|
McCain wins Florida primary...
On Jan 30, 3:30�am, "Jim" wrote:
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. A party primary is not a state election. It's a polling of party members to see how the state delegates should be appportioned and assigned. Talk aout depriving people of the right to vote.......you can't even vote in a political primary (in most states) unless you are willing to proclaim that you are either a Democrat or a Republican. Independents, libertarians, socialists, etc are turned away from the polls. We had an open primary in WA until a few years ago. I am no longer allowed to participate in the primary elections in this state because I am unwilling to lie and claim to be a D or an R. The justification is: the parties have a right to pick thier own candidates. Unaffiliated voters have the right to vote for whomever they choose in the actual election. The Constitution doesn't guarantee anybody the right to participate in the pre-election processes of any specific political parties- and that's what a primary election is about. |
McCain wins Florida primary...
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Jan 30, 3:30�am, "Jim" wrote: 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. A party primary is not a state election. It's a polling of party members to see how the state delegates should be appportioned and assigned. Talk aout depriving people of the right to vote.......you can't even vote in a political primary (in most states) unless you are willing to proclaim that you are either a Democrat or a Republican. Independents, libertarians, socialists, etc are turned away from the polls. We had an open primary in WA until a few years ago. I am no longer allowed to participate in the primary elections in this state because I am unwilling to lie and claim to be a D or an R. The justification is: the parties have a right to pick thier own candidates. Unaffiliated voters have the right to vote for whomever they choose in the actual election. The Constitution doesn't guarantee anybody the right to participate in the pre-election processes of any specific political parties- and that's what a primary election is about. On the other hand, I believe in closed primaries, and, to take it a step further, I believe in voting-booth primaries only, not caucuses. Voters should be able to decide on their own, in the privacy of a voting booth, who they want to support. Independents should be able to vote in primaries, too, but only to indicate a preference, not to pick a party's candidate. |
McCain wins Florida primary...
HK wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote: On Jan 30, 3:30�am, "Jim" wrote: 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. A party primary is not a state election. It's a polling of party members to see how the state delegates should be appportioned and assigned. Talk aout depriving people of the right to vote.......you can't even vote in a political primary (in most states) unless you are willing to proclaim that you are either a Democrat or a Republican. Independents, libertarians, socialists, etc are turned away from the polls. We had an open primary in WA until a few years ago. I am no longer allowed to participate in the primary elections in this state because I am unwilling to lie and claim to be a D or an R. The justification is: the parties have a right to pick thier own candidates. Unaffiliated voters have the right to vote for whomever they choose in the actual election. The Constitution doesn't guarantee anybody the right to participate in the pre-election processes of any specific political parties- and that's what a primary election is about. On the other hand, I believe in closed primaries, and, to take it a step further, I believe in voting-booth primaries only, not caucuses. Voters should be able to decide on their own, in the privacy of a voting booth, who they want to support. Independents should be able to vote in primaries, too, but only to indicate a preference, not to pick a party's candidate. Harry, Did anyone ask you what you prefer? |
McCain wins Florida primary...
HK wrote: The Democrats are going to need their supporters in Florida to carry that state later this year, and I am sure some sort of accommodate will be worked out so the Sunshine State delegates are seated at the convention and have voting privileges. The party wants motivated voters. Well, I suppose they could give themselves a boost by heckling people at the polls and pulling republican signs out of peoples yards. hey! it's worked in the past hasn't it? |
McCain wins Florida primary...
|
McCain wins Florida primary...
wrote in message
... On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 06:44:42 -0500, "Jim" wrote: This is basically the real estate agent relief act of 2008. It should help. You might see an uptick in RE activity. We are already seeing new home orders. All they had to do was drop the price to a more realistic level. The real tax problem is the government was spending, based on that artifically inflated home value. Home prices are down 25-30% but government spending is still gong up. Hopefully there aren't too many stories like this one lurking beneath the surface in other communities: http://www.rochesternews.com/extra/amico/0514amico.html http://www.democratandchronicle.com/...213amico.shtml The town is small enough, and the number of overvalued houses high enough that when the assessments were corrected, the town budget had to be completely reworked. |
McCain wins Florida primary...
|
McCain wins Florida primary...
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:14:16 -0500, HK wrote:
There's very little difference between Hillary or Barack on ending Bush's war. Hillary has said she will have a formal plan for doing so within 60 days of assuming office. You know, I was against this war from the start, but there is something about invading a country, wiping out it's government structure, and then leaving it in shambles, that doesn't set well with me. It seems to me, we now have a duty. How much of a duty? How many lives? I don't know, but I'll be interested in the debate without the Nitwit and his unending "terrorists" statements. I wonder if we will ever learn the real reason for this war. It sure as hell wasn't WMD. |
McCain wins Florida primary...
wrote in message
... On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:14:16 -0500, HK wrote: There's very little difference between Hillary or Barack on ending Bush's war. Hillary has said she will have a formal plan for doing so within 60 days of assuming office. You know, I was against this war from the start, but there is something about invading a country, wiping out it's government structure, and then leaving it in shambles, that doesn't set well with me. It seems to me, we now have a duty. How much of a duty? How many lives? I don't know, but I'll be interested in the debate without the Nitwit and his unending "terrorists" statements. I wonder if we will ever learn the real reason for this war. It sure as hell wasn't WMD. Do you enjoy vomiting? Read this: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...46199575&itm=1 There's much more to it than just A.Q. Khan. Quite a bit about the stuff we found, the stuff we didn't find, and how we blew it over and over and over and over...... |
McCain wins Florida primary...
On Jan 30, 9:14�am, HK wrote:
wrote: On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:49:20 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: Your guess is as good as mine on this, but I think a Hillary-Barack ticket would be unstoppable. Barack-Hillary would be better. Barack/Bill Richardson would be the tough one to beat. He could say he was sending Richardson on the road to fill in the gaps in his foreign policy experience. Hillary vs McCain will leave all of the anti-war people with no attractive candidate. That may depress turnout and really make this a crap shoot. I think the solid voters at that point will be the people who are against Hillary no matter who else is running (the NRA vote, Pro-lifers and other dependable turnout) Are you kidding? After nearly eight years of being BUSHwhacked, every DEM in the country will vote for Hillary *or* Barack, along with a majority of independents. There's very little difference between Hillary or Barack on ending Bush's war. Hillary has said she will have a formal plan for doing so within 60 days of assuming office. The GOP candidate will carry the GOP and a small number of Independents. The best thing about a Hillary or Barack vs. McCain race might be a higher tone than we have seen coming from the Republicans in the last two national elections. McCain isn't going to tolerate that "swiftboat" crap, and neither will Hillary or Obama on their side. This is not to say it will be a sweet campaign; it'll just be cleaner than the last two. Oh. "Pro-lifers." Misnomer. They're not pro-life, they are anti-abortion.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - If you're looking for a clean campaign, from the D's- Obama is more likely to run cleanly than are the Clintons. Bill's eager for some "payback"- much too eager IMO. He's just warming up on Obama, wait and see what he'll do to any R finalist. Won't be pretty. On the R side, McCain or whomever wins the nomination can keep his personal hands relatively clean. The talk show circuit will do its best to *destroy!* the D candidate, whomever that turns out to be. Fortunately, most of those wack jobs are just preaching to the wack job choir- but get enough bitchy old white guys together and that can generate a fairly substantial poliltical clout. All the R candidate will have to say is "I sure wish those folks wouldn't smear my opponent that way, but this is America and we have to respect freedom of speech." There's already an anti-Hillary propaganda movie in the can. I understand it's a real scorcher. Maybe Michael Moore can take a few lessons. :-) |
McCain wins Florida primary...
|
McCain wins Florida primary...
wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:43:10 -0000, wrote: I wonder if we will ever learn the real reason for this war. It sure as hell wasn't WMD. We took down Saddam so Israel wouldn't. In that regard Hillary was behind it 100% along with Lieberman and McCain. The only other option was to let Israel do it on their own ... very unlikely or to back them and that would be worse than the mess we have now. The US has gone far out of their way to avoid using the "I" word. That is why they came up with the Kurds, WMD and the idea of democracy for Iraq. Cynic that I am, I think it was because Bush had a hard-on for Iraq before he took office, and directed his staff to cook the intel so he could justify his attack to the American people. That and the fact that he had dead-ended in the hunt for bin Laden in Afghanistan. |
McCain wins Florida primary...
"HK" wrote in message
... wrote: On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:43:10 -0000, wrote: I wonder if we will ever learn the real reason for this war. It sure as hell wasn't WMD. We took down Saddam so Israel wouldn't. In that regard Hillary was behind it 100% along with Lieberman and McCain. The only other option was to let Israel do it on their own ... very unlikely or to back them and that would be worse than the mess we have now. The US has gone far out of their way to avoid using the "I" word. That is why they came up with the Kurds, WMD and the idea of democracy for Iraq. Cynic that I am, I think it was because Bush had a hard-on for Iraq before he took office, and directed his staff to cook the intel so he could justify his attack to the American people. That and the fact that he had dead-ended in the hunt for bin Laden in Afghanistan. Why even spend time in the kitchen? They don't need to cook the intelligence when it's just as easy to ignore it. Remember the metal tubes that were supposed to be perfect for use in a nuclear facility? Our own scientists (Oak Ridge Laboratory) examined samples and said "Great for artillery barrels, useless for nuclear facilities". The IAEA looked at them and came to the same conclusion. But, Bush still used them in his list of excuses. Remember? |
McCain wins Florida primary...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HK" wrote in message ... wrote: On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:43:10 -0000, wrote: I wonder if we will ever learn the real reason for this war. It sure as hell wasn't WMD. We took down Saddam so Israel wouldn't. In that regard Hillary was behind it 100% along with Lieberman and McCain. The only other option was to let Israel do it on their own ... very unlikely or to back them and that would be worse than the mess we have now. The US has gone far out of their way to avoid using the "I" word. That is why they came up with the Kurds, WMD and the idea of democracy for Iraq. Cynic that I am, I think it was because Bush had a hard-on for Iraq before he took office, and directed his staff to cook the intel so he could justify his attack to the American people. That and the fact that he had dead-ended in the hunt for bin Laden in Afghanistan. Why even spend time in the kitchen? They don't need to cook the intelligence when it's just as easy to ignore it. Remember the metal tubes that were supposed to be perfect for use in a nuclear facility? Our own scientists (Oak Ridge Laboratory) examined samples and said "Great for artillery barrels, useless for nuclear facilities". The IAEA looked at them and came to the same conclusion. But, Bush still used them in his list of excuses. Remember? I'm not ashamed to admit this, but I determined that Bush was a p.o.s. while he was still governor of Texas. |
McCain wins Florida primary...
|
McCain wins Florida primary...
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:26:48 -0500, wrote: On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:52:47 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Home prices are down 25-30% but government spending is still gong up. 25/30%? Maybe in some over inflated markets - not around here. That is what the price of houses that actually sell reflects. (SW Fla) Certainly people may be thinking their market is better than that but what is the price of the houses that actually move? Roughly 4/5% under real market value. I know because in the past six months, I've sold seven different properties. You sold the same property seven times? :} Talk about flipping! |
McCain wins Florida primary...
On Jan 30, 1:36 pm, HK wrote:
wrote: On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:43:10 -0000, wrote: I wonder if we will ever learn the real reason for this war. It sure as hell wasn't WMD. We took down Saddam so Israel wouldn't. In that regard Hillary was behind it 100% along with Lieberman and McCain. The only other option was to let Israel do it on their own ... very unlikely or to back them and that would be worse than the mess we have now. The US has gone far out of their way to avoid using the "I" word. That is why they came up with the Kurds, WMD and the idea of democracy for Iraq. Cynic that I am, I think it was because Bush had a hard-on for Iraq before he took office, and directed his staff to cook the intel so he could justify his attack to the American people. Gee, whod'a'thunk....??? That and the fact that he had dead-ended in the hunt for bin Laden in Afghanistan. |
McCain wins Florida primary...
On Jan 30, 2:07 pm, HK wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... wrote: On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:43:10 -0000, wrote: I wonder if we will ever learn the real reason for this war. It sure as hell wasn't WMD. We took down Saddam so Israel wouldn't. In that regard Hillary was behind it 100% along with Lieberman and McCain. The only other option was to let Israel do it on their own ... very unlikely or to back them and that would be worse than the mess we have now. The US has gone far out of their way to avoid using the "I" word. That is why they came up with the Kurds, WMD and the idea of democracy for Iraq. Cynic that I am, I think it was because Bush had a hard-on for Iraq before he took office, and directed his staff to cook the intel so he could justify his attack to the American people. That and the fact that he had dead-ended in the hunt for bin Laden in Afghanistan. Why even spend time in the kitchen? They don't need to cook the intelligence when it's just as easy to ignore it. Remember the metal tubes that were supposed to be perfect for use in a nuclear facility? Our own scientists (Oak Ridge Laboratory) examined samples and said "Great for artillery barrels, useless for nuclear facilities". The IAEA looked at them and came to the same conclusion. But, Bush still used them in his list of excuses. Remember? I'm not ashamed to admit this, but I determined that Bush was a p.o.s. while he was still governor of Texas. Not a surprise, your intolerant hatred for anyone with a R in front of their name is not unexpected. We know that you are not even capable of seeing things any other way.. That's why most of us just skip though your posts after the first insult/lie/line.....;) It's not that we don't understand what you write, it's just that the same old stuff gets too boring to read through.. |
McCain wins Florida primary...
wrote in message
... On Jan 30, 1:36 pm, HK wrote: wrote: On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:43:10 -0000, wrote: I wonder if we will ever learn the real reason for this war. It sure as hell wasn't WMD. We took down Saddam so Israel wouldn't. In that regard Hillary was behind it 100% along with Lieberman and McCain. The only other option was to let Israel do it on their own ... very unlikely or to back them and that would be worse than the mess we have now. The US has gone far out of their way to avoid using the "I" word. That is why they came up with the Kurds, WMD and the idea of democracy for Iraq. Cynic that I am, I think it was because Bush had a hard-on for Iraq before he took office, and directed his staff to cook the intel so he could justify his attack to the American people. Gee, whod'a'thunk....??? Well, he and his crew **DID** ignore much of the information we had about Iraq. Certainly you're aware of that, right? |
McCain wins Florida primary...
|
McCain wins Florida primary...
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:52:47 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:44:49 -0500, wrote: On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 06:44:42 -0500, "Jim" wrote: This is basically the real estate agent relief act of 2008. It should help. You might see an uptick in RE activity. We are already seeing new home orders. All they had to do was drop the price to a more realistic level. The real tax problem is the government was spending, based on that artifically inflated home value. Home prices are down 25-30% but government spending is still gong up. 25/30%? Maybe in some over inflated markets - not around here. Nor here. Maybe 10%. -- John H |
McCain wins Florida primary...
|
McCain wins Florida primary...
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:47:02 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote: On Jan 30, 9:14?am, HK wrote: wrote: On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:49:20 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: Your guess is as good as mine on this, but I think a Hillary-Barack ticket would be unstoppable. Barack-Hillary would be better. Barack/Bill Richardson would be the tough one to beat. He could say he was sending Richardson on the road to fill in the gaps in his foreign policy experience. Hillary vs McCain will leave all of the anti-war people with no attractive candidate. That may depress turnout and really make this a crap shoot. I think the solid voters at that point will be the people who are against Hillary no matter who else is running (the NRA vote, Pro-lifers and other dependable turnout) Are you kidding? After nearly eight years of being BUSHwhacked, every DEM in the country will vote for Hillary *or* Barack, along with a majority of independents. There's very little difference between Hillary or Barack on ending Bush's war. Hillary has said she will have a formal plan for doing so within 60 days of assuming office. The GOP candidate will carry the GOP and a small number of Independents. The best thing about a Hillary or Barack vs. McCain race might be a higher tone than we have seen coming from the Republicans in the last two national elections. McCain isn't going to tolerate that "swiftboat" crap, and neither will Hillary or Obama on their side. This is not to say it will be a sweet campaign; it'll just be cleaner than the last two. Oh. "Pro-lifers." Misnomer. They're not pro-life, they are anti-abortion.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - If you're looking for a clean campaign, from the D's- Obama is more likely to run cleanly than are the Clintons. Bill's eager for some "payback"- much too eager IMO. He's just warming up on Obama, wait and see what he'll do to any R finalist. Won't be pretty. On the R side, McCain or whomever wins the nomination can keep his personal hands relatively clean. The talk show circuit will do its best to *destroy!* the D candidate, whomever that turns out to be. Fortunately, most of those wack jobs are just preaching to the wack job choir- but get enough bitchy old white guys together and that can generate a fairly substantial poliltical clout. All the R candidate will have to say is "I sure wish those folks wouldn't smear my opponent that way, but this is America and we have to respect freedom of speech." There's already an anti-Hillary propaganda movie in the can. I understand it's a real scorcher. Maybe Michael Moore can take a few lessons. :-) Apparently you've never listened to ten minutes or more of Air America. Where've you been, boy? -- John H |
McCain wins Florida primary...
|
McCain wins Florida primary...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:43:10 -0000, wrote: On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:14:16 -0500, HK wrote: There's very little difference between Hillary or Barack on ending Bush's war. Hillary has said she will have a formal plan for doing so within 60 days of assuming office. You know, I was against this war from the start, but there is something about invading a country, wiping out it's government structure, and then leaving it in shambles, that doesn't set well with me. It seems to me, we now have a duty. How much of a duty? How many lives? I don't know, but I'll be interested in the debate without the Nitwit and his unending "terrorists" statements. I wonder if we will ever learn the real reason for this war. It sure as hell wasn't WMD. Get your head out of the liberal sand. The whole world *knew* the man had WMD, including the Democrats. That liberal line has been old for a long time. -- John H Where did those WMDs go? Buried in either Herring's head or his backyard. I had no idea he was *that* delusional. |
McCain wins Florida primary...
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Chuck Gould" wrote in message ... Depends what states you win. Big states, more delegates. I don't know how many states have "winner take all" primaries, and in those that do not a 60-40 vote split can mean six delegates for the "winner" and four for the "loser". One of Hillary's victories was in a state that was disqualtifed by the D party for holding its primary too early, so she got no delegates there. IIRC- Obama didn't campaing too vigorously in the "no delegate" state. -------------------------------------------------------------- Florida forfeited any Democratic Delegates because of the date change of the primary. Hillary initially didn't pay too much attention either until Obama won so big in SC. Then she did an about-face and campaigned in Florida. She was just on MSNBC, claiming a "huge" victory. Comical. Eisboch And trying to change the rules after the election. Sound familiar. |
McCain wins Florida primary...
wrote in message ... On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:52:47 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Home prices are down 25-30% but government spending is still gong up. 25/30%? Maybe in some over inflated markets - not around here. That is what the price of houses that actually sell reflects. (SW Fla) Certainly people may be thinking their market is better than that but what is the price of the houses that actually move? I'd buy those numbers in certain parts of Florida. For several years the market value of some homes were going up by 15-20 percent/year. It all came to a screeching halt in 2003-2004. Eisboch |
McCain wins Florida primary...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... wrote in message ... On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:52:47 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Home prices are down 25-30% but government spending is still gong up. 25/30%? Maybe in some over inflated markets - not around here. That is what the price of houses that actually sell reflects. (SW Fla) Certainly people may be thinking their market is better than that but what is the price of the houses that actually move? I'd buy those numbers in certain parts of Florida. For several years the market value of some homes were going up by 15-20 percent/year. It all came to a screeching halt in 2003-2004. Eisboch I always like to ask the question "Why should prices go up by those percentages?" In many cases, there's no sane reason. Here, there were a couple of neighborhoods where that happened. The excuse was that the schools were so much better. Later, people who moved to those places said that the only thing "better" were the drugs the kids could get, and the cars their parents bought them. Quite a few people have moved back to the place they thought they wanted to get away from: The city. |
McCain wins Florida primary...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "HK" wrote in message There's very little difference between Hillary or Barack on ending Bush's war. Hillary has said she will have a formal plan for doing so within 60 days of assuming office. Don't get too excited about anybody's plan, regardless of their political party. Decisions will be made based on the miserable reality of the situation, not on what politicians say on television. Exactly right. People, especially Hillary, promise a lot of things if it gets a vote. Big difference when you have to produce. Eisboch |
McCain wins Florida primary...
Eisboch wrote:
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "HK" wrote in message There's very little difference between Hillary or Barack on ending Bush's war. Hillary has said she will have a formal plan for doing so within 60 days of assuming office. Don't get too excited about anybody's plan, regardless of their political party. Decisions will be made based on the miserable reality of the situation, not on what politicians say on television. Exactly right. People, especially Hillary, promise a lot of things if it gets a vote. Big difference when you have to produce. Eisboch Have you listened to Mitt's promises? Hehehe. What an empty suit he is. |
McCain wins Florida primary...
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "HK" wrote in message There's very little difference between Hillary or Barack on ending Bush's war. Hillary has said she will have a formal plan for doing so within 60 days of assuming office. Don't get too excited about anybody's plan, regardless of their political party. Decisions will be made based on the miserable reality of the situation, not on what politicians say on television. Exactly right. People, especially Hillary, promise a lot of things if it gets a vote. Big difference when you have to produce. Eisboch So true. Remember Hillarys plan to revamp healthcare? Nah. Probably not. |
McCain wins Florida primary...
"HK" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "HK" wrote in message There's very little difference between Hillary or Barack on ending Bush's war. Hillary has said she will have a formal plan for doing so within 60 days of assuming office. Don't get too excited about anybody's plan, regardless of their political party. Decisions will be made based on the miserable reality of the situation, not on what politicians say on television. Exactly right. People, especially Hillary, promise a lot of things if it gets a vote. Big difference when you have to produce. Eisboch Have you listened to Mitt's promises? Hehehe. What an empty suit he is. I suppose you wouldn't have any trouble filling that suit. Ya right. |
McCain wins Florida primary...
"Jim" wrote in message
... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "HK" wrote in message There's very little difference between Hillary or Barack on ending Bush's war. Hillary has said she will have a formal plan for doing so within 60 days of assuming office. Don't get too excited about anybody's plan, regardless of their political party. Decisions will be made based on the miserable reality of the situation, not on what politicians say on television. Exactly right. People, especially Hillary, promise a lot of things if it gets a vote. Big difference when you have to produce. Eisboch So true. Remember Hillarys plan to revamp healthcare? Nah. Probably not. At the moment, the invasion is the subject. That's the miserable reality I referred to. Someone forgot to think about "how the phuque do we leave?" Maybe that's what "someone" wanted to begin with: No way out. |
McCain wins Florida primary...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... Get your head out of the liberal sand. The whole world *knew* the man had WMD, including the Democrats. That liberal line has been old for a long time. -- John H Where did those WMDs go? Since you don't trust Bush, why not ask Kerry. Or Biden. Or Pelosi. Or Clinton. Or AGore. They all claimed they existed, well before George came upon the scene and had a top secret clearance. Eisboch |
McCain wins Florida primary...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... Get your head out of the liberal sand. The whole world *knew* the man had WMD, including the Democrats. That liberal line has been old for a long time. -- John H Where did those WMDs go? Since you don't trust Bush, why not ask Kerry. Or Biden. Or Pelosi. Or Clinton. Or AGore. They all claimed they existed, well before George came upon the scene and had a top secret clearance. Eisboch I know what those politicians think. I want to know what John thinks. That's why I asked John. I want no other opinion on the issue except John's. Only John's, exclusively. John: Where do you think the WMDs went? |
McCain wins Florida primary...
"JG2U" wrote in message
... On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:36:46 -0500, HK wrote: wrote: On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:43:10 -0000, wrote: I wonder if we will ever learn the real reason for this war. It sure as hell wasn't WMD. We took down Saddam so Israel wouldn't. In that regard Hillary was behind it 100% along with Lieberman and McCain. The only other option was to let Israel do it on their own ... very unlikely or to back them and that would be worse than the mess we have now. The US has gone far out of their way to avoid using the "I" word. That is why they came up with the Kurds, WMD and the idea of democracy for Iraq. Cynic that I am, I think it was because Bush had a hard-on for Iraq before he took office, and directed his staff to cook the intel so he could justify his attack to the American people. That and the fact that he had dead-ended in the hunt for bin Laden in Afghanistan. Only problem with that fantasy is the fact that the Dems were beating the Iraq war drums long before Bush took office. The "intel" was there before Bush was even a candidate. Try again. True, but you would need to read more than just newspapers in order to understand what changed from year to year. It requires books, which are heavy. |
McCain wins Florida primary...
"JG2U" wrote in message
... On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 23:32:09 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message . .. On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:36:46 -0500, HK wrote: wrote: On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:43:10 -0000, wrote: I wonder if we will ever learn the real reason for this war. It sure as hell wasn't WMD. We took down Saddam so Israel wouldn't. In that regard Hillary was behind it 100% along with Lieberman and McCain. The only other option was to let Israel do it on their own ... very unlikely or to back them and that would be worse than the mess we have now. The US has gone far out of their way to avoid using the "I" word. That is why they came up with the Kurds, WMD and the idea of democracy for Iraq. Cynic that I am, I think it was because Bush had a hard-on for Iraq before he took office, and directed his staff to cook the intel so he could justify his attack to the American people. That and the fact that he had dead-ended in the hunt for bin Laden in Afghanistan. Only problem with that fantasy is the fact that the Dems were beating the Iraq war drums long before Bush took office. The "intel" was there before Bush was even a candidate. Try again. True, but you would need to read more than just newspapers in order to understand what changed from year to year. It requires books, which are heavy. True, but books, like movies, are sometimes fictional. Even the ones posing as "real". It can be difficult for someone like you to tell the difference. Are you saying that you will *never* read books about recent American history? |
McCain wins Florida primary...
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:17:11 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:43:10 -0000, wrote: On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:14:16 -0500, HK wrote: There's very little difference between Hillary or Barack on ending Bush's war. Hillary has said she will have a formal plan for doing so within 60 days of assuming office. You know, I was against this war from the start, but there is something about invading a country, wiping out it's government structure, and then leaving it in shambles, that doesn't set well with me. It seems to me, we now have a duty. How much of a duty? How many lives? I don't know, but I'll be interested in the debate without the Nitwit and his unending "terrorists" statements. I wonder if we will ever learn the real reason for this war. It sure as hell wasn't WMD. Get your head out of the liberal sand. The whole world *knew* the man had WMD, including the Democrats. That liberal line has been old for a long time. -- John H Where did those WMDs go? Why was *knew* written the way it was? -- John H |
McCain wins Florida primary...
"John H." wrote in message
... On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:17:11 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:43:10 -0000, wrote: On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:14:16 -0500, HK wrote: There's very little difference between Hillary or Barack on ending Bush's war. Hillary has said she will have a formal plan for doing so within 60 days of assuming office. You know, I was against this war from the start, but there is something about invading a country, wiping out it's government structure, and then leaving it in shambles, that doesn't set well with me. It seems to me, we now have a duty. How much of a duty? How many lives? I don't know, but I'll be interested in the debate without the Nitwit and his unending "terrorists" statements. I wonder if we will ever learn the real reason for this war. It sure as hell wasn't WMD. Get your head out of the liberal sand. The whole world *knew* the man had WMD, including the Democrats. That liberal line has been old for a long time. -- John H Where did those WMDs go? Why was *knew* written the way it was? -- John H Beats me. I didn't write it. Stop trying to use distractions. Where did those WMDs go, John? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:37 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com