Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

scbafreak via BoatKB.com wrote:

Or, god forbid, he's actually being honest unlike Cheney who wasn't
born with that ability.


U'm not a particular fan of either GW or Cheney so it doens't make any
difference to me...or for that matter, Bill Clinton..I'm gonna jump on
the Ralph Nader bandwagon...

Well, that really was just a vote for the Bushco crowd last time.



No it was a vote for Nader. What is with Democrats saying that they
didn't
so much lose to Bush as get screwed bby Nader. If the Dems could have
gotten
a good strong candidate then they would have won the election. Instead
they
choose these non-threatening kind of wussy little guys. Americans don't
like
that. Americans like tough guys. As much of an Environmentalist as I am
I
could not bring myself to vote for Kerry. He is too much of a giant "V"
for
me. I don't think I am alone in this thinking. Democrats like that sort
of
guy and so I will never be a Democrat.


What we really need to do is ditch the 2 party system...I say go back to a
Parliament...with a Prime minister rather than a President...gets rid of
the whole popular vite vs electoral college vote dillema and makes it so
that other opinions can be heard in government..also allows for the common
man to have a chance to stand for his cimmunity...we'd have to ditch the
House of Lords concept and keep the Senate intact but change the way the
House functions..



I don't think I like this idea... you're right about the 2-party system...
we just need reasonable 3rd party candidates... Nader wasn't one, and in my
opinion it was a throw-away vote. I don't know if it would have made a
difference in the last pres. election, but it didn't help and look who we
got. I voted for Kerry/Edwards, but was never highly impressed with Kerry.
The lesser of two evils was my reasoning. However, now we have a chance to
vote for Hillary or McCain. I don't think Obama is quite ready yet...
another 8 years, then.... g


I don't like McCain..he'a an angry person and tires to rule by
intimidation...I do like Giuliani...if you can make sense out of that
hash called New York, you can make sewnse out of almost anything...as
much as I would like to see a woman in the WHite House, as President and
not as bed wench, Hillary just deosn't do it for me...I like listening
to er and think she is an intelligent person and on the private sector,
if we met I would probably like her..i do not like her politics,
though...I liked Joe Lieberman before they made a mess of him but this
country would never vote for a Jew for President...and at this point,
that would just inflame the Arabs to the point of total
uncontrol...Edwards is too much in the hands of money...the guy I really
liked won't run...Mark Warner...

Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

Capt. JG wrote:

"katy" wrote in message
...



Or, god forbid, he's actually being honest unlike Cheney who wasn't born
with that ability.


U'm not a particular fan of either GW or Cheney so it doens't make any
difference to me...or for that matter, Bill Clinton..I'm gonna jump on
the Ralph Nader bandwagon...



Well, that really was just a vote for the Bushco crowd last time.


That's why I hope Giuliani gets the nomination...a vote for Nader is a
vote for Giuliani!



He's pro choice... I don't like him much for other reasons, and he has a lot
of baggage, but he's better than the current officeholder.
I know that's not saying much... g

I son't think you can use the pro choice thing as a sole criterion for
electing or not electing someone to the position of President. On a
state level, yes, because that's where the legislation is, but at the
top level, those decisions are already made...you have to look at whole
pictures, not at isolated instances...

The two party system would work just fine if they would just produce candidates
who said what they meant, and meant what they said. Those who cry for a third
party to solve their problems are in the same league as those who think that
school vouchers will somehow improve public schools.

CWM

I think no party system. Do a petition and pay for it all either yourself or
with sponsors and just go for it. That's the real American way. If you want
to be president bad enough oyu will find a way to get you views out thier.
If you have enough brains and guts then people will vote for you. A third
party would just be one more group to appease.

The only thing that will improve public schools is parents who give a ****
about their kids education. Since we don't have much of that then we are
screwed. oh well, the world needs ditch diggers and fast food workers too.

Bill

--
Message posted via http://www.boatkb.com

Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 12:45:06 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote:


"katy" wrote in message
...

scbafreak via BoatKB.com wrote:

Or, god forbid, he's actually being honest unlike Cheney who wasn't
born with that ability.


U'm not a particular fan of either GW or Cheney so it doens't make any
difference to me...or for that matter, Bill Clinton..I'm gonna jump on
the Ralph Nader bandwagon...

Well, that really was just a vote for the Bushco crowd last time.



No it was a vote for Nader. What is with Democrats saying that they
didn't
so much lose to Bush as get screwed bby Nader. If the Dems could have
gotten
a good strong candidate then they would have won the election. Instead
they
choose these non-threatening kind of wussy little guys. Americans don't
like
that. Americans like tough guys. As much of an Environmentalist as I am
I
could not bring myself to vote for Kerry. He is too much of a giant "V"
for
me. I don't think I am alone in this thinking. Democrats like that sort
of
guy and so I will never be a Democrat.


What we really need to do is ditch the 2 party system...I say go back to a
Parliament...with a Prime minister rather than a President...gets rid of
the whole popular vite vs electoral college vote dillema and makes it so
that other opinions can be heard in government..also allows for the common
man to have a chance to stand for his cimmunity...we'd have to ditch the
House of Lords concept and keep the Senate intact but change the way the
House functions..


I don't think I like this idea... you're right about the 2-party system...
we just need reasonable 3rd party candidates... Nader wasn't one, and in my
opinion it was a throw-away vote. I don't know if it would have made a
difference in the last pres. election, but it didn't help and look who we
got. I voted for Kerry/Edwards, but was never highly impressed with Kerry.
The lesser of two evils was my reasoning. However, now we have a chance to
vote for Hillary or McCain. I don't think Obama is quite ready yet...
another 8 years, then.... g


The two party system would work just fine if they would just produce candidates
who said what they meant, and meant what they said. Those who cry for a third
party to solve their problems are in the same league as those who think that
school vouchers will somehow improve public schools.

CWM

THat would be all well and good if the parties themselves were defined
but there are now so many factions within each party that the
fragmentation kills the party message...

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 17:14:59 -0500, Charlie Morgan said:

Hey, I thought you knew something about writing, Charlie. Nothing wrong
with
Katy's usage of "like." The problem is the word "and," which should read
"with"

It was the wrong usage, given the context. She should have used "such as".
Using
"like" would mean she was actually suggesting Reagan himself.

Sorry, but you're just plain wrong. Your usage is #5 below. Hers in #1 and
entirely correct.

like 2 (lk)
prep.
1. Possessing the characteristics of; resembling closely; similar to.
2.
a. In the typical manner of: It's not like you to take offense.
b. In the same way as: lived like royalty.
3. Inclined or disposed to: felt like running away.
4. As if the probability exists for: looks like a bad year for farmers.
5. Such as; for example: saved things like old newspapers and pieces of
string.


Like wow....


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"katy" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 11:03:06 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:


frozen tundra or the
swamps of Florida

You need to join Charlie in getting out and around a bit.


Who?

Charlie. The guy who thinks all Texans are illiterate 'cause they talk
funny.



Ah... plonked him a long time ago.


You mean Jerry Springer?


Who?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 17:16:00 -0500, Charlie Morgan said:

Lessee--how many countries did you say you've spent time in?

I didn't.

So tell us how "worldly" you are, then.


Jeeze Dave... do you really want an answer to that?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"katy" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

scbafreak via BoatKB.com wrote:

Or, god forbid, he's actually being honest unlike Cheney who wasn't
born with that ability.


U'm not a particular fan of either GW or Cheney so it doens't make any
difference to me...or for that matter, Bill Clinton..I'm gonna jump on
the Ralph Nader bandwagon...

Well, that really was just a vote for the Bushco crowd last time.



No it was a vote for Nader. What is with Democrats saying that they
didn't
so much lose to Bush as get screwed bby Nader. If the Dems could have
gotten
a good strong candidate then they would have won the election. Instead
they
choose these non-threatening kind of wussy little guys. Americans don't
like
that. Americans like tough guys. As much of an Environmentalist as I
am I
could not bring myself to vote for Kerry. He is too much of a giant "V"
for
me. I don't think I am alone in this thinking. Democrats like that
sort of
guy and so I will never be a Democrat.


What we really need to do is ditch the 2 party system...I say go back to
a Parliament...with a Prime minister rather than a President...gets rid
of the whole popular vite vs electoral college vote dillema and makes it
so that other opinions can be heard in government..also allows for the
common man to have a chance to stand for his cimmunity...we'd have to
ditch the House of Lords concept and keep the Senate intact but change
the way the House functions..



I don't think I like this idea... you're right about the 2-party
system... we just need reasonable 3rd party candidates... Nader wasn't
one, and in my opinion it was a throw-away vote. I don't know if it would
have made a difference in the last pres. election, but it didn't help and
look who we got. I voted for Kerry/Edwards, but was never highly
impressed with Kerry. The lesser of two evils was my reasoning. However,
now we have a chance to vote for Hillary or McCain. I don't think Obama
is quite ready yet... another 8 years, then.... g


I don't like McCain..he'a an angry person and tires to rule by
intimidation...I do like Giuliani...if you can make sense out of that hash
called New York, you can make sewnse out of almost anything...as much as I
would like to see a woman in the WHite House, as President and not as bed
wench, Hillary just deosn't do it for me...I like listening to er and
think she is an intelligent person and on the private sector, if we met I
would probably like her..i do not like her politics, though...I liked Joe
Lieberman before they made a mess of him but this country would never vote
for a Jew for President...and at this point, that would just inflame the
Arabs to the point of total uncontrol...Edwards is too much in the hands
of money...the guy I really liked won't run...Mark Warner...


She's very middle of the road these days and very pro-military.

I never liked Liberman, and I thought Gore made a mistake picking him as a
running mate. He's too much of a follower in his politics.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"katy" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

Capt. JG wrote:

"katy" wrote in message
...



Or, god forbid, he's actually being honest unlike Cheney who wasn't
born with that ability.


U'm not a particular fan of either GW or Cheney so it doens't make any
difference to me...or for that matter, Bill Clinton..I'm gonna jump on
the Ralph Nader bandwagon...



Well, that really was just a vote for the Bushco crowd last time.


That's why I hope Giuliani gets the nomination...a vote for Nader is a
vote for Giuliani!



He's pro choice... I don't like him much for other reasons, and he has a
lot of baggage, but he's better than the current officeholder.
I know that's not saying much... g

I son't think you can use the pro choice thing as a sole criterion for
electing or not electing someone to the position of President. On a state
level, yes, because that's where the legislation is, but at the top level,
those decisions are already made...you have to look at whole pictures, not
at isolated instances...



Can I look at how he treated his former wife? g


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

Capt. JG wrote:

"katy" wrote in message
...


scbafreak via BoatKB.com wrote:


Or, god forbid, he's actually being honest unlike Cheney who wasn't
born with that ability.


U'm not a particular fan of either GW or Cheney so it doens't make any
difference to me...or for that matter, Bill Clinton..I'm gonna jump on
the Ralph Nader bandwagon...

Well, that really was just a vote for the Bushco crowd last time.



No it was a vote for Nader. What is with Democrats saying that they
didn't
so much lose to Bush as get screwed bby Nader. If the Dems could have
gotten
a good strong candidate then they would have won the election. Instead
they
choose these non-threatening kind of wussy little guys. Americans don't
like
that. Americans like tough guys. As much of an Environmentalist as I
am I
could not bring myself to vote for Kerry. He is too much of a giant "V"
for
me. I don't think I am alone in this thinking. Democrats like that
sort of
guy and so I will never be a Democrat.


What we really need to do is ditch the 2 party system...I say go back to
a Parliament...with a Prime minister rather than a President...gets rid
of the whole popular vite vs electoral college vote dillema and makes it
so that other opinions can be heard in government..also allows for the
common man to have a chance to stand for his cimmunity...we'd have to
ditch the House of Lords concept and keep the Senate intact but change
the way the House functions..



I don't think I like this idea... you're right about the 2-party
system... we just need reasonable 3rd party candidates... Nader wasn't
one, and in my opinion it was a throw-away vote. I don't know if it would
have made a difference in the last pres. election, but it didn't help and
look who we got. I voted for Kerry/Edwards, but was never highly
impressed with Kerry. The lesser of two evils was my reasoning. However,
now we have a chance to vote for Hillary or McCain. I don't think Obama
is quite ready yet... another 8 years, then.... g


I don't like McCain..he'a an angry person and tires to rule by
intimidation...I do like Giuliani...if you can make sense out of that hash
called New York, you can make sewnse out of almost anything...as much as I
would like to see a woman in the WHite House, as President and not as bed
wench, Hillary just deosn't do it for me...I like listening to er and
think she is an intelligent person and on the private sector, if we met I
would probably like her..i do not like her politics, though...I liked Joe
Lieberman before they made a mess of him but this country would never vote
for a Jew for President...and at this point, that would just inflame the
Arabs to the point of total uncontrol...Edwards is too much in the hands
of money...the guy I really liked won't run...Mark Warner...



She's very middle of the road these days and very pro-military.

I never liked Liberman, and I thought Gore made a mistake picking him as a
running mate. He's too much of a follower in his politics.

"these days"...that's my problem with her..she waffles...