On Dec 15, 1:27 pm, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:23:44 -0800 (PST),

wrote:
What cracks me up is the MSM pushing Huckabee and McCain

I think they are just trying to whip up some interest and get people
to watch this train wreck

After the CNN, PBS debate debacle there should really be no doubt that
they along with MSNBC are actively trying to elect a democrat in 2008
(should I tell you her name?) and with that, supporting a weak
republican would fall right in line. The Clintons are known for their
thousands of lawyers and investigators and more likely feel they have
enough dirt and controversy on him to sink a presidential bid, I am
sure the media outlets I noted plus most others were in on the
meeting

wrote:
On Dec 15, 1:27 pm, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:23:44 -0800 (PST),

wrote:
What cracks me up is the MSM pushing Huckabee and McCain
I think they are just trying to whip up some interest and get people
to watch this train wreck

After the CNN, PBS debate debacle there should really be no doubt that
they along with MSNBC are actively trying to elect a democrat in 2008
(should I tell you her name?) and with that, supporting a weak
republican would fall right in line. The Clintons are known for their
thousands of lawyers and investigators and more likely feel they have
enough dirt and controversy on him to sink a presidential bid, I am
sure the media outlets I noted plus most others were in on the
meeting



Jeez, where do you get this stuff? I mean, it is wilder and woollier
than that idiot Bill what's his name on Faux News spews out each night.

Oh, by the way, *all* the Republicans seeking the nomination are "weak."
There isn't a winner in the entire bunch. Crazies, religious fruitcakes,
nearly deads, one-trick ponies, crooks, and flip-floppers. The only
decent guy in the bunch is McCain.

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 20:13:51 -0500, HK wrote:

wrote:
On Dec 15, 1:27 pm, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:23:44 -0800 (PST),

wrote:
What cracks me up is the MSM pushing Huckabee and McCain
I think they are just trying to whip up some interest and get people
to watch this train wreck

After the CNN, PBS debate debacle there should really be no doubt that
they along with MSNBC are actively trying to elect a democrat in 2008
(should I tell you her name?) and with that, supporting a weak
republican would fall right in line. The Clintons are known for their
thousands of lawyers and investigators and more likely feel they have
enough dirt and controversy on him to sink a presidential bid, I am
sure the media outlets I noted plus most others were in on the
meeting



Jeez, where do you get this stuff? I mean, it is wilder and woollier
than that idiot Bill what's his name on Faux News spews out each night.

Oh, by the way, *all* the Republicans seeking the nomination are "weak."
There isn't a winner in the entire bunch. Crazies, religious fruitcakes,
nearly deads, one-trick ponies, crooks, and flip-floppers. The only
decent guy in the bunch is McCain.

Good to hear you're watching something besides the major, liberal media,
Harry. I didn't know it was an every night thing, but I can understand how
you'd get sick of the NBC bull****.

On Dec 15, 8:13 pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 15, 1:27 pm, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:23:44 -0800 (PST),

wrote:
What cracks me up is the MSM pushing Huckabee and McCain
I think they are just trying to whip up some interest and get people
to watch this train wreck

After the CNN, PBS debate debacle there should really be no doubt that
they along with MSNBC are actively trying to elect a democrat in 2008
(should I tell you her name?) and with that, supporting a weak
republican would fall right in line. The Clintons are known for their
thousands of lawyers and investigators and more likely feel they have
enough dirt and controversy on him to sink a presidential bid, I am
sure the media outlets I noted plus most others were in on the
meeting

Jeez, where do you get this stuff? I mean, it is wilder and woollier
than that idiot Bill what's his name on Faux News spews out each night.

Oh, by the way, *all* the Republicans seeking the nomination are "weak."
There isn't a winner in the entire bunch. Crazies, religious fruitcakes,
nearly deads, one-trick ponies, crooks, and flip-floppers. The only
decent guy in the bunch is McCain.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What did I say that was innacurate? You just like to talk, have a
chance to post your typical paragraph of 8th grade logic...

wrote:
On Dec 15, 8:13 pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 15, 1:27 pm, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:23:44 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
What cracks me up is the MSM pushing Huckabee and McCain
I think they are just trying to whip up some interest and get people
to watch this train wreck
After the CNN, PBS debate debacle there should really be no doubt that
they along with MSNBC are actively trying to elect a democrat in 2008
(should I tell you her name?) and with that, supporting a weak
republican would fall right in line. The Clintons are known for their
thousands of lawyers and investigators and more likely feel they have
enough dirt and controversy on him to sink a presidential bid, I am
sure the media outlets I noted plus most others were in on the
meeting
Jeez, where do you get this stuff? I mean, it is wilder and woollier
than that idiot Bill what's his name on Faux News spews out each night.

Oh, by the way, *all* the Republicans seeking the nomination are "weak."
There isn't a winner in the entire bunch. Crazies, religious fruitcakes,
nearly deads, one-trick ponies, crooks, and flip-floppers. The only
decent guy in the bunch is McCain.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What did I say that was innacurate? You just like to talk, have a
chance to post your typical paragraph of 8th grade logic...


You implied there was some conspiracy for certain media outlets to
support a "weak" Republican. That means you are presuming there is some
"strong" Republican among the wanna-be's. There ain't.

Who's your boy on the GOP side? I need a laugh.

On Dec 15, 10:23 pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 15, 8:13 pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 15, 1:27 pm, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:23:44 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
What cracks me up is the MSM pushing Huckabee and McCain
I think they are just trying to whip up some interest and get people
to watch this train wreck
After the CNN, PBS debate debacle there should really be no doubt that
they along with MSNBC are actively trying to elect a democrat in 2008
(should I tell you her name?) and with that, supporting a weak
republican would fall right in line. The Clintons are known for their
thousands of lawyers and investigators and more likely feel they have
enough dirt and controversy on him to sink a presidential bid, I am
sure the media outlets I noted plus most others were in on the
meeting
Jeez, where do you get this stuff? I mean, it is wilder and woollier
than that idiot Bill what's his name on Faux News spews out each night.

Oh, by the way, *all* the Republicans seeking the nomination are "weak."
There isn't a winner in the entire bunch. Crazies, religious fruitcakes,
nearly deads, one-trick ponies, crooks, and flip-floppers. The only
decent guy in the bunch is McCain.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What did I say that was innacurate? You just like to talk, have a
chance to post your typical paragraph of 8th grade logic...

You implied there was some conspiracy for certain media outlets to
support a "weak" Republican. That means you are presuming there is some
"strong" Republican among the wanna-be's. There ain't.

Who's your boy on the GOP side? I need a laugh.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I just don't know yet, you do know that I am not republican, not by a
long shot, right?

On Dec 16, 12:25 am, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 22:23:14 -0500, HK wrote:
You implied there was some conspiracy for certain media outlets to
support a "weak" Republican. That means you are presuming there is some
"strong" Republican among the wanna-be's. There ain't.

Who's your boy on the GOP side? I need a laugh.

This is certainly going to be another election where the winner gets
42-43% (but that was how Bill got in).
Dodd pointed out in one of the early debates that more than half of
the people polled say they could not vote for Hillary under any
circumstance and she is the strongest candidate on either side.
Pretty sad

As long as we don't get another Clinton presidency, I don't think our
intellignece and military services could take another stripping, and
we certainly don't want to sell any more of our missle and nuke
technology to them for a few million in late campaign contributions
like last time..

wrote:
On Dec 16, 12:25 am, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 22:23:14 -0500, HK wrote:
You implied there was some conspiracy for certain media outlets to
support a "weak" Republican. That means you are presuming there is some
"strong" Republican among the wanna-be's. There ain't.
Who's your boy on the GOP side? I need a laugh.
This is certainly going to be another election where the winner gets
42-43% (but that was how Bill got in).
Dodd pointed out in one of the early debates that more than half of
the people polled say they could not vote for Hillary under any
circumstance and she is the strongest candidate on either side.
Pretty sad

As long as we don't get another Clinton presidency, I don't think our
intellignece and military services could take another stripping, and
we certainly don't want to sell any more of our missle and nuke
technology to them for a few million in late campaign contributions
like last time..


What are you talking about? Hillary is the toughest guy running.

As for stripping down the military, Bush has been doing precisely that
for the last seven years.

Not much we can do about China these days, after seven years of it
buying our paper, eh?

On Dec 16, 7:39 am, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 16, 12:25 am, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 22:23:14 -0500, HK wrote:
You implied there was some conspiracy for certain media outlets to
support a "weak" Republican. That means you are presuming there is some
"strong" Republican among the wanna-be's. There ain't.
Who's your boy on the GOP side? I need a laugh.
This is certainly going to be another election where the winner gets
42-43% (but that was how Bill got in).
Dodd pointed out in one of the early debates that more than half of
the people polled say they could not vote for Hillary under any
circumstance and she is the strongest candidate on either side.
Pretty sad

As long as we don't get another Clinton presidency, I don't think our
intellignece and military services could take another stripping, and
we certainly don't want to sell any more of our missle and nuke
technology to them for a few million in late campaign contributions
like last time..

What are you talking about? Hillary is the toughest guy running.

As for stripping down the military, Bush has been doing precisely that
for the last seven years.

Not much we can do about China these days, after seven years of it
buying our paper, eh?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I like them buying our paper more now than haveing free reign over our
military secrets for the 8 before that. Like I said Harry, only you
doubt my suggestions in this thread, and we knew that before I even
posted

On Dec 16, 7:39 am, HK wrote:


What are you talking about? Hillary is the toughest guy running.



Uh, no she is not, won't even answer unscripted questions, never has..
That is not tough. Her dirty politics are catching up with her, the
wheels are falling off her campaign thank God.. I would take any or
the other dems over her she is as crooked as a union BA...