HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:50:13 -0500, BAR wrote:


http://www.slate.com/id/1004633/
Why does slate.com want McCain as a the Republican nominee for
president? There is too much media involvement in rehabilitating
McCain's image.

Oh come on, that article was written in 2000.

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't McCain run for President in 2000?

Chris Matthews, MSNBC/NBC, was hoping to get McCain to challenge bush
in 2004.




McCain ran for the nomination, but the Bushcrappers slimed him.


McCain only has himself to blame. He is a camera hogging, oppourtunistic
twit.

BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:50:13 -0500, BAR wrote:


http://www.slate.com/id/1004633/
Why does slate.com want McCain as a the Republican nominee for
president? There is too much media involvement in rehabilitating
McCain's image.

Oh come on, that article was written in 2000.

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't McCain run for President in 2000?

Chris Matthews, MSNBC/NBC, was hoping to get McCain to challenge bush
in 2004.




McCain ran for the nomination, but the Bushcrappers slimed him.


McCain only has himself to blame. He is a camera hogging, oppourtunistic
twit.


Sure, Bertie. Aren't you the guy who dropped out of high school to join
the marines and who turned out so incompetent at that you were never
sent overseas?

What does that make you? Pond slime?

HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:50:13 -0500, BAR wrote:


http://www.slate.com/id/1004633/
Why does slate.com want McCain as a the Republican nominee for
president? There is too much media involvement in rehabilitating
McCain's image.

Oh come on, that article was written in 2000.

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't McCain run for President in 2000?

Chris Matthews, MSNBC/NBC, was hoping to get McCain to challenge
bush in 2004.




McCain ran for the nomination, but the Bushcrappers slimed him.


McCain only has himself to blame. He is a camera hogging,
oppourtunistic twit.


Sure, Bertie. Aren't you the guy who dropped out of high school to join
the marines and who turned out so incompetent at that you were never
sent overseas?

What does that make you? Pond slime?

Do you really want to start the personal attacks again Krause? Or, are
you happy being the laughing stock of the newsgroup?

I have never lied about my education. Can you say truthfully that you
have never lied about your education?

I have never lied about my employment record. Can you say truthfully
that you never lied about your employment record?

I have never lied about personal accomplishments. Can you say truthfully
that you have never lied about your personal accomplishments?

I learned long ago that lying only makes your look the fool when you are
found to have lied, not if you are ever found to have lied.

BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:50:13 -0500, BAR wrote:


http://www.slate.com/id/1004633/
Why does slate.com want McCain as a the Republican nominee for
president? There is too much media involvement in rehabilitating
McCain's image.

Oh come on, that article was written in 2000.

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't McCain run for President in 2000?

Chris Matthews, MSNBC/NBC, was hoping to get McCain to challenge
bush in 2004.




McCain ran for the nomination, but the Bushcrappers slimed him.


McCain only has himself to blame. He is a camera hogging,
oppourtunistic twit.


Sure, Bertie. Aren't you the guy who dropped out of high school to
join the marines and who turned out so incompetent at that you were
never sent overseas?

What does that make you? Pond slime?

Do you really want to start the personal attacks again Krause? Or, are
you happy being the laughing stock of the newsgroup?

I have never lied about my education. Can you say truthfully that you
have never lied about your education?

I have never lied about my employment record. Can you say truthfully
that you never lied about your employment record?

I have never lied about personal accomplishments. Can you say truthfully
that you have never lied about your personal accomplishments?

I learned long ago that lying only makes your look the fool when you are
found to have lied, not if you are ever found to have lied.


Yawn
You should have stayed in high school



--
George W. Bush - the 43rd Best President Ever!

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 11:32:05 -0500, HK wrote:

BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:50:13 -0500, BAR wrote:


http://www.slate.com/id/1004633/
Why does slate.com want McCain as a the Republican nominee for
president? There is too much media involvement in rehabilitating
McCain's image.

Oh come on, that article was written in 2000.

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't McCain run for President in 2000?

Chris Matthews, MSNBC/NBC, was hoping to get McCain to challenge bush
in 2004.




McCain ran for the nomination, but the Bushcrappers slimed him.


McCain only has himself to blame. He is a camera hogging, oppourtunistic
twit.


Sure, Bertie. Aren't you the guy who dropped out of high school to join
the marines and who turned out so incompetent at that you were never
sent overseas?

What does that make you? Pond slime?

Do you have to resort to that **** to 'win' your argument, Harry?
--
John H

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 13:00:17 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

I'm thinking Obama gets out with a lead of three or four points over
Edwards in second and Clinton a very close third to Edwards - say
within a point or two.

Did I call that one right or what?

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 13:00:17 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

I'm thinking Obama gets out with a lead of three or four points over
Edwards in second and Clinton a very close third to Edwards - say
within a point or two.

Did I call that one right or what?


More interesting to me, since I don't care which Dem wins the
nomination, so long as the winning Dem wins the election is this:

The total number of voters in Iowa who came out on a really cold night
to vote for Democratic candidates was well over 200,000, significantly
more than came out to vote for the Republicans. In Iowa, a red state
that Bush carried in 2004.

There's going to be a landslide vote for the Democratic candidate in
November. The populace is tired of the S.O.S. from the Republicans.

:}


--
George W. Bush - the 43rd Best President Ever!

JimH wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 13:00:17 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

I'm thinking Obama gets out with a lead of three or four points over
Edwards in second and Clinton a very close third to Edwards - say
within a point or two.
Did I call that one right or what?

You are indeed a genius..........and you beg others to acknowledge that
every day at this obscure NG to make you feel better.

Yes Tom, you are a legend in your mind.



JimH,
Are you talking about Harry?

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 13:00:17 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

I'm thinking Obama gets out with a lead of three or four points over
Edwards in second and Clinton a very close third to Edwards - say
within a point or two.

Did I call that one right or what?


More interesting to me, since I don't care which Dem wins the nomination,
so long as the winning Dem wins the election is this:

The total number of voters in Iowa who came out on a really cold night to
vote for Democratic candidates was well over 200,000, significantly more
than came out to vote for the Republicans. In Iowa, a red state that Bush
carried in 2004.

There's going to be a landslide vote for the Democratic candidate in
November. The populace is tired of the S.O.S. from the Republicans.



There'd better be a landslide if Huckabee is the Republican candidate. He's
dangerous. He's successfully pandering to right wing Kristians, and it's
working. If they see him as more ethical than Bush, he could be a real
problem.

On Jan 3, 6:42�pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 13:00:17 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:
I'm thinking Obama gets out with a lead of three or four points over
Edwards in second and Clinton a very close third to Edwards - say
within a point or two.

Did I call that one right or what?

Tada.....

Too bad about the *other* half of your prediction, however. You didn't
account for the political muscle of the evangelical Christian
contingent.
I read an account that said more than half of the Republicans
attending caucus in Iowa described themselves as "born again" or
"evangelical" Christians. Romney actually led among the Republicans
who didn't arrive in a chruch bus, so you weren't completely unfounded
in your Republican guesstimate.