Hilldebeast and her machine, not to
mention as a black man running for President in a serious fashion(as opposed
to Jesse Jackson, or (shudder!) Rev. Al) shows a sturdy set of balls on his
part.
Tom

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:15:43 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
There ain't enough help,
R

you know as well as I that the media lives for the ongoing controversy.
Still, Hill is running out of cash on hand, the delegate count didn't move
far, so my prediction of her demise in a month and a half still holds. BTW,
my glowing assessment of Obama's November chances is based on his political
organization, which is pretty darned good for a 'political newcomer'. I
would have never thought he would have been anything but a fleeting
annoyance for Clinton at the outset.
Anyhoo, the numbers over people sitting it out, or voting for McCain are
collected in the heat of the battle. Those won't hold at those levels long
term. Further, the GOP has a serious pair of concerns from:
1. Conservative Christians sitting on their hands and wallets during this
election
2. Bob Barr running as the Libertarian nominee.

I'd offer that "heat of battle" isn't quite the factor in the primary as
you seem to offer. I think, even if the worst numbers are skewed (for
whatever reason - why I posted the middling CNN numbers), that it shows
the real polarized divide among the Dems, which reflects a similar
divide in the US. It's not just that folks are for their choice, they
are _against_ others, and with a vehemency fairly new for such a large
swath of US. IOW, sure, in the past, the most "liberal" were against
the most "conservative" and vice-versa, but this is something new and
different, IMO. Partly due to the avalanche of info, via the 'net,
youtube, cable, etc. versus the past where it was 30 min. of news in the
evening and a smattering of local newspaper coverage, even for those in
major urban areas, I'm sure, but an extreme polarization, nonetheless.

IAC, I don't see either of your "concerns" as all that important as yet,
if ever. The first is mooted, IMO, by what will be their alternatives -
support McCain or risk Obama or Hillary. If it were a couple of
conservative Southern Dems - a Edwards-Lieberman ticket (yeah, yeah) -
it might be more of a concern for McCain, but not with either of these
two. As to Barr, nobody, including Barr, thinks he has the slightest
chance in hell, and the GOP-skewed voters tend to be less, um,
pie-in-the-sky protest voters than Dem-skewed voters (ala Nader voters).

Anyone who has any real interest in objectivity need do no more than
look over Obama's own recent quotes, often about himself and his
campaign, to see he's just another pol interesting in winning first and
foremost. I'll grant the possibility that he may have not started out
that way - I doubt it, but anything is possible and maintaining that he
was once an idealist isn't wildly ridiculous. But it's not relevant to
what he is _now_, and attempting to maintain that he isn't just another
(novice) pol IS ridiculous.

...and at 84 goddamned years old, JC not only had the stones to go,
damned the consequences, but might actually broker some sort of peace,

agreed with your observation about Mr.Carter. I always thought he had the
most personal integrity of any Presidential candidate I have thus far voted
for.

Think Ford and Carter, above.

I don't know as I would characterize Obama as a self-absorbed asshole,
and what he has done in running vs. the Hilldebeast and her machine, not to
mention as a black man running for President in a serious fashion(as opposed
to Jesse Jackson, or (shudder!) Rev. Al) shows a sturdy set of balls on his
part.

Or hubris...

I wouldn't surprise me to see proof that he thought he'd run just strong
enough to assure Hillary would pick him as Veep, the, er, ball(s) got
rolling, and he said, "Hey, you know, I can win this thing myself..."
Now, his supporters might say, "Well, so? What's wrong with that?" And
my answer would be that there isn't anything "wrong" with it, but it
clearly shows he is just another calculating pol and that he himself
didn't think he was the guy until the wind shifted his way.

And that's one of the main points - he may win, but anyone who tells
themselves he's something "special," "the real deal" (a little too much
"West Wing"...), or is gonna bring about, um, peace, love, and
understanding might shoulda supported Elvis Costello for POTUS...

TC,
R
Tom

wrote in message
...
Think Ford and Carter, above.

yup.....as an aside, that was the first Presidential election I was eligible
to vote in. Going to school in New Hampshire, I got to meet both(along with
Reagan, Kennedy and a few others I don't remember) during the NH primary
season.

And that's one of the main points - he may win, but anyone who tells
themselves he's something "special," "the real deal" (a little too much
"West Wing"...), or is gonna bring about, um, peace, love, and
understanding might shoulda supported Elvis Costello for POTUS...

understood, but, to some extent, I disagree. I do think he represents the
next generation's view of politics and may represent the beginning of the
next 30 years of US politics. Maybe not, time will tell. Still, I think he
is head and shoulders above both Hillary and McCain, although I think you
know darned well I would be loathe to characterize him(or anyone with the
hubris to run for the job in the first place) as 'ideal'.

....on that note, I'm going fishing for a few days,
Tom