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...

On Dec 16, 7:53 am, wrote:
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...

Yeah, no republican would ever go to those lengths just to get
elected, would they? I mean, besides Bush, Cheney, Nixon, Reagan, etc,
etc.

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 06:00:21 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Dec 16, 7:53 am, wrote:
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...

Yeah, no republican would ever go to those lengths just to get
elected, would they? I mean, besides Bush, Cheney, Nixon, Reagan, etc,
etc.

Do I hear an aspiring Alan Colmes here?

On Dec 16, 9:38 am, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 06:00:21 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 16, 7:53 am, wrote:
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...

Yeah, no republican would ever go to those lengths just to get
elected, would they? I mean, besides Bush, Cheney, Nixon, Reagan, etc,
etc.

Do I hear an aspiring Alan Colmes here?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, I'm much more handsome.....

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 12:34:25 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Dec 16, 9:38 am, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 06:00:21 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 16, 7:53 am, wrote:
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...

Yeah, no republican would ever go to those lengths just to get
elected, would they? I mean, besides Bush, Cheney, Nixon, Reagan, etc,
etc.

Do I hear an aspiring Alan Colmes here?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, I'm much more handsome.....

So is Harry!

On Dec 16, 6:39 am, HK wrote:


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




you might be onto something there, Harry.


http://hillarynutcracker.com/

wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 07:39:30 -0500, HK wrote:

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

As a hawk you are right about the Democrats but she is neck and neck
with McCain in saying she would spend our last dime and kill our last
soldier to defend Israel ... or the oil companies ... or the Kurds ...
or whatever other silly reason that keeps us in Iraq.


What? We're NOT in Iraq to turn it into a western democracy, keep our
field grade officers in uniform, and steal its oil?

I'm shocked!

On Dec 16, 11:57 am, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 07:39:30 -0500, HK wrote:

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

As a hawk you are right about the Democrats but she is neck and neck
with McCain in saying she would spend our last dime and kill our last
soldier to defend Israel ... or the oil companies ... or the Kurds ...
or whatever other silly reason that keeps us in Iraq.

What? We're NOT in Iraq to turn it into a western democracy, keep our
field grade officers in uniform, and steal its oil?

I'm shocked!

So, please list the wars we have had in the last century where we did
not rebuild and return the country? This "there to steal the oil" is
just a talking point.