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

On 17 Feb 2008 17:44:31 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

Dave LaCourse wrote in
:

Tom, that Gore
should never have lost in 2000. If he had carried his homestate, he
would have won.


If Bush carried Florida, he would have won.

Bush *did* carry Florida. After a recount and a recount, followed by
recount, recount, recount, he won. Florida law stated that the
results of an election had to be tallied by such and such a date.
That date came and the Florida Supremes wanted to *make* law by
entending the date. No Judicial branch of our government can *make*
the law, only interpret it. Bush *won* Floriduh and he did it
legally after many recounts. Live with it instead of crying about it.

Dave

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 17:53:50 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
Which
brings us back to a paraphrasing of my question: just what kind of pol
is this sumbitch, what did that piece of **** Kennedy get out of the
deal, and just bad is it gonna wind up ****ing _me_?

Rick, can I put out the possibility that you are overanalyzing this? From a
purely partisan politics standpoint, perhaps old Teddy calculated that
Hillary can cause the Republicans to suddenly get united, in a way Obama
can't. Knowing it will take a wave of support to keep the party from
nominating Hillary, he may have gambled on the path most likely to sweep
more Dems into office, without any big-time tradeoffs. Certainly, his
political goals don't differ so much from Obamas as to necessitate a 'deal
with the devil', and in recent years, Kennedy has been a rare example of
trying to work deals between GOP and Dem groups.

Possible? Sure. Likely? I don't think so, _unless_ Teddy has _really_
changed in the last year or two. Heck, you seem to acknowledge that
whatever went down, Teddy calculated - and I'd offer that it was every
angle he could think of. He's the son of Joe, perhaps moreso than any
of them (certainly neck and neck w/ Bobby), and I'd bet big he's still a
scheming POS who doesn't do jack **** unless it benefits him and the
Kennedy machine. And I question the "Hillary unites the GOP..." thing -
Hillary is a longshot with a broken leg and a fat jockey; I'd offer that
the GOP could come up with Cheney/Rumsfeld '08 and about all it would do
is make it a horserace for second place.

Given the landscape right now this minute:

I suspect McCain/just about anyone except Obama beats
Hillary/_anyone_, including Bill about as bad as is possible, say,
57%-43%-ish, the unlikely McCain/Obama beats _anybody_ else _at least_
75%-25%, and the likely McCain/whoever vs Obama/anyone but Hillary
goes 51%-49% or closer, flip a coin but _probably_ McCain. If Obama
screws the pooch and picks (or gets saddled with) Hillary, it's McCain
by 5 or so and Obama can get tips on dealing with ****ing away national
aspirations from Lieberman. Hillary's done - it looks like Barack van
Helsing put a stake right through her undead heart about December and
Teddy knew it before he got anywhere near that stage...and I'm pretty
sure this one ain't gonna have a sequel where the monster wasn't really
dead...

TC,
R

Tom

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
et...

Try not snipping away all the context from Scott's post and
then please explain to me how your commentary isn't silly.

--
Ken Fortenberry

My commentary is not silly because when he uses inane statements like " Many
recovering alcoholics are not normal happy
people. Many are, but many aren't." to bolster his arguement, he is
either:


1. Not thinking about what he is actually writing.
or
2. Using what, to the casual reader, might at first glance appear to be a
meaningful profound statement to set the stage for, and will be reason
enough for, many to uncritically accept all the analysis that follows.

Scott is no dummy and usually chooses his words carefully, so draw your own
conclusions.

Bob Weinberger

Dave LaCourse wrote in
:

On 17 Feb 2008 17:49:17 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

So did the US evacuation of the Bin Laden family when every other
nonmilitary flight was grounded.

You're reaching, Scott. Our fight is not with his family.

Dave




Dave, there really is plenty of evidence that many of his family members
that were evacuated were/are providing financial support. Plus, one week
or so (the time between the event and the evacuation) really wasn't long
enought to determine whether all of these folks were or were not material
witnesses. They were evacuated because the Bushes, the Carlyle Group, and
the bin Laden's are tight, pure and simple. Think about it-- the WTC falls
down around our ankles, and one of the governement's first acts is to
remember to exempt a nonmilitary flight from the shutdown so the bin Ladens
could be evacuated. It stinks to high heaven, Dave. Why do you continue
to excuse it?

Let's not forget the "blame Iraq, but evacuate the bin Laden's", which is
evidence that the big lie for war was waiting in the wings.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

"Bob Weinberger" wrote in
news:uf%tj.4089$FK2.14@trndny08:

Scott is no dummy and usually chooses his words carefully, so draw
your own conclusions.

Bob Weinberger


Yes, my words were chosen in a poor effort not to discourage recovering
alcoholics. Whatever it takes not to drink yourself into a state of misery
is what they need to do.

To back off of my wishy washy disclaimer, IMO, the presidency is not an
office for either a well-adjusted or a poorly-adjusted person in recovery.

To drift even more off topic, I think its a pity that Ethics committees
have more of a problem with a closeted gay guy in a restroom committing a
misdemeanor than a drunken drugged up Kennedy offspring driving down the
street.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

wrote in message
...
I'd bet big he's still a
scheming POS who doesn't do jack **** unless it benefits him and the
Kennedy machine.
I'm not too sure there really is a "Kennedy machine", in any real sense, at
this point in time. Their time has come and gone.
Given the landscape right now this minute:

I suspect McCain/just about anyone except Obama beats
Hillary/_anyone_, including Bill about as bad as is possible, say,
57%-43%-ish, the unlikely McCain/Obama beats _anybody_ else _at least_
75%-25%, and the likely McCain/whoever vs Obama/anyone but Hillary
goes 51%-49% or closer, flip a coin but _probably_ McCain. If Obama
screws the pooch and picks (or gets saddled with) Hillary, it's McCain
by 5 or so and Obama can get tips on dealing with ****ing away national
aspirations from Lieberman. Hillary's done - it looks like Barack van
Helsing put a stake right through her undead heart about December and
Teddy knew it before he got anywhere near that stage...and I'm pretty
sure this one ain't gonna have a sequel where the monster wasn't really
dead...
I think you are saying what I was trying to here. Teddy can do the math, and
was more jumping on the safest ship rather than extracting much in the way
of future favors.
Tom
p.s. Given the numbers Dems are turning out to primary elections, and that
most polled seem to be happy with either Hillary or Obama, my handicapping
of the fall race would put any Dem in front of McCain by a good 5 percent.
Obama could use McCain's weaknesses to stretch that to 15. And remember, who
told you Hillary was in more trouble than people thought several months
ago......g?

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
To hell with the Swiftboat thingy. I am talking
about behavior that gave comfort to our enemy.

....such as ignoring the role Saudi money plays in terrorist
activity? Such as removing one of the few checks on Iranian influence(a
strong Iraq)? Such as allowing videotaped sexual abuse of detained
'suspects' to destroy our credibility in the Middle East, thanks to an
ill-planned strategy? Hell, the past 8 years have been nothing but aid and
comfort to those who would kill us, when you look at it realistically.
Tom



Regardless how you
felt about that war, to pull a Jane Fonda only put more of our men in
danger. Why can't you see that, Ken?

Dave

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...

snip
To drift even more off topic, I think its a pity that Ethics committees
have more of a problem with a closeted gay guy in a restroom committing a
misdemeanor than a drunken drugged up Kennedy offspring driving down the
street.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Scott,
Ethics committees did not go after Craig because he was a "closeted gay guy
in a restroom committing a misdemeanor ", or after Clinton because he got a
blow job in the oval office, or after Packwood because he gropped women;
they went after them because in each case they lied under oath (either in a
court proceeding and/or to Congress) about what had happened. The fact that
this is not a meaningless distinction is lost on too many people.

Bob Weinberger

Bob Weinberger wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
Try not snipping away all the context from Scott's post and
then please explain to me how your commentary isn't silly.

My commentary is not silly because when he uses inane statements like " Many
recovering alcoholics are not normal happy
people. Many are, but many aren't." to bolster his arguement, he is
either:


1. Not thinking about what he is actually writing.
or
2. Using what, to the casual reader, might at first glance appear to be a
meaningful profound statement to set the stage for, and will be reason
enough for, many to uncritically accept all the analysis that follows.

Scott is no dummy and usually chooses his words carefully, so draw your own
conclusions.

Scott's argument as I read it was that mental health professionals
have identified several personality and behavioral attributes which
many recovering alcoholics have in common. So let's look at the
behaviors and personality of a specific recovering alcoholic over
the last seven years and notice the similarities.

Now out of all that you picked one sentence, presented it totally
out of context and then jumped on it with both feet. My conclusion,
as I've already implied, is that your commentary is silly.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Dave LaCourse wrote:
No Judicial branch of our government can *make*
the law, only interpret it.




uh...ever heard of the "common law"?