|
Who are you gonna listen to?
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... |
Who are you gonna listen to?
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... |
Who are you gonna listen to?
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 |
Who are you gonna listen to?
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... |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"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 |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"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 |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"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 |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"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 |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"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 |
Who are you gonna listen to?
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... |
Who are you gonna listen to?
Capt. JG wrote:
"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 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... |
Who are you gonna listen to?
On Feb 7, 5:21 pm, Charlie Morgan wrote:
On 7 Feb 2007 17:08:03 -0600, Dave wrote: 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. Sorry, but it is you who is just plain wrong on this. I don't know where you pasted that from, but it's not very well done. "such as" is used when you want to refer to things that are similar to the object, without BEING the object. Refer to the AP stylebook, or maybe Strunk & White, if you still don't understand this important distinction. You are not quite at the level of those who do not know the difference between effect and affect, but you are getting close. :') CWM- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Ohhh...I see said the blind man as he picked up the hammer and saw. BB you could use the most proper grammer on earth, and you would still be a dip****. You should ask Harvard for a full refund. Joe |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"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. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Who are you gonna listen to?
Joe wrote:
On Feb 7, 5:21 pm, Charlie Morgan wrote: On 7 Feb 2007 17:08:03 -0600, Dave wrote: 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. Sorry, but it is you who is just plain wrong on this. I don't know where you pasted that from, but it's not very well done. "such as" is used when you want to refer to things that are similar to the object, without BEING the object. Refer to the AP stylebook, or maybe Strunk & White, if you still don't understand this important distinction. You are not quite at the level of those who do not know the difference between effect and affect, but you are getting close. :') CWM- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Ohhh...I see said the blind man as he picked up the hammer and saw. BB you could use the most proper grammer on earth, and you would still be a dip****. You should ask Harvard for a full refund. Joe They don't refund need scholarships.... |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"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. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Who are you gonna listen to?
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.... |
Who are you gonna listen to?
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... |
Who are you gonna listen to?
Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 18:38:48 -0500, katy wrote: Capt. JG wrote: "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 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... Nobody has to dig very far in regard to Giuliani. This isn't some minor incident. He has major character flaws that are exceedingly well documented. Scumbag is a fair and mild summation. CWM Ah...sort of like you? |
Who are you gonna listen to?
Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:00:27 -0500, katy wrote: Charlie Morgan wrote: On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 18:38:48 -0500, katy wrote: Capt. JG wrote: "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 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... Nobody has to dig very far in regard to Giuliani. This isn't some minor incident. He has major character flaws that are exceedingly well documented. Scumbag is a fair and mild summation. CWM Ah...sort of like you? 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... |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"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. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"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 |
Who are you gonna listen to?
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... |
Who are you gonna listen to?
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... |
Who are you gonna listen to?
Capt. JG wrote:
They said the same thing about Reagan... And Clinton! g And that time they were correct! |
Who are you gonna listen to?
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.... |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"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 |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"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 |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"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 |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Dave" wrote in message
... 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 |
Who are you gonna listen to?
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.. |
Who are you gonna listen to?
Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message ... And Clinton! g And that time they were correct! The best pres we've had in a long time. Get real...he was adequate at best and a sorry excise of a man... |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"katy" wrote in message ... Maxprop wrote: "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "katy" wrote in message ... Maxprop wrote: "Dave" wrote in message om... On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 22:24:24 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: Global environmental change for the worse is happening because human beings are so shortsighted as to ignore their own long-term best interests. Thus endeth the reading of the gospel according to Jon. Max, it's an article of faith with these folks. Challenging their gospel is like urging that the Bible is not divinely inspired--you'll never get that concession from the ultra-devout. Those running the global warming show are in it for the money and power. And they depend upon dupes like Jon to buy into their spiel. Fortunately for them there are plenty like Jon around to fund their chosen lifestyles. Max I already said that... How am I "funding" my lifestyle by my willingness to make a few sacrifices for the greater good? Funding *their* lifestyle--that of the leaders of organizations dependent upon your devotion and your donations. Max He thinks Hil and Bill live in a shack and drive a Yugo becasue of their great altruism... THEY DON'T????? Max |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Capt. JG" wrote in message Guess you didn't hear Bill say that he didn't need yet another tax break. I don't hear Cheney saying that. Cheney does--his investments earn him millions annually. Bill doesn't--he doesn't work, and his investments are more in line with Whitewater. Max |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Capt. JG" wrote in message Or, god forbid, he's actually being honest unlike Cheney who wasn't born with that ability. Who was just preaching about the politics of hatred in another thread?? Max |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"katy" wrote in message ... ..I'm gonna jump on the Ralph Nader bandwagon... Too bad. I was hoping only Democrats would do that. Max |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"katy" wrote in message ... 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 Ellen Macarthur for President !!! (Too bad "she's" not a woman.) Max |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"katy" wrote in message ... Maxprop wrote: He's a socialist, Katy. I think he's got copies of Karl Marx's works in his guest bathroom with a small sign taped on the wall above them: "Please help yourself to a copy and read it thoroughly and repeatedly. And believe." Max Then he'd better sell his boat and donate the money to Greenpeace..a true Socialist would be ashamed to live a lifestule unbeitting the needy... Nah. Socialists want others to pay for their social programs. They want to be rich like everyone else. Virtually every high ranking Soviet official owned a dacha in the country outside of Moscow or Leningrad. Paid for by the beleaguered workers. Max |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"katy" wrote in message ... He sibscribes to the basic Augustinian belief that man is inherently evil...so no matter what it is, man must be at the root of it....he has raised mankind to sich omnipotence that it is untenable...and his articulation of his cause is redundant...so there...I used the "a' word... RACIST !!! Max |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Capt. JG" wrote in message I wish it weren't, but I'm living in the real world. The real world of make-believe science. Max |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Capt. JG" wrote in message So far, I haven't seen much in the way of facts from you. (This from the guy who's been supporting his arguments with statements like "science says it is so.") You'll listen to big business, but not to scientists. Maybe you think smoking doesn't cause cancer? I listen to both sides. You don't. My only contention is that when some scientists support the notion of GW, and others dispute it, the issue is far from conclusive. You, of course, contend that any scientist who disputes the notion of GW must be in the hip pockets of big business. That is the hallmark of a closed mind. Max |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:49 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com