|
McCain wins Florida primary...
HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote: "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 None of the remaining three Dems campaigned in Florida. Hillary attended a few private and closed fundraisers in Florida, and did not "appear" in the state until the the polls closed. She also got more votes in Florida than any candidate of either party running there in the primaries. While there were no delegates in play, it was a significant victory, and when the Dems change their minds about delegates, she will get the majority of the Florida ones. #1 That's BS. #2 That's improper English from a guy who adds "journalist" to his unfounded resume. |
McCain wins Florida primary...
"HK" wrote in message ... 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. After the crap from Congress, a Dem controlled Congress doing nada for the last year to improve things, the people are fed up with both parties. A Barack / Hillery ticket would be hard to imagine. Hillary does not want to share the limelight and Barack does not want to have a necklace with an Albatross. |
McCain wins Florida primary...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "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? Syria? Mars? Shortwaves home planet? Where do you think they went? |
McCain wins Florida primary...
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message ... 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. The Primary elections are only part picking a party candidate. Also the laws, bond issues etc. that affect the state are also voted on. If you are not a Registered Democrat, why should you get to vote on who you want to represent the Democrat club in the big show? Is the way most of the states have set up their picking of the candidates for President. It is up to the states to pick how they pick a candidate for POTUS. Read that last statement again. At one time it was the state Legislatures who submitted the candidate. But the people wanted a say and the Founding Fathers left it up to the state on how they pick a candidate. |
McCain wins Florida primary...
The Constitution does not grant anyone a right to vote. Period. "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "Chuck Gould" wrote in message ... 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. The Primary elections are only part picking a party candidate. Also the laws, bond issues etc. that affect the state are also voted on. If you are not a Registered Democrat, why should you get to vote on who you want to represent the Democrat club in the big show? Is the way most of the states have set up their picking of the candidates for President. It is up to the states to pick how they pick a candidate for POTUS. Read that last statement again. At one time it was the state Legislatures who submitted the candidate. But the people wanted a say and the Founding Fathers left it up to the state on how they pick a candidate. |
McCain wins Florida primary...
"JG2U" wrote in message
... On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 01:10:43 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:28:33 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message m... On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 23:49:29 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:rt22q394km5fc4sed6cb19crvq1bkef4fg@4ax. com... On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 23:32:09 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:st12q3db6d8p8cv2evvivb4pj84cpuk4ip@4a x.com... 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? Are you saying that you believe *everything* you choose to read? Do you read books that contain contrary points of view to your own, or do you only read books that align with your pre-conceived views? Do you buy your books, or do you have a library card? Do you move your lips when you read? How would you know? Can you be anymore argumentative and contrary? Do you sometimes feel a need to wear a jockstrap over your head? And back to the issue... How do you reconcile your statement that "Bush cooked the intel" with the fact that Dems are captured *on video* beating the wars drums for Iraq starting back in *1998* well before Bush took office? Think about it... how did Bush cook *that* intel? You first. Are you saying you will *never* read books about recent American history? Read carefully. I wrote: " 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." Not sure how that statement morphed into you thinking I said something about reading, or not reading, certain types of books. The two have nothing to do with each other, except in your mind. Short answer: No, I am not saying that. Now you answer my questions. No. Not yet. You said it could be difficult for someone like me to tell the difference. How would YOU tell the difference without reading the book? Or: After you read a book, how would you decide it was not "real"? Sorry. No more answers from me until you've answered my last question. Refresher: How do you reconcile your statement that "Bush cooked the intel" with the fact that Dems are captured *on video* beating the wars drums for Iraq starting back in *1998* well before Bush took office? Think about it... how did Bush cook *that* intel? Answer it now. Or just accept the fact that you were incorrect. The answer was contained earlier in the discussion: The available information changed from year to year, which you would've known if you'd read books, or even read past the front page of any newspaper which targets grownups. Much of this information is NOT CLASSIFIED, and was clearly spelled out by grownup news sources. |
McCain wins Florida primary...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:17:11 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message m... 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? Syria? Mars? Shortwaves home planet? Where do you think they went? Irrelevant. I want John's answer. |
McCain wins Florida primary...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
... "HK" wrote in message ... 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. After the crap from Congress, a Dem controlled Congress doing nada for the last year to improve things, the people are fed up with both parties. A Barack / Hillery ticket would be hard to imagine. Hillary does not want to share the limelight and Barack does not want to have a necklace with an Albatross. I agree. Obama should choose an actual government worker. Can he name a house member that nobody outside of his/her district has ever heard of, other than colleagues? |
McCain wins Florida primary...
On Jan 30, 1:16�pm, John H. wrote:
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- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Most liberals don't listen to Air America. That should be evident by its ratings. One reason that liberalism doesn't "do better" than it seems to do is that those who adhere to a progressive philosophy are reluctant to sacrifice their personal ideals on the alter of "group think". I will had it to your side, John....you guys aren't afraid to compromise among yourselves (sometimes one heck of a lot) in order to promote the group agenda. I don't mean that in a bad way, it's one of the things I most admire about conservatives. |
McCain wins Florida primary...
wrote in message
... On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 22:55:01 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Eisboch" wrote in message om... 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. There was a gold rush mentality in Florida. People were paying outragous prices for houses right up into the summer of 2006. That was really when it crashed. The first round of defaults on contracts, not buying a house they had a down payment on was really not until the fall of 2006. The buillders were still able to pocket the $50,000 deposit and sell them that much cheaper. Around thanksgiving was when they weren't moving either. My wife (builder) was laid off in March 2007. The prices were in free fall until they levelled off about 30% below the summer 2006 price. (pre-construction prices) This is the house around the corner from me http://www.leepa.org/Scripts/Propert...lioID=10274192 price date 455,000 12/22/2004 295,000 3/15/2002 195,000 9/1/1994 133,000 8/1/1990 That's insane. |
McCain wins Florida primary...
wrote in message
... On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 06:22:28 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: price date 455,000 12/22/2004 295,000 3/15/2002 195,000 9/1/1994 133,000 8/1/1990 That's insane. The guy who bought it in 2002 and sold it in 2004 was happy. The buy who bought it probably thinks penny stocks are a great place for IRA money. :-) |
McCain wins Florida primary...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... This is the house around the corner from me http://www.leepa.org/Scripts/Propert...lioID=10274192 price date 455,000 12/22/2004 295,000 3/15/2002 195,000 9/1/1994 133,000 8/1/1990 That's insane. We purchased a house in Jupiter, FL in January of 2002 and paid $585K for it. Sometime in 2005 we determined that due to family related issues up here in MA, wintering in Florida was not going to be something we would be doing any longer, so we contacted a realtor to put it on the market. I expected a market appraisal of about $600-$650K, allowing for some improvements we had made, offset by a market that was showing signs of slowing by then. The realtor disagreed, and she was right. It sold in November, 2005, a month after Hurricane Wilma for $1M. Eisboch |
McCain wins Florida primary...
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Jan 30, 1:16�pm, John H. wrote: 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- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Most liberals don't listen to Air America. That should be evident by its ratings. One reason that liberalism doesn't "do better" than it seems to do is that those who adhere to a progressive philosophy are reluctant to sacrifice their personal ideals on the alter of "group think". I will had it to your side, John....you guys aren't afraid to compromise among yourselves (sometimes one heck of a lot) in order to promote the group agenda. I don't mean that in a bad way, it's one of the things I most admire about conservatives. Most liberals don't listen to Air America because most liberals don't need to have their core values told to them every day, and regurgitated in nasty fashion by the likes of snakes like Rush Limbaugh. The righties in Rush's audiences like and being told repeatedly who their "enemies" are and why, and Rush makes it easy for them. I've never heard Air America on the radio. It's not carried on the three public radio stations I listen to while in the car. |
McCain wins Florida primary...
On Jan 31, 12:03Â*am, Chuck Gould wrote:
On Jan 30, 1:16�pm, John H. wrote: 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- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Most liberals don't listen to Air America. That should be evident by its ratings. One reason that liberalism doesn't "do better" than it seems to do is that those who adhere to a progressive philosophy are reluctant to sacrifice their personal ideals on the alter of "group think". I will had it to your side, John....you guys aren't afraid to compromise among yourselves (sometimes one heck of a lot) in order to promote the group agenda. I don't mean that in a bad way, it's one of the things I most admire about conservatives.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - You have got to be kidding.. Repubs with groupthink? Compared to the dems in congress? You are just not paying attention... |
McCain wins Florida primary...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:19:00 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "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? What WMD? -- John H |
McCain wins Florida primary...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 04:58:43 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:17:11 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message om... 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? Syria? Mars? Shortwaves home planet? Where do you think they went? Irrelevant. I want John's answer. What WMD? -- John H |
McCain wins Florida primary...
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:03:04 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote: On Jan 30, 1:16?pm, John H. wrote: 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- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Most liberals don't listen to Air America. That should be evident by its ratings. One reason that liberalism doesn't "do better" than it seems to do is that those who adhere to a progressive philosophy are reluctant to sacrifice their personal ideals on the alter of "group think". I will had it to your side, John....you guys aren't afraid to compromise among yourselves (sometimes one heck of a lot) in order to promote the group agenda. I don't mean that in a bad way, it's one of the things I most admire about conservatives. Most Conservatives don't listen to 'the talk show circuit', which apparently (at least as you define it) does not include Air America. I say this because you make negative comments about only conservative talk radio. I've heard the 'group think' mantra from you and Loogy. It's more of your rhetoric. You try to make it sound as though you are all flying off in different directions with your philosophy, when you really aren't. It's snobbery, pure and simple. I think the attitude is best exemplified by Ward L. Churchill. He didn't earn my respect. -- John H |
McCain wins Florida primary...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 06:39:23 -0500, HK wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote: On Jan 30, 1:16?pm, John H. wrote: 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- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Most liberals don't listen to Air America. That should be evident by its ratings. One reason that liberalism doesn't "do better" than it seems to do is that those who adhere to a progressive philosophy are reluctant to sacrifice their personal ideals on the alter of "group think". I will had it to your side, John....you guys aren't afraid to compromise among yourselves (sometimes one heck of a lot) in order to promote the group agenda. I don't mean that in a bad way, it's one of the things I most admire about conservatives. Most liberals don't listen to Air America because most liberals don't need to have their core values told to them every day, and regurgitated in nasty fashion by the likes of snakes like Rush Limbaugh. The righties in Rush's audiences like and being told repeatedly who their "enemies" are and why, and Rush makes it easy for them. I've never heard Air America on the radio. It's not carried on the three public radio stations I listen to while in the car. A lot of the NPR stuff gets pretty close. -- John H |
McCain wins Florida primary...
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:03:04 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote: On Jan 30, 1:16?pm, John H. wrote: 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- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Most liberals don't listen to Air America. That should be evident by its ratings. One reason that liberalism doesn't "do better" than it seems to do is that those who adhere to a progressive philosophy are reluctant to sacrifice their personal ideals on the alter of "group think". I will had it to your side, John....you guys aren't afraid to compromise among yourselves (sometimes one heck of a lot) in order to promote the group agenda. I don't mean that in a bad way, it's one of the things I most admire about conservatives. Try an experiment. Take your prejudices and stereotypes about 'our side', (just one at a time, no reason to endure too large a shock at once), and ask yourself "What if this isn't right? What if they really do think for themselves just as much as we liberals do?" Take it a little further, What if every conservative doesn't fit the very narrow pigeon hole to which I have mentally assigned them?" I couldn't resist. :) -- John H |
McCain wins Florida primary...
"JG2U" wrote in message
... On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 04:58:15 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 01:10:43 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message m... On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:28:33 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:1q42q3dpctkov86ntq2qrvji0podj2ubqo@4ax. com... On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 23:49:29 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:rt22q394km5fc4sed6cb19crvq1bkef4fg@4a x.com... On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 23:32:09 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:st12q3db6d8p8cv2evvivb4pj84cpuk4ip@ 4ax.com... 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? Are you saying that you believe *everything* you choose to read? Do you read books that contain contrary points of view to your own, or do you only read books that align with your pre-conceived views? Do you buy your books, or do you have a library card? Do you move your lips when you read? How would you know? Can you be anymore argumentative and contrary? Do you sometimes feel a need to wear a jockstrap over your head? And back to the issue... How do you reconcile your statement that "Bush cooked the intel" with the fact that Dems are captured *on video* beating the wars drums for Iraq starting back in *1998* well before Bush took office? Think about it... how did Bush cook *that* intel? You first. Are you saying you will *never* read books about recent American history? Read carefully. I wrote: " 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." Not sure how that statement morphed into you thinking I said something about reading, or not reading, certain types of books. The two have nothing to do with each other, except in your mind. Short answer: No, I am not saying that. Now you answer my questions. No. Not yet. You said it could be difficult for someone like me to tell the difference. How would YOU tell the difference without reading the book? Or: After you read a book, how would you decide it was not "real"? Sorry. No more answers from me until you've answered my last question. Refresher: How do you reconcile your statement that "Bush cooked the intel" with the fact that Dems are captured *on video* beating the wars drums for Iraq starting back in *1998* well before Bush took office? Think about it... how did Bush cook *that* intel? Answer it now. Or just accept the fact that you were incorrect. The answer was contained earlier in the discussion: The available information changed from year to year, which you would've known if you'd read books, or even read past the front page of any newspaper which targets grownups. Much of this information is NOT CLASSIFIED, and was clearly spelled out by grownup news sources. Translation: Bush didn't cook the intel. While the intel changed slightly from time to time, the intel sources all maintained that there were WMDs and that Iraq was a threat. Bush believed the same intel that the Dems beilived. You were just squawking. Clinton and Bush both cooked intelligence. Example: Remember the famous metal tubes we found in Iraq? The ones Powell used as an example of a nuclear project underway? Our own scientists at Oak Ridge Laboratory examined samples of the metal and the tubes were absolutely NOT suitable for the use claimed by the administration. Samples were sent to IAEA scientists in Vienna, who came to the exact same conclusion. Both groups said the tubes matched the specs for a type of artillery whose plans Iraq had probably gotten from the Chinese. Guess what? Two years after the scientists made their determination, Bush & Powell still claimed those tubes were going to be used as part of a nuclear facility. Maybe the word "cooked" is wrong in this context. How about "ignored"? |
McCain wins Florida primary...
wrote in message
... On Jan 31, 12:03 am, Chuck Gould wrote: On Jan 30, 1:16?pm, John H. wrote: 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- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Most liberals don't listen to Air America. That should be evident by its ratings. One reason that liberalism doesn't "do better" than it seems to do is that those who adhere to a progressive philosophy are reluctant to sacrifice their personal ideals on the alter of "group think". I will had it to your side, John....you guys aren't afraid to compromise among yourselves (sometimes one heck of a lot) in order to promote the group agenda. I don't mean that in a bad way, it's one of the things I most admire about conservatives.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - You have got to be kidding.. Repubs with groupthink? Compared to the dems in congress? You are just not paying attention... ==================== I don't think you were spending much time in this newsgroup when the slogan plague was at its worst. "Cut & run", stuff like that. Bush's handlers seem to have stopped him from using that high school level **** lately, though. I think maybe even they got sick of hearing it. He almost broke the rules a few months ago by saying "This young democracy" a little too often (referring to Iraq), but someone made him dump the phrase. That's definitely group-think when you're trying to get your followers to memorize slogans. |
McCain wins Florida primary...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... This is the house around the corner from me http://www.leepa.org/Scripts/Propert...lioID=10274192 price date 455,000 12/22/2004 295,000 3/15/2002 195,000 9/1/1994 133,000 8/1/1990 That's insane. We purchased a house in Jupiter, FL in January of 2002 and paid $585K for it. Sometime in 2005 we determined that due to family related issues up here in MA, wintering in Florida was not going to be something we would be doing any longer, so we contacted a realtor to put it on the market. I expected a market appraisal of about $600-$650K, allowing for some improvements we had made, offset by a market that was showing signs of slowing by then. The realtor disagreed, and she was right. It sold in November, 2005, a month after Hurricane Wilma for $1M. Eisboch How big was the house? |
McCain wins Florida primary...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... This is the house around the corner from me http://www.leepa.org/Scripts/Propert...lioID=10274192 price date 455,000 12/22/2004 295,000 3/15/2002 195,000 9/1/1994 133,000 8/1/1990 That's insane. We purchased a house in Jupiter, FL in January of 2002 and paid $585K for it. Sometime in 2005 we determined that due to family related issues up here in MA, wintering in Florida was not going to be something we would be doing any longer, so we contacted a realtor to put it on the market. I expected a market appraisal of about $600-$650K, allowing for some improvements we had made, offset by a market that was showing signs of slowing by then. The realtor disagreed, and she was right. It sold in November, 2005, a month after Hurricane Wilma for $1M. Eisboch How big was the house? I forget. Probably like 3200-3400 square feet. Eisboch |
McCain wins Florida primary...
"JG2U" wrote in message
... On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:28:35 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:57:29 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message m... On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:48:19 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:hnl4q39j78fr68gs6i7ek5ai47shf002u8@4ax. com... On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:20:01 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Clinton and Bush both cooked intelligence. Example: Remember the famous metal tubes we found in Iraq? The ones Powell used as an example of a nuclear project underway? Our own scientists at Oak Ridge Laboratory examined samples of the metal and the tubes were absolutely NOT suitable for the use claimed by the administration. Samples were sent to IAEA scientists in Vienna, who came to the exact same conclusion. Both groups said the tubes matched the specs for a type of artillery whose plans Iraq had probably gotten from the Chinese. Guess what? Two years after the scientists made their determination, Bush & Powell still claimed those tubes were going to be used as part of a nuclear facility. Maybe the word "cooked" is wrong in this context. How about "ignored"? Let's assume for a moment that the story you just told is completely factual in all respects. Are you saying that we went to war in Iraq because of a couple of dubious metal tubes? Really? Everybody in DC except for two were on a hair trigger? Wow. I never said we went to war over metal tubes. But, Bush and Powell **DID** mention the tubes as "proof" that Iraq had revived its nuclear weapons program. So, for the people who used the erroneous information, it was one of many reasons. Since you assert that BOTH administrations cooked the intel, think about this: They both fed bad intel from one or multiple agencies, and they both were gullible enough to believe it. C'mon, you're a conspiracy junkie, so that should play well for you. From what I've read (in real books) so far, much of the intel given to Bush was as accurate as it could've been. Would you like to read a book covering our so-called "nonproliferation" efforts from the mid-1970s to the present? It will give you an excellent overview of why there are no simple answers with regard to intelligence efforts. I got that covered, Doug. I merely took you to task over your simple, knee-jerk liberal statement. As you are now asserting, there are no simple answers. And yet, 2-3 years after real scientists told the admin that the pipes could NOT be used for nuclear purposes, your president continued to use them in his speeches to "prove" the existence of a nuclear program. Explain that, please. This is getting old. As you know, the answer is "Neither one of us can." As in, neither one of us knows *exactly* what transpired. So we can't explain it. We can only guess. Now go away. No. The explanation is very simple, but just for entertainment, I want to hear your version. Otherwise, I can only conclude that you have nothing. You are correct, you can conclude that *you* have nothing. Bye I have nothing? But, you cannot explain why your president lied about those tubes THREE YEARS after our own nuclear scientists made it clear that the tubes could not have been used in a nuclear facility. That's very interesting. You don't even have a theory? |
McCain wins Florida primary...
"JG2U" wrote in message
... On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 01:29:15 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:28:35 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message m... On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:57:29 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:nsn4q39m0nd4ec7vbneo3362mfl9kood9q@4ax. com... On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:48:19 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:hnl4q39j78fr68gs6i7ek5ai47shf002u8@4a x.com... On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:20:01 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Clinton and Bush both cooked intelligence. Example: Remember the famous metal tubes we found in Iraq? The ones Powell used as an example of a nuclear project underway? Our own scientists at Oak Ridge Laboratory examined samples of the metal and the tubes were absolutely NOT suitable for the use claimed by the administration. Samples were sent to IAEA scientists in Vienna, who came to the exact same conclusion. Both groups said the tubes matched the specs for a type of artillery whose plans Iraq had probably gotten from the Chinese. Guess what? Two years after the scientists made their determination, Bush & Powell still claimed those tubes were going to be used as part of a nuclear facility. Maybe the word "cooked" is wrong in this context. How about "ignored"? Let's assume for a moment that the story you just told is completely factual in all respects. Are you saying that we went to war in Iraq because of a couple of dubious metal tubes? Really? Everybody in DC except for two were on a hair trigger? Wow. I never said we went to war over metal tubes. But, Bush and Powell **DID** mention the tubes as "proof" that Iraq had revived its nuclear weapons program. So, for the people who used the erroneous information, it was one of many reasons. Since you assert that BOTH administrations cooked the intel, think about this: They both fed bad intel from one or multiple agencies, and they both were gullible enough to believe it. C'mon, you're a conspiracy junkie, so that should play well for you. From what I've read (in real books) so far, much of the intel given to Bush was as accurate as it could've been. Would you like to read a book covering our so-called "nonproliferation" efforts from the mid-1970s to the present? It will give you an excellent overview of why there are no simple answers with regard to intelligence efforts. I got that covered, Doug. I merely took you to task over your simple, knee-jerk liberal statement. As you are now asserting, there are no simple answers. And yet, 2-3 years after real scientists told the admin that the pipes could NOT be used for nuclear purposes, your president continued to use them in his speeches to "prove" the existence of a nuclear program. Explain that, please. This is getting old. As you know, the answer is "Neither one of us can." As in, neither one of us knows *exactly* what transpired. So we can't explain it. We can only guess. Now go away. No. The explanation is very simple, but just for entertainment, I want to hear your version. Otherwise, I can only conclude that you have nothing. You are correct, you can conclude that *you* have nothing. Bye I have nothing? But, you cannot explain why your president lied about those tubes THREE YEARS after our own nuclear scientists made it clear that the tubes could not have been used in a nuclear facility. That's very interesting. You don't even have a theory? Yep. You are claiming things that are not in evidence. (fact, not theory) You have no proof that Bush lied, as you can't, by *any* definition. You simply can't know. If he didn't know it was not true when he said it, it is not a lie. Just like all those Libs didn't know they were repeating something that wasn't true when they said it. They were trusting the intel. The intel lied. Why can you not understand that simple concept? You have ten minutes to grasp this until I give Tom the signal. You don't want that. You said "not in evidence". Which part of what I told you do you feel is not true, and why? I've copied it below in case you want to pretend you forgot by tomorrow night. I have nothing? But, you cannot explain why your president lied about those tubes THREE YEARS after our own nuclear scientists made it clear that the tubes could not have been used in a nuclear facility. |
McCain wins Florida primary...
"RLM" wrote in message ... On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 01:55:52 -0500, gfretwell wrote: You must be a local college student. You must be an idiot. |
McCain wins Florida primary...
wrote in message ... On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:47:37 GMT, "Sam" wrote: Even better, Florida sent the Unions packing on Amendment 1, which won 64% to 36%. Double the homestead tax exemption, and homestead portability when you move. This was sold that way but it isn't really true. You don't get this double exemption from the school tax and that is the biggest line item on your tax bill. It really only means a couple hundred bucks a year for most people and Charlie hasn't even explained how he will pay for it. This is basically the real estate agent relief act of 2008. |
McCain wins Florida primary...
wrote in message ... On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:47:37 GMT, "Sam" wrote: Even better, Florida sent the Unions packing on Amendment 1, which won 64% to 36%. Double the homestead tax exemption, and homestead portability when you move. This was sold that way but it isn't really true. You don't get this double exemption from the school tax and that is the biggest line item on your tax bill. It really only means a couple hundred bucks a year for most people and Charlie hasn't even explained how he will pay for it. This is basically the real estate agent relief act of 2008. Charlie has explained how to pay for it- government has to cut costs. Sane people agree. |
McCain wins Florida primary...
|
McCain wins Florida primary...
HK wrote:
Unfortunately, Florida's educational system and infrastructure is suffering from years of neglect by the former Jeb Bush administration, the sales tax rates are way up there, and without a state income tax, there are only so many ways to raise the funds necessary to keep the state from sliding into a sinkhole of its own creation. 6%? Try again, dummy. |
McCain wins Florida primary...
|
| 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