| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
I like her already...
wrote in message
... On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 08:41:43 -0500, "H the K (I post with a Mac)" wrote: If elected to the Senate, Coakley is promising to work for loan modifications when appropriate, so her constituents can hold onto their homes. She is also promising to support enhanced regulation of mortgage products and disclosure laws so that the homeowners can better understand their mortgage terms. Yeah, I remember when Obama was against the war too. It is funny how a few million in "contributions" (read:bribes) and an awakening to political reality, turns these people around. The golden rule of politics is the people with the gold make the rules. It won't be long before she is in lock step with Gramm, Lieberman, Dodd and the bankers who own them. Which war are you talking about? He was never against the Afg. war. He remains against the Iraqi war. Why don't you just stick to the facts instead of trying to promote an agenda. -- Nom=de=Plume |
|
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
I like her already...
In article ,
says... wrote in message ... On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 08:41:43 -0500, "H the K (I post with a Mac)" wrote: If elected to the Senate, Coakley is promising to work for loan modifications when appropriate, so her constituents can hold onto their homes. She is also promising to support enhanced regulation of mortgage products and disclosure laws so that the homeowners can better understand their mortgage terms. Yeah, I remember when Obama was against the war too. It is funny how a few million in "contributions" (read:bribes) and an awakening to political reality, turns these people around. The golden rule of politics is the people with the gold make the rules. It won't be long before she is in lock step with Gramm, Lieberman, Dodd and the bankers who own them. Which war are you talking about? He was never against the Afg. war. He remains against the Iraqi war. Why don't you just stick to the facts instead of trying to promote an agenda. I get excited when you talk like that. -- Imagine being such a worthless p.o.s. that you post on usenet using someone else's ID |
|
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
I like her already...
wrote in message
... On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 10:40:32 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Yeah, I remember when Obama was against the war too. It is funny how a few million in "contributions" (read:bribes) and an awakening to political reality, turns these people around. The golden rule of politics is the people with the gold make the rules. It won't be long before she is in lock step with Gramm, Lieberman, Dodd and the bankers who own them. Which war are you talking about? He was never against the Afg. war. He remains against the Iraqi war. Why don't you just stick to the facts instead of trying to promote an agenda. We are still in the Iraq war, in case you are not watching the news. In Jan 2009 Obama was also pretty soft on the Afghanistan war, as he should be. It is another waste of money, lives and political capital. My agenda is pretty simple, end the crusades, stop the hemorrhage debt and try to build a viable economy that is based on real jobs, not selling financial instruments of dubious value. When I see a candidate who really has a plan to do that I will vote for him/her. Since the late 80s it has been "meet the new boss, same as the old boss". Obama never said he would instantly withdraw us from Iraq. -- Nom=de=Plume |
|
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
I like her already...
On Dec 9, 12:54*am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 10:40:32 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Yeah, I remember when Obama was against the war too. It is funny how a few million in "contributions" (read:bribes) and an awakening to political reality, turns these people around. The golden rule of politics is the people with the gold make the rules. It won't be long before she is in lock step with Gramm, Lieberman, Dodd and the bankers who own them. Which war are you talking about? He was never against the Afg. war. He remains against the Iraqi war. Why don't you just stick to the facts instead of trying to promote an agenda. We are still in the Iraq war, in case you are not watching the news. In Jan 2009 Obama was also pretty soft on the Afghanistan war, as he should be. It is another waste of money, lives and political capital. My agenda is pretty simple, end the crusades, stop the hemorrhage debt and try to build a viable economy that is based on real jobs, not selling financial instruments of dubious value. When I see a candidate who really has a plan to do that I will vote for him/her. Since the late 80s it has been "meet the new boss, same as the old boss". Obama never said he would instantly withdraw us from Iraq. -- Nom=de=Plume- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - It doesn't matter what exactly Obama said. What matters is what Hannity, Rush and O'Reilly say what Obama said. |
|
#5
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
I like her already...
"Loogypicker" wrote in message
... On Dec 9, 12:54 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 10:40:32 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Yeah, I remember when Obama was against the war too. It is funny how a few million in "contributions" (read:bribes) and an awakening to political reality, turns these people around. The golden rule of politics is the people with the gold make the rules. It won't be long before she is in lock step with Gramm, Lieberman, Dodd and the bankers who own them. Which war are you talking about? He was never against the Afg. war. He remains against the Iraqi war. Why don't you just stick to the facts instead of trying to promote an agenda. We are still in the Iraq war, in case you are not watching the news. In Jan 2009 Obama was also pretty soft on the Afghanistan war, as he should be. It is another waste of money, lives and political capital. My agenda is pretty simple, end the crusades, stop the hemorrhage debt and try to build a viable economy that is based on real jobs, not selling financial instruments of dubious value. When I see a candidate who really has a plan to do that I will vote for him/her. Since the late 80s it has been "meet the new boss, same as the old boss". Obama never said he would instantly withdraw us from Iraq. -- Nom=de=Plume- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - It doesn't matter what exactly Obama said. What matters is what Hannity, Rush and O'Reilly say what Obama said. Pardon me for forgetting this obvious fact!  -- Nom=de=Plume |
|
#6
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
I like her already...
In article ,
says... "Loogypicker" wrote in message ... On Dec 9, 12:54 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 10:40:32 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Yeah, I remember when Obama was against the war too. It is funny how a few million in "contributions" (read:bribes) and an awakening to political reality, turns these people around. The golden rule of politics is the people with the gold make the rules. It won't be long before she is in lock step with Gramm, Lieberman, Dodd and the bankers who own them. Which war are you talking about? He was never against the Afg. war. He remains against the Iraqi war. Why don't you just stick to the facts instead of trying to promote an agenda. We are still in the Iraq war, in case you are not watching the news. In Jan 2009 Obama was also pretty soft on the Afghanistan war, as he should be. It is another waste of money, lives and political capital. My agenda is pretty simple, end the crusades, stop the hemorrhage debt and try to build a viable economy that is based on real jobs, not selling financial instruments of dubious value. When I see a candidate who really has a plan to do that I will vote for him/her. Since the late 80s it has been "meet the new boss, same as the old boss". Obama never said he would instantly withdraw us from Iraq. -- Nom=de=Plume- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - It doesn't matter what exactly Obama said. What matters is what Hannity, Rush and O'Reilly say what Obama said. Pardon me for forgetting this obvious fact! Don't go being nice to Loogy. He doesn't believe all of my tall tales, so I don't like him. If you want to be in our group, you have to fall in line like Don and Scott Dickson. -- Imagine being such a worthless p.o.s. that you post on usenet using someone else's ID |
|
#8
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
I like her already...
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 11:41:30 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote: On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 01:55:06 -0500, wrote: You can see his position evolve if you follow this to the current policy. I still think he was completely wrong about Afghanistan, as was Bush. We have nothing there we can win. +++++++ At an otherwise uneventful hearing before the House Armed Services Committee this morning, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, said something that should confirm and heighten most people's apprehensions about the war's escalation. McChrystal noted that he has accumulated several years of command experience in that country since the war began. And yet, he confessed, "There is much in Afghanistan that I do not understand." +++++++ Fred Kaplan at www.slate.com A little honesty is refreshing. -- John H |
|
#9
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
I like her already...
wrote in message
... On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 21:54:14 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 10:40:32 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Yeah, I remember when Obama was against the war too. It is funny how a few million in "contributions" (read:bribes) and an awakening to political reality, turns these people around. The golden rule of politics is the people with the gold make the rules. It won't be long before she is in lock step with Gramm, Lieberman, Dodd and the bankers who own them. Which war are you talking about? He was never against the Afg. war. He remains against the Iraqi war. Why don't you just stick to the facts instead of trying to promote an agenda. We are still in the Iraq war, in case you are not watching the news. In Jan 2009 Obama was also pretty soft on the Afghanistan war, as he should be. It is another waste of money, lives and political capital. My agenda is pretty simple, end the crusades, stop the hemorrhage debt and try to build a viable economy that is based on real jobs, not selling financial instruments of dubious value. When I see a candidate who really has a plan to do that I will vote for him/her. Since the late 80s it has been "meet the new boss, same as the old boss". Obama never said he would instantly withdraw us from Iraq. You tube is a powerful thing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WYTKj8pU5M You can see his position evolve if you follow this to the current policy. I still think he was completely wrong about Afghanistan, as was Bush. We have nothing there we can win. Did you actually listen to it???? Phased, orderly withdrawl, give the generals a mission to begin an orderly, phased withdrawl... as, quickly as possible, combat troops out within 16 mos. which is happening. -- Nom=de=Plume |
|
#10
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
I like her already...
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:04:39 -0500, wrote:
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 11:29:20 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Obama never said he would instantly withdraw us from Iraq. You tube is a powerful thing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WYTKj8pU5M You can see his position evolve if you follow this to the current policy. I still think he was completely wrong about Afghanistan, as was Bush. We have nothing there we can win. Did you actually listen to it???? Phased, orderly withdrawl, give the generals a mission to begin an orderly, phased withdrawl... as, quickly as possible, combat troops out within 16 mos. which is happening. If you think we will be out of Iraq by May 2010 I have a bridge you might want to buy. He is now saying we may never actually get out. When you think about it, Vietnam and Grenada are the only two places where we ever had a war and left when it was over. Maybe Cuba and Nicaragua? --Vic |
Hybrid Mode
