What a joke...OT politics...
 

CNN sandbags the republican candidates with hostile questions provided
by paid plants. No less than 7 of the 33 were known democratic
supporters, advocates, pundits, or employees....... Who knows how many
of the others were plants too. Yesterday PBS continued by not giving
the republicans a debate, asking only questions that democratic voters
would want answered and avoiding, even disallowing questions about
huge republican issues such as immigration. Today PBS is asking only
leading questions designed to give each a platform to campaign with
their own special issues... What a ****ing joke...

Then the dems say they can't go on FOX because they may have to face
real questions. Note, the repubs have stood in and addressed all
Americans, the dems just dismiss the ones that may not agree with
them. Funny seeing the tape of Hillary a few months back kicking a
"suspected republican" out of a news conference for asking a tough
question.

What a joke...OT politics...
 

What a joke...OT politics...
 

On Dec 13, 3:46 pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
CNN sandbags the republican candidates with hostile questions provided
by paid plants. No less than 7 of the 33 were known democratic
supporters, advocates, pundits, or employees....... Who knows how many
of the others were plants too. Yesterday PBS continued by not giving
the republicans a debate, asking only questions that democratic voters
would want answered and avoiding, even disallowing questions about
huge republican issues such as immigration. Today PBS is asking only
leading questions designed to give each a platform to campaign with
their own special issues... What a ****ing joke...

Then the dems say they can't go on FOX because they may have to face
real questions. Note, the repubs have stood in and addressed all
Americans, the dems just dismiss the ones that may not agree with
them. Funny seeing the tape of Hillary a few months back kicking a
"suspected republican" out of a news conference for asking a tough
question.

They don't go on Faux because it is not a news network, it is a
propaganda network made up of Republican whores.

Next...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And you defend what CNN and PBS did? You are either ignorant or a
liar.. The next segment on CNN is going to be "undecided
voters" (Hillary campaign workers), CNN proved last week beyond doubt
that they can not be trusted, say what you want about FOX, but at
least the repubs got the balls to face hostile questions and address
other than the choir. The democrats are ALL afraid to address real
issues so they only play to friendly, fixed, forums... I do not want a
president that dismisses me.

What a joke...OT politics...
 

What a joke...OT politics...
 

On Dec 13, 3:10 pm, wrote:
CNN sandbags the republican candidates with hostile questions provided
by paid plants. No less than 7 of the 33 were known democratic
supporters, advocates, pundits, or employees....... Who knows how many
of the others were plants too. Yesterday PBS continued by not giving
the republicans a debate, asking only questions that democratic voters
would want answered and avoiding, even disallowing questions about
huge republican issues such as immigration. Today PBS is asking only
leading questions designed to give each a platform to campaign with
their own special issues... What a ****ing joke...

Then the dems say they can't go on FOX because they may have to face
real questions. Note, the repubs have stood in and addressed all
Americans, the dems just dismiss the ones that may not agree with
them. Funny seeing the tape of Hillary a few months back kicking a
"suspected republican" out of a news conference for asking a tough
question.

Yeah, the republicans wouldn't ever think of doing anything of the
sort, huh?

What a joke...OT politics...
 

HK wrote:

None of these losers can face down Hillary *or* Obama.

Gotta love it!

But Harry, it seems to me that hillary and Hussian can't face down
each other....

I really think they'll skin each other blind.

What a joke...OT politics...
 

On Dec 13, 12:53�pm, wrote:
The democrats are ALL afraid to address real
issues so they only play to friendly, fixed, forums... I do not want a
president that dismisses me.


Time out.

google up: George Bush Free Speech Zone

or: George Bush Protest Zone

think about what you see there, in relationship to what you just
posted above.

No further comment from me, you and Harry carry on. :-)

What a joke...OT politics...
 

What a joke...OT politics...
 

What a joke...OT politics...
 

On Dec 13, 10:18 pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:54:25 -0500, HK wrote:

For some reason, Guiliani is still the GOP frontrunner nationally. He
has a scandal to match any and all of Hillary's.

I doubt Rudy will survive February

I dunno. It is not easy trying to handicap the GOP side this year,
because almost all of them seem to be clones of each other or far-out
religiosos or nutcases. The only one I have any respect for is John McCain.

Yeah, and the dems cause not one of them has had a real news confernce
or answered real questions. When you are afraid of your posititions
and have no convictions, it is pretty daunting the idea of facing a
followup questions during one of the debates, er, uh, network
sponsored press confreneces;)

What a joke...OT politics...
 

wrote:

I am so frustrated with the whole process I might end up voting for
Ron Paul. He and Kucinich are really the only ones who say they will
end this stupid war. The problem is Kucinich says he saw a UFO and Ron
may have been on it.

When politics is concerned I'm always reminded by the song by "The
Who"

"We Won't Be Fooled Again."


funny last line, though.

"See the new boss?... Same as the old boss."

Sometimes, I think the Amish and Mennonite communities have the right
idea. Stay away from the voting booth and let God sort 'm out.

What a joke...OT politics...
 

On Dec 14, 9:06 am, "John" wrote:
wrote in message

I am so frustrated with the whole process I might end up voting for
Ron Paul. He and Kucinich are really the only ones who say they will
end this stupid war. The problem is Kucinich says he saw a UFO and Ron
may have been on it.

LOL
Saw a UFO - I have seen a UFO - Unidentified Flying Object - If you can not
positively identify something in the air - it is a UFO. Did he claim aliens
abducted him? That would be a different story.

But I agree these are the only two candidates that are even talking about
change!

Yes, Hillary is talking about taking a hillacopter around Iowa for the
next few days to "prove she can take off the cuff questions". At the
same time Hillabeast's campaigh was caught again yesterday on the New
Hampshire Democrats website using three seperate sock puppets in a
blog room to direct the conversation. Hillary can't take a followup
question, or answer any off the cuff question, this has been my
problem with her for years. That is why they started the "vast right
wing conspiracy" story, it protects them from any unscripted
questions, it has been a very successful ploy but it is wearing
thin.. I would take any of the dems, except Dodd, over Hillary any
day. Dodd has done nothing, absolutly nothing for the working man in
CT for 26 years but he is another story...

What a joke...OT politics...
 

On Dec 13, 5:30Â*pm, Chuck Gould wrote:
On Dec 13, 12:53�pm, wrote:
Â*The democrats are ALL afraid to address real

issues so they only play to friendly, fixed, forums... I do not want a
president that dismisses me.

Time out.

google up: George Bush Free Speech Zone

or: George Bush Protest Zone

think about what you see there, in relationship to what you just
posted above.

No further comment from me, you and Harry carry on. :-)

http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html

What a joke...OT politics...
 

I wonder why JP hasn't sniffed this thread out and jumped in here?


yet....

What a joke...OT politics...
 

HK wrote:

Fear of Hillary...what could be sweeter?

If Hillary wins the nomination, the Republicans are going to be staining
their shorts, because not one of their possible nominees has the balls
or brains to take her on.....

..... None of these losers can face down Hillary *or* Obama.

Gotta love it!

http://www.teptronics.com/hcn1.html

What a joke...OT politics...
 

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:08:10 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Dec 13, 5:30*pm, Chuck Gould wrote:
On Dec 13, 12:53?pm, wrote:
*The democrats are ALL afraid to address real

issues so they only play to friendly, fixed, forums... I do not want a
president that dismisses me.

Time out.

google up: George Bush Free Speech Zone

or: George Bush Protest Zone

think about what you see there, in relationship to what you just
posted above.

No further comment from me, you and Harry carry on. :-)

http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html

Chuck, are you implying Hillary's crowd doesn't do the same thing?
--
John H

What a joke...OT politics...
 

On Dec 14, 12:19�pm, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:08:10 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould





wrote:
On Dec 13, 5:30�pm, Chuck Gould wrote:
On Dec 13, 12:53?pm, wrote:
�The democrats are ALL afraid to address real

issues so they only play to friendly, fixed, forums... I do not want a
president that dismisses me.

Time out.

google up: George Bush Free Speech Zone

or: George Bush Protest Zone

think about what you see there, in relationship to what you just
posted above.

No further comment from me, you and Harry carry on. :-)

http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html

Chuck, are you implying Hillary's crowd doesn't do the same thing?
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not in the least. I was responding to JAFM's remark that he wanted a
president that didn't simply "dismiss" people who disagreed with him
or her. Since the current president orders his critics removed to
"free speech zones" and according the the American Conservative
magazine
even allows the local police to arrest them, I guess JAFM and I are on
the same page- neither of us want a president that stifles reasonable
dissent or simply ignores and dismisses opposing viewpoints. We might
even agree that in America the "Free Speech Zone" is everywhere the
Constitution is in effect.

"Hillary's crowd" can't really do the same thing. Take the case of
the guy in the American Conservative magazine article that was holding
an anti-Bush picket sign. The police told him to move to a particular
area, and after he had been there a minute or two the cops told him he
"wasn't in the free speech zone" (no kidding!) and he would have to
move. According to the magazine article, no matter where one cop told
him he could stand and hold his sign, another cop would come along and
tell him he wasn't in the "free speech zone" and he would have to move
again. Finally, he was arrested for "violating the security zone
surrounding the president"--but by all accounts he was about 200 yards
away. (lots of people were much closer to the president, but they were
expressing "acceptable" thoughts) The poor guy was denied a jury trial
because some judge down south said it was a "minor charge".......a
minor charge that could put the poor guy in prison for several years
if the judge decides he's guilty.

There's no "security zone" that extends for hundreds of yards around
candidates for POTUS, so no- Hillary couldn't do exactly the same
thing.

One good thing, maybe, about next year's election; so far there isn't
an absolutely outstanding candidate on either side. Maybe that will
help depolarize the country......no matter who we pick from the
current crop we're in tough shape. (Some of the R's look better to me
than some of the D's). The people will have to pull together to solve
common problems, rather than idolize some extremist demagogue on the
left or the right......(I hope).

What a joke...OT politics...
 

On Dec 14, 10:05Â*pm, Chuck Gould wrote:
On Dec 14, 12:19�pm, John H. wrote:





On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:08:10 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
On Dec 13, 5:30�pm, Chuck Gould wrote:
On Dec 13, 12:53?pm, wrote:
�The democrats are ALL afraid to address real

issues so they only play to friendly, fixed, forums... I do not want a
president that dismisses me.

Time out.

google up: George Bush Free Speech Zone

or: George Bush Protest Zone

think about what you see there, in relationship to what you just
posted above.

No further comment from me, you and Harry carry on. :-)

http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html

Chuck, are you implying Hillary's crowd doesn't do the same thing?
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not in the least. I was responding to JAFM's remark that he wanted a
president that didn't simply "dismiss" people who disagreed with him
or her. Since the current president orders his critics removed to
"free speech zones" and according the the American Conservative
magazine
even allows the local police to arrest them, I guess JAFM and I are on
the same page- neither of us want a president that stifles reasonable
dissent or simply ignores and dismisses opposing viewpoints. We might
even agree that in America the "Free Speech Zone" is everywhere the
Constitution is in effect.

"Hillary's crowd" can't really do the same thing. Â*Take the case of
the guy in the American Conservative magazine article that was holding
an anti-Bush picket sign. The police told him to move to a particular
area, and after he had been there a minute or two the cops told him he
"wasn't in the free speech zone" (no kidding!) and he would have to
move. According to the magazine article, no matter where one cop told
him he could stand and hold his sign, another cop would come along and
tell him he wasn't in the "free speech zone" and he would have to move
again. Finally, he was arrested for "violating the security zone
surrounding the president"--but by all accounts he was about 200 yards
away. (lots of people were much closer to the president, but they were
expressing "acceptable" thoughts) The poor guy was denied a jury trial
because some judge down south said it was a "minor charge".......a
minor charge that could put the poor guy in prison for several years
if the judge decides he's guilty.

There's no "security zone" that extends for hundreds of yards around
candidates for POTUS, so no- Hillary couldn't do exactly the same
thing.

One good thing, maybe, about next year's election; so far there isn't
an absolutely outstanding candidate on either side. Maybe that will
help depolarize the country......no matter who we pick from the
current crop we're in tough shape. (Some of the R's look better to me
than some of the D's). Â*The people will have to pull together to solve
common problems, rather than idolize some extremist demagogue on the
left or the right......(I hope).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You have a lot of words, I am simple. But there is a difference. Bush
and others like John Kerry don't want to deal with sock puppets during
schedualed speeches and events. Hillary and the rest of the dem
candidates won't deal with anything but scripted questions and staged
news conferences (debates) even when it is supposed to be an open
honest representative forum. There is a big difference, Chuck knows
that... But he is a clever pundit...

What a joke...OT politics...
 

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:05:07 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Dec 14, 12:19?pm, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:08:10 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould





wrote:
On Dec 13, 5:30?pm, Chuck Gould wrote:
On Dec 13, 12:53?pm, wrote:
?The democrats are ALL afraid to address real

issues so they only play to friendly, fixed, forums... I do not want a
president that dismisses me.

Time out.

google up: George Bush Free Speech Zone

or: George Bush Protest Zone

think about what you see there, in relationship to what you just
posted above.

No further comment from me, you and Harry carry on. :-)

http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html

Chuck, are you implying Hillary's crowd doesn't do the same thing?
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not in the least. I was responding to JAFM's remark that he wanted a
president that didn't simply "dismiss" people who disagreed with him
or her. Since the current president orders his critics removed to
"free speech zones" and according the the American Conservative
magazine
even allows the local police to arrest them, I guess JAFM and I are on
the same page- neither of us want a president that stifles reasonable
dissent or simply ignores and dismisses opposing viewpoints. We might
even agree that in America the "Free Speech Zone" is everywhere the
Constitution is in effect.

"Hillary's crowd" can't really do the same thing. Take the case of
the guy in the American Conservative magazine article that was holding
an anti-Bush picket sign. The police told him to move to a particular
area, and after he had been there a minute or two the cops told him he
"wasn't in the free speech zone" (no kidding!) and he would have to
move. According to the magazine article, no matter where one cop told
him he could stand and hold his sign, another cop would come along and
tell him he wasn't in the "free speech zone" and he would have to move
again. Finally, he was arrested for "violating the security zone
surrounding the president"--but by all accounts he was about 200 yards
away. (lots of people were much closer to the president, but they were
expressing "acceptable" thoughts) The poor guy was denied a jury trial
because some judge down south said it was a "minor charge".......a
minor charge that could put the poor guy in prison for several years
if the judge decides he's guilty.

There's no "security zone" that extends for hundreds of yards around
candidates for POTUS, so no- Hillary couldn't do exactly the same
thing.

One good thing, maybe, about next year's election; so far there isn't
an absolutely outstanding candidate on either side. Maybe that will
help depolarize the country......no matter who we pick from the
current crop we're in tough shape. (Some of the R's look better to me
than some of the D's). The people will have to pull together to solve
common problems, rather than idolize some extremist demagogue on the
left or the right......(I hope).

But she can and does prevent opposition sign holders from entering the
gymnasium, no?
--
John H

What a joke...OT politics...
 

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:33:40 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Dec 14, 10:05*pm, Chuck Gould wrote:
On Dec 14, 12:19?pm, John H. wrote:





On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:08:10 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
On Dec 13, 5:30?pm, Chuck Gould wrote:
On Dec 13, 12:53?pm, wrote:
?The democrats are ALL afraid to address real

issues so they only play to friendly, fixed, forums... I do not want a
president that dismisses me.

Time out.

google up: George Bush Free Speech Zone

or: George Bush Protest Zone

think about what you see there, in relationship to what you just
posted above.

No further comment from me, you and Harry carry on. :-)

http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html

Chuck, are you implying Hillary's crowd doesn't do the same thing?
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not in the least. I was responding to JAFM's remark that he wanted a
president that didn't simply "dismiss" people who disagreed with him
or her. Since the current president orders his critics removed to
"free speech zones" and according the the American Conservative
magazine
even allows the local police to arrest them, I guess JAFM and I are on
the same page- neither of us want a president that stifles reasonable
dissent or simply ignores and dismisses opposing viewpoints. We might
even agree that in America the "Free Speech Zone" is everywhere the
Constitution is in effect.

"Hillary's crowd" can't really do the same thing. *Take the case of
the guy in the American Conservative magazine article that was holding
an anti-Bush picket sign. The police told him to move to a particular
area, and after he had been there a minute or two the cops told him he
"wasn't in the free speech zone" (no kidding!) and he would have to
move. According to the magazine article, no matter where one cop told
him he could stand and hold his sign, another cop would come along and
tell him he wasn't in the "free speech zone" and he would have to move
again. Finally, he was arrested for "violating the security zone
surrounding the president"--but by all accounts he was about 200 yards
away. (lots of people were much closer to the president, but they were
expressing "acceptable" thoughts) The poor guy was denied a jury trial
because some judge down south said it was a "minor charge".......a
minor charge that could put the poor guy in prison for several years
if the judge decides he's guilty.

There's no "security zone" that extends for hundreds of yards around
candidates for POTUS, so no- Hillary couldn't do exactly the same
thing.

One good thing, maybe, about next year's election; so far there isn't
an absolutely outstanding candidate on either side. Maybe that will
help depolarize the country......no matter who we pick from the
current crop we're in tough shape. (Some of the R's look better to me
than some of the D's). *The people will have to pull together to solve
common problems, rather than idolize some extremist demagogue on the
left or the right......(I hope).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You have a lot of words, I am simple. But there is a difference. Bush
and others like John Kerry don't want to deal with sock puppets during
schedualed speeches and events. Hillary and the rest of the dem
candidates won't deal with anything but scripted questions and staged
news conferences (debates) even when it is supposed to be an open
honest representative forum. There is a big difference, Chuck knows
that... But he is a clever pundit...

He's a lot better with words than I am! Well...quantity anyway. And quality
too. Not as fair and balanced though.
--
John H

What a joke...OT politics...
 

John H. wrote:
Not as fair and balanced though.

It really doesn't exist among any of us. Even when we want to try to be
"fair and balanced", and try to understand and fairly present the
opposing viewpoint, we still will highlight our own viewpoint to help
someone understand the correct choice.

What a joke...OT politics...
 

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 06:59:40 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

John H. wrote:
Not as fair and balanced though.

It really doesn't exist among any of us. Even when we want to try to be
"fair and balanced", and try to understand and fairly present the
opposing viewpoint, we still will highlight our own viewpoint to help
someone understand the correct choice.

That's far too metaphysical for 7:00 AM.

I'll go along with your comments since they imply that propounding my
viewpoint, although perhaps not completely fair and balanced, *will* lead
someone to the correct choice.

And, good morning to you, sir. I've been playing with my camera. I haven't
figured out how to view a NEF (RAW) file with Irfanview, although Adobe
seems to handle it. I may go see if there are any free updates to
IrfanView.
--
John H

What a joke...OT politics...
 

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 06:59:40 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

John H. wrote:
Not as fair and balanced though.

It really doesn't exist among any of us. Even when we want to try to be
"fair and balanced", and try to understand and fairly present the
opposing viewpoint, we still will highlight our own viewpoint to help
someone understand the correct choice.

That's far too metaphysical for 7:00 AM.

I'll go along with your comments since they imply that propounding my
viewpoint, although perhaps not completely fair and balanced, *will* lead
someone to the correct choice.

And, good morning to you, sir. I've been playing with my camera. I haven't
figured out how to view a NEF (RAW) file with Irfanview, although Adobe
seems to handle it. I may go see if there are any free updates to
IrfanView.

If there is not a RAW add in for InfanView, Picasso does view RAW and is
also free. You can also download a NEF Viewer from Microsoft so you
will be able to view them in "My Pictures".

What a joke...OT politics...
 

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 07:30:34 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 06:59:40 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

John H. wrote:
Not as fair and balanced though.

It really doesn't exist among any of us. Even when we want to try to be
"fair and balanced", and try to understand and fairly present the
opposing viewpoint, we still will highlight our own viewpoint to help
someone understand the correct choice.

That's far too metaphysical for 7:00 AM.

I'll go along with your comments since they imply that propounding my
viewpoint, although perhaps not completely fair and balanced, *will* lead
someone to the correct choice.

And, good morning to you, sir. I've been playing with my camera. I haven't
figured out how to view a NEF (RAW) file with Irfanview, although Adobe
seems to handle it. I may go see if there are any free updates to
IrfanView.

If there is not a RAW add in for InfanView, Picasso does view RAW and is
also free. You can also download a NEF Viewer from Microsoft so you
will be able to view them in "My Pictures".

Thanks.
--
John H

What a joke...OT politics...
 

HK wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:54:25 -0500, HK wrote:

For some reason, Guiliani is still the GOP frontrunner nationally. He
has a scandal to match any and all of Hillary's.

I doubt Rudy will survive February


I dunno. It is not easy trying to handicap the GOP side this year,
because almost all of them seem to be clones of each other or far-out
religiosos or nutcases. The only one I have any respect for is John McCain.

McCain is an idiot. There are issues from McCain's past that will be
brought up if he somehow becomes the Republican nominee.

What a joke...OT politics...
 

BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:54:25 -0500, HK wrote:

For some reason, Guiliani is still the GOP frontrunner nationally.
He has a scandal to match any and all of Hillary's.

I doubt Rudy will survive February


I dunno. It is not easy trying to handicap the GOP side this year,
because almost all of them seem to be clones of each other or far-out
religiosos or nutcases. The only one I have any respect for is John
McCain.

McCain is an idiot. There are issues from McCain's past that will be
brought up if he somehow becomes the Republican nominee.



Gee, Bert, which candidate doesn't have "issues" in his or her past?

What a joke...OT politics...
 

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
HK wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:54:25 -0500, HK wrote:

For some reason, Guiliani is still the GOP frontrunner nationally. He
has a scandal to match any and all of Hillary's.

I doubt Rudy will survive February


I dunno. It is not easy trying to handicap the GOP side this year,
because almost all of them seem to be clones of each other or far-out
religiosos or nutcases. The only one I have any respect for is John
McCain.

McCain is an idiot. There are issues from McCain's past that will be
brought up if he somehow becomes the Republican nominee.



That's too bad. He's probably the only candidate who's suggested using the
bully pulpit to ask Americans to make sacrifices in order to reduce our
dependence on oil. All the rest are pussies in this regard.

You or someone else will now say that McCain wants to "control what you
buy", but that's bull****.

What a joke...OT politics...
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
HK wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:54:25 -0500, HK wrote:

For some reason, Guiliani is still the GOP frontrunner nationally. He
has a scandal to match any and all of Hillary's.
I doubt Rudy will survive February

I dunno. It is not easy trying to handicap the GOP side this year,
because almost all of them seem to be clones of each other or far-out
religiosos or nutcases. The only one I have any respect for is John
McCain.
McCain is an idiot. There are issues from McCain's past that will be
brought up if he somehow becomes the Republican nominee.



That's too bad. He's probably the only candidate who's suggested using the
bully pulpit to ask Americans to make sacrifices in order to reduce our
dependence on oil. All the rest are pussies in this regard.

You or someone else will now say that McCain wants to "control what you
buy", but that's bull****.




One wonders who "Bert" supports. My guess would be the deadhead, Fred
Thompson.

What a joke...OT politics...
 

On Dec 15, 11:02 am, HK wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
HK wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:54:25 -0500, HK wrote:

For some reason, Guiliani is still the GOP frontrunner nationally. He
has a scandal to match any and all of Hillary's.
I doubt Rudy will survive February

I dunno. It is not easy trying to handicap the GOP side this year,
because almost all of them seem to be clones of each other or far-out
religiosos or nutcases. The only one I have any respect for is John
McCain.
McCain is an idiot. There are issues from McCain's past that will be
brought up if he somehow becomes the Republican nominee.

That's too bad. He's probably the only candidate who's suggested using the
bully pulpit to ask Americans to make sacrifices in order to reduce our
dependence on oil. All the rest are pussies in this regard.

You or someone else will now say that McCain wants to "control what you
buy", but that's bull****.

One wonders who "Bert" supports. My guess would be the deadhead, Fred
Thompson.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What cracks me up is the MSM pushing Huckabee and McCain, all they
want is to have the weakest candidate run against Hillary, they have
zero credibility.. And they complain about FOX because they allow both
sides a pulpit...

What a joke...OT politics...
 

What a joke...OT politics...
 

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;)

What a joke...OT politics...
 

What a joke...OT politics...
 

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****.

What a joke...OT politics...
 

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...

What a joke...OT politics...
 

What a joke...OT politics...
 

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?

What a joke...OT politics...
 

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 a joke...OT politics...
 

What a joke...OT politics...
 

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;)

What a joke...OT politics...
 

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...