OT The latest defection ...

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
snip
I'm truly undecided - ...
Three weeks out, after an interminable election season, you're
*UNDECIDED* !! Un-****in'-believable.

That's right, "undecided."

Right before the second "townhall" debate it was explained that
the onstage audience consisted of "undecided" voters. My response
was, "What bar or asylum did they scrape these idiots out of ?"
My wife simply said, "Morons".

... I will say that I don't completely trust Obama's
motives, but McCain appears to have gone completely "pol." ...
What is that supposed to mean, you don't trust Obama's "motives" ?

Well, for one, he never answers a question, even easy, obvious ones,
just like a cut-rate, punk-ass Clinton. Of course, that alone doesn't
disqualify him from office IMO, but it means that I don't completely
trust him or his motives. I suspect, but am not 100% convinced, that he
nothing but a power-grasping little **** whose first and primary REAL
interest in all of this is Obama, goaded on by his bitch of a wife,
whose primary interest is herself...again, ala the Clintons.

Sounds like "Mississippi Code" to me.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 06:37:07 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
snip
I'm truly undecided - ...
Three weeks out, after an interminable election season, you're
*UNDECIDED* !! Un-****in'-believable.

That's right, "undecided."

Right before the second "townhall" debate it was explained that
the onstage audience consisted of "undecided" voters. My response
was, "What bar or asylum did they scrape these idiots out of ?"
My wife simply said, "Morons".

Ah, so anyone who has decided to support McCain isn't a "moron" or
"idiot" in your view. Well, in my view, anyone who has decided firmly
on either of these guys is too blindly partisan and/or ill-informed to
merit much consideration. There is simply too much "wrong" with both of
them to support an objective stance of one being vastly "better" a
choice than the other. Hell, I've politely asked repeatedly and stated
plainly that if anyone could convince me that Obama is even half of what
is claimed, I'd vote for him. All I've gotten is a bunch of partisan
crap, mostly anti-Bush or anti-GOP. So I'll repeat: Give me your sales
pitch on Obama - _on Obama_ - hell, you don't have to convince me he's
the second coming, the "real deal," or anything else, well, impossible,
just convince me he's even marginally the better candidate, and like I
said, he can have my vote.


... I will say that I don't completely trust Obama's
motives, but McCain appears to have gone completely "pol." ...
What is that supposed to mean, you don't trust Obama's "motives" ?

Well, for one, he never answers a question, even easy, obvious ones,
just like a cut-rate, punk-ass Clinton. Of course, that alone doesn't
disqualify him from office IMO, but it means that I don't completely
trust him or his motives. I suspect, but am not 100% convinced, that he
nothing but a power-grasping little **** whose first and primary REAL
interest in all of this is Obama, goaded on by his bitch of a wife,
whose primary interest is herself...again, ala the Clintons.

Sounds like "Mississippi Code" to me.

If that's what you want to call it. Here's the translation:

Well, for one, he never answers a question, even easy, obvious ones,
just like a cut-rate, punk-ass Clinton. Of course, that alone doesn't
disqualify him from office IMO, but it means that I don't completely
trust him or his motives. I suspect, but am not 100% convinced, that he
nothing but a power-grasping little **** whose first and primary REAL
interest in all of this is Obama, goaded on by his bitch of a wife,
whose primary interest is herself...again, ala the Clintons.

And as far as Mississippi, Chuck Taylor, a Dem Congressman from S. Miss.
who has plenty of cross-party and cross-racial support (he's white)
isn't supporting Obama. And no, he's not vulnerable in the least - he
could hold Obama rallies on the beach every day and he'd be safe. Hell,
he'd probably get some white Republicans voting for Obama. But he has
pointedly _not supported_ him. And as far as racism, from what I can
tell, the bulk of Obama's black support is based solely upon his race.
That's no different from folks who won't vote for him based on his race.

Would anyone be calling McCain a racist if Obama was white...?

HTH,
R

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
snip
I'm truly undecided - ...
Three weeks out, after an interminable election season, you're
*UNDECIDED* !! Un-****in'-believable.
That's right, "undecided."
Right before the second "townhall" debate it was explained that
the onstage audience consisted of "undecided" voters. My response
was, "What bar or asylum did they scrape these idiots out of ?"
My wife simply said, "Morons".

Ah, so anyone who has decided to support McCain isn't a "moron" or
"idiot" in your view. Well, in my view, anyone who has decided firmly
on either of these guys is too blindly partisan and/or ill-informed to
merit much consideration.

Total piffle and pure, unadulterated nonsense.

Obama and McCain disagree on virtually every major issue facing
this country in the foreseeable future. Anybody who hasn't figured
that out by now has been living in oblivion.

There is simply too much "wrong" with both of
them to support an objective stance of one being vastly "better" a
choice than the other. Hell, I've politely asked repeatedly and stated
plainly that if anyone could convince me that Obama is even half of what
is claimed, I'd vote for him.

LOL !! The day you vote for Obama I'll hop a train to Hamburg and
go on a date with The Loon.

All I've gotten is a bunch of partisan
crap, mostly anti-Bush or anti-GOP. So I'll repeat: Give me your sales
pitch on Obama - _on Obama_ - hell, you don't have to convince me he's
the second coming, the "real deal," or anything else, well, impossible,
just convince me he's even marginally the better candidate, and like I
said, he can have my vote.

Forget Obama. Look at the issues and decide who is going to assemble
the better administration to address those issues in ways with which
you can agree.

... I will say that I don't completely trust Obama's
motives, but McCain appears to have gone completely "pol." ...
What is that supposed to mean, you don't trust Obama's "motives" ?
Well, for one, he never answers a question, even easy, obvious ones,
just like a cut-rate, punk-ass Clinton. Of course, that alone doesn't
disqualify him from office IMO, but it means that I don't completely
trust him or his motives. I suspect, but am not 100% convinced, that he
nothing but a power-grasping little **** whose first and primary REAL
interest in all of this is Obama, goaded on by his bitch of a wife,
whose primary interest is herself...again, ala the Clintons.
Sounds like "Mississippi Code" to me.

If that's what you want to call it. Here's the translation:

Well, for one, he never answers a question, even easy, obvious ones,
just like a cut-rate, punk-ass Clinton. Of course, that alone doesn't
disqualify him from office IMO, but it means that I don't completely
trust him or his motives. I suspect, but am not 100% convinced, that he
nothing but a power-grasping little **** whose first and primary REAL
interest in all of this is Obama, goaded on by his bitch of a wife,
whose primary interest is herself...again, ala the Clintons.

Sounds like "Mississippi Code" to me.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ken Fortenberry wrote in
:

LOL !! The day you vote for Obama I'll hop a train to Hamburg and
go on a date with The Loon.


"Undecided" in this context means a struggle to decide between McCain and
Barr or some other third party.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On 16 Oct 2008 13:38:14 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

Ken Fortenberry wrote in
:

LOL !! The day you vote for Obama I'll hop a train to Hamburg and
go on a date with The Loon.

Oh, yeah, right - you're just trying to use me as an excuse...


"Undecided" in this context means a struggle to decide between McCain and
Barr or some other third party.

Thus proving neither of you has the slightest clue about that of which
of speak...granted, if I had to pick one, right now, today, it would be
McCain, but it certainly wouldn't leave me feeling at ease with the
choice - I'd do it more to balance the loony, out-for-themselves Dems,
like Pelosi, Reid, and Schumer (Frank is a loon, too, but from what I
know about him, he's at least an honorable one...) than any other single
reason. OTOH, Obama winning wouldn't "upset" me terribly, either, esp.
if the Dems don't get a walk-through Congress. As to the economy,
taxes, Federal spending and other Fed income-outgo issues, taking each
at their word, they're both as full of **** as Christmas geese and
neither has the slightest clue about how to "fix" the situation. As to
abortion, it is the biggest red herring in politics - it's not going to
get banned, nor should it be, unless and until science says "life"
begins at some point before birth. I don't think it would be possible
to find even 2 people that would make it to the SC that would get near
it - it isn't a Federal legal issue and it has nothing whatsoever to do
with the Constitution.

As to Barr, etc., not even on my radar screen as far as voting for
him/them.

wrote:
Scott Seidman wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
LOL !! The day you vote for Obama I'll hop a train to Hamburg and
go on a date with The Loon.

Oh, yeah, right - you're just trying to use me as an excuse...

"Undecided" in this context means a struggle to decide between McCain and
Barr or some other third party.

Thus proving neither of you has the slightest clue about that of which
of speak...granted, if I had to pick one, right now, today, it would be
McCain, ...

Now there's a shocking revelation. ;-)

As to the economy,
taxes, Federal spending and other Fed income-outgo issues, taking each
at their word, they're both as full of **** as Christmas geese and
neither has the slightest clue about how to "fix" the situation. ...

Nobody has the slightest clue about how to fix this ****storm.
We're in uncharted territory and it's all going to be made up
as we go along. The question is whose team do you want calling
the shots. I'll take Volker, Buffet, Reich and Obama over McCain
and whoever is left on the nearly empty GOP bench.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 09:34:08 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Scott Seidman wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
LOL !! The day you vote for Obama I'll hop a train to Hamburg and
go on a date with The Loon.

Oh, yeah, right - you're just trying to use me as an excuse...

"Undecided" in this context means a struggle to decide between McCain and
Barr or some other third party.

Thus proving neither of you has the slightest clue about that of which
of speak...granted, if I had to pick one, right now, today, it would be
McCain, ...

Now there's a shocking revelation. ;-)

As to the economy,
taxes, Federal spending and other Fed income-outgo issues, taking each
at their word, they're both as full of **** as Christmas geese and
neither has the slightest clue about how to "fix" the situation. ...

Nobody has the slightest clue about how to fix this ****storm.

Wrong. Lots of people have lots good ideas...unfortunately, they are
not going to get folks re-elected, so...

We're in uncharted territory and it's all going to be made up
as we go along.

Wrong and probably so.

The question is whose team do you want calling
the shots. I'll take Volker, Buffet, Reich and Obama

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, SPLORK VANG MU, SNICKER, and
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!...and is that a Chinese Buffet or pizza buffet you hope
will help?

over McCain and whoever is left on the nearly empty GOP bench.

Either way, I'm sure that sniveling little (and I don't mean just
physically) **** Reich would blow a goat to get back in _any_ kind of
position that he sees as power, so whoever wins, I'm sure he'd be dying
to, er, "help." As to Volker, shades of Jimmy Carter. As to Buffett,
er, well, no. Not a bad man, just not up to fixing this mess, but I'm
sure he'd help whomever if asked, and I think both would ask.

HTH,
R
Oh, BTW, oil and gasoline are down, what, half from where they were just
a few months ago...

On Oct 16, 7:34*am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

I am not in love with Reich. He diverted a good program (Out of School
Neighborhood youth corps), based on a mistake filled evaluation
design, so that the money could go to he and Clinton's screwed up
Americorps. Americorps served middle class college kids, Youth Corps
served hardcore inner city kids. The eval was designed by one of his
Boston academic friends and used self reported data on post program
earnings. (Yeah, young men don't lie about sex and money, right?) So
when the surveys showed that in-program kids earned worse post
program, than control group kids who were never in the program, Reich
had his ammo.

We tried to get through his thick head that the study had not
controlled for control group income derived from drug selling and
illegal crap, and of course you can make more money selling drugs than
from apprenticeship and entry level jobs. So we re-ran the data and
talked a sympathiser to bring it up in a long car ride Reich was to
take to inspect a project we had put up for retraining workers in a
depressed lumber mill town. Reich, riffled the memo showing the real
data and said, "I am not impressed." He would not move.

**** Reich. 2 years later the Chief Economist for DOL noted the
correction in a footnote. BFD. But by then a proven, 30 year program
with wide bi-partisan support that helped very poor, beaten up kids
was gutted so that kids already on track could provide good photo-ops
for that miserable ogre.

I want to see folks like Richardson, Chuck Hagel, etc moving this
administration.

Dave
Ideology Sucks