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


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


Hillary throws ashtrays...Bill has sexual events with other
women....they're all human (to some extent...)...I'm sure that someone
can dig up something about almost anyone if they look hard enough...or
long enough...people do things they regret and then have to pay the
consequences years later..it's when they don't learn )Boll Boy) and
continue to make the same mistakes repeatedly is when the giant red X
should descend on them...


Guilliani's one defining moment was during the 9/11 crisis. He also did a
pretty good job cleaning up NYC, but I don't see how anyone could think
he's got what it takes to be pres. I just don't see the bonafides.
Perhaps others do. I don't think he'll go very far in the political
process, but you never know.

They said the same thing about Reagan...


And Clinton! g


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

Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:19:17 -0500, katy wrote:



I guess you can't do any better than Giuliani. No wonder you like him. He's just
like you.

CWM

That means you are like me? I don't think so...


I think you had better look up " psychotic break" - you are apparently in the
midst of one.

CWM

I'm not the one who said it...

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

Capt. JG wrote:

"katy" wrote in message
...


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...



As opposed to Bush? As opposed to Lieberman who ran on Gore's liberal
ticket? Almost all politicians waffle.



Like I've said before, I am not a fan of GW Bish...Gore needed Liebermann
on his ticket becasue he (Gore) is so liberal that moderate Dems needed
something to convince them of the ticket...it wasn't enough and look what
happened..Gore is way, way too liberal....



Not for me... and, if the Supremes hadn't installed Bush, we wouldn't be
spending $100s of billions in Iraq, we would be safer, and the world would
be better off. I'll take liberal any day of what has transpired.


And besides the World Trade Center, the capitol building, the US Postal
Service, the SuperDome, the Statue of Liberty, and Amtrak would no
longer exist and we'd all have anthrax or worse...

Capt. JG wrote:



They said the same thing about Reagan...



And Clinton! g


And that time they were correct!

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:02:00 -0500, katy said:


That's why I hope Giuliani gets the nomination.


Rudy was a terrific mayor, but when I voted for him last time I said I'd
never vote for him for higher office. I see in him a dangerous autocratic
strain not unlike Nixon's.

That said, I may have to eat my words if the final choice is between him and
Hillary.

That's the way I figured it, too...O would take him over McCain any
day...and Condy Rice hasn't a chance...some of the others are so obscure
with no name brand recognition that they're useless as candidates from
the start. I heard today that Newt Gingrich might be declaring...that
would be a media heydey....

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

Capt. JG wrote:

"katy" wrote in message
...


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...



As opposed to Bush? As opposed to Lieberman who ran on Gore's liberal
ticket? Almost all politicians waffle.



Like I've said before, I am not a fan of GW Bish...Gore needed Liebermann
on his ticket becasue he (Gore) is so liberal that moderate Dems needed
something to convince them of the ticket...it wasn't enough and look what
happened..Gore is way, way too liberal....



Not for me... and, if the Supremes hadn't installed Bush, we wouldn't be
spending $100s of billions in Iraq, we would be safer, and the world
would be better off. I'll take liberal any day of what has transpired.


And besides the World Trade Center, the capitol building, the US Postal
Service, the SuperDome, the Statue of Liberty, and Amtrak would no longer
exist and we'd all have anthrax or worse...


This was all on Bushco's watch... while he was on vacation probably.


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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 18:28:14 -0500, Charlie Morgan said:


Okay, you just dropped about 40 IQ points with that one, Dave.

Nah. That'd bring me down to your level, a proposition I'm unwilling to
concede g.


40? That's all to get to his level? g

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

"katy" wrote in message
...
And Clinton! g


And that time they were correct!


The best pres we've had in a long time.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:02:00 -0500, katy said:

That's why I hope Giuliani gets the nomination.

Rudy was a terrific mayor, but when I voted for him last time I said I'd
never vote for him for higher office. I see in him a dangerous autocratic
strain not unlike Nixon's.

That said, I may have to eat my words if the final choice is between him
and
Hillary.


Why don't you like Hillary? She's got the creds.


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

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

Capt. JG wrote:

"katy" wrote in message
...


Capt. JG wrote:


"katy" wrote in message
...



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...



As opposed to Bush? As opposed to Lieberman who ran on Gore's liberal
ticket? Almost all politicians waffle.



Like I've said before, I am not a fan of GW Bish...Gore needed Liebermann
on his ticket becasue he (Gore) is so liberal that moderate Dems needed
something to convince them of the ticket...it wasn't enough and look what
happened..Gore is way, way too liberal....



Not for me... and, if the Supremes hadn't installed Bush, we wouldn't be
spending $100s of billions in Iraq, we would be safer, and the world
would be better off. I'll take liberal any day of what has transpired.


And besides the World Trade Center, the capitol building, the US Postal
Service, the SuperDome, the Statue of Liberty, and Amtrak would no longer
exist and we'd all have anthrax or worse...



This was all on Bushco's watch... while he was on vacation probably.


N...it may have been tried on his watch but it didn't come to fruition,
except for the Trade Center...if Gore had been President we'd probably
all be bowing to the Mullah by now..