Glad to see it. I've been a McCain fan ever since the Bushcrappers
screwed him over in South Carolina in 2000.

On Jan 29, 9:16 pm, HK wrote:
Glad to see it. I've been a McCain fan ever since the Bushcrappers
screwed him over in South Carolina in 2000.

By Bushcrappers you of course mean legitimate voters. I know your
party is not really interested in voter integrity, but it really is
the American way of doing things. But I am having fun watching the
wheels come off your party's facade of racial and gender tolerance. I
think a huge chunk of your party's core may be having a revelation,
which could lead to a revolution Good for America to see the truth
finally come out.

On Jan 29, 8:32�pm, wrote:
On Jan 29, 9:16 pm, HK wrote:

Glad to see it. I've been a McCain fan ever since the Bushcrappers
screwed him over in South Carolina in 2000.

By Bushcrappers you of course mean legitimate voters. I know your
party is not really interested in voter integrity, but it really is
the American way of doing things. But I am having fun watching the
wheels come off your party's facade of racial and gender tolerance. I
think a huge chunk of your party's core may be having a revelation,
which could lead to a revolution Good for America to see the truth
finally come out.

By Bushcrappers Harry of course means the proBush push-poll callers
who phoned huge percentages of the "legitimate voters" in South
Carolina supposedly to ask questions about the voters attitudes toward
candidates.

One of the questions was along the line of, "Reflecting now on your
impression of John McCain, would your impression be better, worse, or
unchanged if you learned that he had fathered a mixed race child out
of wedlock with one of his secretaries?" Now of course the question
was entirely hypothetical, nobody ever *claimed* that McCain actually
fathered a mixed race child out of wedlock, the supposed "poll" simply
wanted to know how the voters reactions would change if they knew or
thought that he had.

Anyway, down South Carolina way those good ol' "legitimate voters"
probably figured that where there was smoke there just might be some
fire; and if getting a blow job from a white woman was enough grounds
to try to terminate one presidency then having an extra-marital affair
that resulted in a mixed race ******* child was no way to begin
another.

Here's hoping both of your parties can field quality candidates that
can run on the issues instead of trying to win with sickening, sleazy
tricks and character assassination.

On Jan 29, 10:47*pm, Chuck Gould wrote:


Here's hoping both of your parties can field quality candidates that
can run on the issues instead of trying to win with sickening, sleazy
tricks and character assassination.

chuck, now you're hypothetically speaking...

?:

On Jan 30, 12:07*am, Tim wrote:
On Jan 29, 10:47*pm, Chuck Gould wrote:



Here's hoping both of your parties can field quality candidates that
can run on the issues instead of trying to win with sickening, sleazy
tricks and character assassination.

chuck, now you're hypothetically speaking...

?:

Tim, the answer to your question will be the next big election issue
for the supreme court. Both republicans and democrats broke party
rules by making their primary in FLA before super tuesday. The
democratic party has decided to punish FLA by not counting its
delegates to the convension, the repubs did not. Thus, the repubs will
get delegates, the dems not, until the Clintons drag the party all the
way to the cheif justice.. Just like getting military votes thrown
out, trust me this is not over yet...

Just a simple guy who likes to play with sharks...

wrote in message
...
On Jan 30, 12:07 am, Tim wrote:
On Jan 29, 10:47 pm, Chuck Gould wrote:



Here's hoping both of your parties can field quality candidates that
can run on the issues instead of trying to win with sickening, sleazy
tricks and character assassination.

chuck, now you're hypothetically speaking...

?:

Tim, the answer to your question will be the next big election issue
for the supreme court. Both republicans and democrats broke party
rules by making their primary in FLA before super tuesday. The
democratic party has decided to punish FLA by not counting its
delegates to the convension, the repubs did not. Thus, the repubs will
get delegates, the dems not, until the Clintons drag the party all the
way to the cheif justice.. Just like getting military votes thrown
out, trust me this is not over yet...

Just a simple guy who likes to play with sharks...

Hope you're right. There's just something wrong when a political party can
deprive any voter of the right to have his vote counted in the selection
process. Might even be unconstitutional.

On Jan 29, 11:47Â*pm, Chuck Gould wrote:
On Jan 29, 8:32�pm, wrote:

On Jan 29, 9:16 pm, HK wrote:

Glad to see it. I've been a McCain fan ever since the Bushcrappers
screwed him over in South Carolina in 2000.

By Bushcrappers you of course mean legitimate voters. I know your
party is not really interested in voter integrity, but it really is
the American way of doing things. But I am having fun watching the
wheels come off your party's facade of racial and gender tolerance. I
think a huge chunk of your party's core may be having a revelation,
which could lead to a revolution Good for America to see the truth
finally come out.

By Bushcrappers Harry of course means the proBush push-poll callers
who phoned huge percentages of the "legitimate voters" in South
Carolina supposedly to ask questions about the voters attitudes toward
candidates.

One of the questions was along the line of, "Reflecting now on your
impression of John McCain, would your impression be better, worse, or
unchanged if you learned that he had fathered a mixed race child out
of wedlock with one of his secretaries?" Now of course the question
was entirely hypothetical, nobody ever *claimed* that McCain actually
fathered a mixed race child out of wedlock, the supposed "poll" simply
wanted to know how the voters reactions would change if they knew or
thought that he had.

Anyway, down South Carolina way those good ol' "legitimate voters"
probably figured that where there was smoke there just might be some
fire; and if getting a blow job from a white woman was enough grounds
to try to terminate one presidency then having an extra-marital affair
that resulted in a mixed race ******* child was no way to begin
another.

Here's hoping both of your parties can field quality candidates that
can run on the issues instead of trying to win with sickening, sleazy
tricks and character assassination.

Pushpolling... hummm, new concept??

Chuck Gould wrote:
On Jan 29, 8:32�pm, wrote:
On Jan 29, 9:16 pm, HK wrote:

Glad to see it. I've been a McCain fan ever since the Bushcrappers
screwed him over in South Carolina in 2000.
By Bushcrappers you of course mean legitimate voters. I know your
party is not really interested in voter integrity, but it really is
the American way of doing things. But I am having fun watching the
wheels come off your party's facade of racial and gender tolerance. I
think a huge chunk of your party's core may be having a revelation,
which could lead to a revolution Good for America to see the truth
finally come out.

By Bushcrappers Harry of course means the proBush push-poll callers
who phoned huge percentages of the "legitimate voters" in South
Carolina supposedly to ask questions about the voters attitudes toward
candidates.

One of the questions was along the line of, "Reflecting now on your
impression of John McCain, would your impression be better, worse, or
unchanged if you learned that he had fathered a mixed race child out
of wedlock with one of his secretaries?" Now of course the question
was entirely hypothetical, nobody ever *claimed* that McCain actually
fathered a mixed race child out of wedlock, the supposed "poll" simply
wanted to know how the voters reactions would change if they knew or
thought that he had.



Bingo.

It was a bit worse than that, though. The McCains have a child with
"non-white looking skin" they adopted. What did the Bushcrappers do with
that bit of info? Use your imagination.

"HK" wrote in message
...


It was a bit worse than that, though. The McCains have a child with
"non-white looking skin" they adopted. What did the Bushcrappers do with
that bit of info? Use your imagination.

Nicknamed him Barack?

Eisboch

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 06:45:05 -0500, HK wrote:


Bingo.

It was a bit worse than that, though. The McCains have a child with
"non-white looking skin" they adopted. What did the Bushcrappers do with
that bit of info? Use your imagination.

That was only a part of it.

http://www.bartcopnation.com/dc/dcbo...8&topic_id=522