wrote in message
news
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.
It should help. You might see an uptick in RE activity.

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

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

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

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



Bingo.

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

"HK" wrote in message
...


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

Nicknamed him Barack?

Eisboch

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:34:50 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Jan 29, 6:16?pm, HK wrote:
Glad to see it. I've been a McCain fan ever since the Bushcrappers
screwed him over in South Carolina in 2000.

Hear hear.

Congratulations to the Florida Republicans for making a very wise
choice.

I haven't voted Republican for POTUS in a very long while. Depending
upon who the Democrats nominate, I could imagine voting for McCain
this fall without too much angst.

I *despise* (!) a lot of McCain's political stands, but POTUS needs to
be about character and leadership moreso than politics. McCain scores
highly in the personal integrity and ability categories, and most
people who agree with my politics should be put in jail, anyway- not
elected POTUS. :-)

A McCain candidacy would help improve the tarnished image of the
Republican party and maybe put a few R's back into congress, but
assuming that the D's hold the majority in congress we would be back
to what is historically the best arrangement in Washington DC- the
executive and legislative branches controlled by different parties.

We may just cancel each other's vote. I believe a liberal Democrat would
not be good for the country. But, if a liberal is going to be elected to
screw things up, it should be a Democrat liberal- not a Republican liberal.
If it becomes a McCain/Obama race, Obama may just get my vote. If it's a
McCain/Hillary race, then I'll have to rethink.

I'll do the rethinking on the boat, while fishing for something.
--
John H

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.

"HK" wrote in message
...
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

Sounds like you are saying the Clintons are already trying to rig the
election. I'm sure they have enough in their war chest to buy the DNC.
Wonder what other tricks they have up their sleeves.

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 06:30:59 -0500, 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.

If it was the election, definitely, but in the primary? I think the
parties hold all the cards. Unfortunately, I think they can set the
rules as we are not electing a President, just a party's candidate.

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


Bingo.

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

That was only a part of it.

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

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


Bingo.

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

That was only a part of it.

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


That's correct. The Bushshippers played as dirty as possible in 2000.

wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 06:30:59 -0500, 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.

If it was the election, definitely, but in the primary? I think the
parties hold all the cards. Unfortunately, I think they can set the
rules as we are not electing a President, just a party's candidate.


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.

As for Hillary's win in Florida, it gives her campaign a boost now and
maybe more later. The fact that she got more votes than anyone else in
either party speaks for itself.

I still would like to see a Hillary-Barack ticket. It would totally
motivate the Democratic base, and pull in the majority of independents.
I think such a ticket would result in a slaughter of the GOP for the
presidency and for real control of Congress. It's going to take that
sort of control to try to undo the horrors perpetrated on this country
by the Bush Administration.