"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 00:27:04 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 23:48:36 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 18:20:18 -0500, Charlie Morgan wrote:

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 22:50:35 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 22:38:44 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
news:7iskk2tn6lvj18imnsq92c9mr3kh37fear@4ax .com...
Ok, Lamont is a geek and a one issue candidate with all the
personality of a grave stone, but this is a pretty good commercial.

Gotta give him props on this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbL5eO750gU
--

If voters turn off the reruns of "Raymond" long enough to compare
what
Lieberman says to the legislation he's supported, Lamont's got a
chance.
But, it probably won't happen.

Ned has no chance, never had a chance and won't even come close to
Joe.

He alreadty trounced him once.

Um....

What?

Primaries?

Couldn't be - he only won endorsement by 3% and barely got a 2% lead
in the primary.

You obviously don't consider 2% or 3% a royal 'trouncing'. What's wrong
with you?

Aren't these the same folks who considered Bush's 'trouncing' of Kerry
just
a slim lead?

Good point but you obviously know that the standards the liberals judge
conservatives by are not the same as those they apply to themselves.

We see that in this very NG day in and day out.

Why the libs cannot see that is beyond me. ;-)