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!

"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 Fri, 04 Jan 2008 03:34:36 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"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.

Can we agree to stop using Kristians? It's insulting and not
neccessary.

With pandering, what is politics but for pandering? Come on - he's
attractive to them because he's one of them and based on his largely
Pro-Life stance. What they don't realise is that he's a Democrat in
every other sense of the word - a true Fred Harris style populist.

I do agree with you on the ethics thing, but that works both ways.
Clinton isn't viewed as ethical in any sense of the word and nobody
really knows if Obama is ethical or not.

What bothers me most about the Democrat slate is that none of them,
with the exception of Richardson, is truly experienced enough to do
the job of President.

I'm not persuaded by the argument of either side.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 03:34:36 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"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.

Can we agree to stop using Kristians? It's insulting and not
neccessary.

With pandering, what is politics but for pandering? Come on - he's
attractive to them because he's one of them and based on his largely
Pro-Life stance. What they don't realise is that he's a Democrat in
every other sense of the word - a true Fred Harris style populist.

I do agree with you on the ethics thing, but that works both ways.
Clinton isn't viewed as ethical in any sense of the word and nobody
really knows if Obama is ethical or not.

What bothers me most about the Democrat slate is that none of them,
with the exception of Richardson, is truly experienced enough to do
the job of President.

I'm not persuaded by the argument of either side.

I have been talking to my mother about the candidates, and she is like
so many people who will say "I like where he stands on the issues", and
then you ask them where do he stands on issues, and they are clueless.

People vote based upon the candidates ability to come across as one of
them.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 03:34:36 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...
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.

Can we agree to stop using Kristians? It's insulting and not
neccessary.


I use that term to describe the sect that meddles a bit too much, to the
point of trying to prevent the distribution of condoms in Africa as part of
our AIDS prevention assistance. You know why, and you know they're wrong.
People are dying, and these Kristians are trying to connect condoms with
loose morals because of something they read in an old book written by people
who were no holier than you or I. It's pure bull****.



With pandering, what is politics but for pandering? Come on - he's
attractive to them because he's one of them and based on his largely
Pro-Life stance. What they don't realise is that he's a Democrat in
every other sense of the word - a true Fred Harris style populist.


What concerns me is that ALL new presidents are in danger of being crushed
by an onslaught of powerful influences who have publicity machines that are
as powerful as the president's. I want someone who's capable of saying "Get
the phuque outta my office and don't EVER come back." I don't know about
either Huckabee or Obama. For reasons I can't explain, I think McCain's
capable of that. Lee Iacocca, too, but he's too smart to run for president.

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:12:12 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

I use that term to describe the sect that meddles a bit too much, to the
point of trying to prevent the distribution of condoms in Africa as part of
our AIDS prevention assistance. You know why, and you know they're wrong.
People are dying, and these Kristians are trying to connect condoms with
loose morals because of something they read in an old book written by people
who were no holier than you or I. It's pure bull****.

Odd - I never thought of you as a bigot.

I'm disappointed.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:12:12 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

I use that term to describe the sect that meddles a bit too much, to the
point of trying to prevent the distribution of condoms in Africa as part of
our AIDS prevention assistance. You know why, and you know they're wrong.
People are dying, and these Kristians are trying to connect condoms with
loose morals because of something they read in an old book written by people
who were no holier than you or I. It's pure bull****.

Odd - I never thought of you as a bigot.

I'm disappointed.


THere's nothing bigoted about pointing out that the current
administration uses its small-minded concept of Christianity to prevent
the distribution of condoms.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:12:12 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

I use that term to describe the sect that meddles a bit too much, to the
point of trying to prevent the distribution of condoms in Africa as part
of
our AIDS prevention assistance. You know why, and you know they're wrong.
People are dying, and these Kristians are trying to connect condoms with
loose morals because of something they read in an old book written by
people
who were no holier than you or I. It's pure bull****.

Odd - I never thought of you as a bigot.

I'm disappointed.


Bigot? I define that as disliking a certain type of person for stupid
reasons, like the color of their skin. Meanwhile, you know nothing about the
person inside the skin. I dislike a certain sect of Christians because of
something tangible they have done, and will continue to do. Tangible. Not
the color of their skin, or the simple existence of their religion, but the
things they do. They want to control other people's lives, and they'll quote
from their books to "prove" that they're right. Some of these lunatics
actually believe they OWN their wives.

I know a few deeply religious evangelical types. They're not all Kristians.
I've spoken at length to two of them about what one of the sects tries to
do, in terms of meddling with programs that have an actual chance of making
people's lives better. They find this behavior reprehensible. You should,
too. If you need proof that this happens, I'll find it for you. It's nothing
new, or hidden. It was big news during the early years of the Bush-2
administration. I believe they also hounded Clinton with their nonsense.

Pretending a certain subset of people is nonexistent does not work, Tom.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...


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.

Why do you misspell "Christian"? Is it a form of hate speech? Are you
attempting to suppress religion?