wrote in message
...
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


Nice. That adds a new twist to the "Did you serve in the military" question.
If you didn't, you're phuqued. If you did, you've got a screw loose.

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:26:58 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
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


Nice. That adds a new twist to the "Did you serve in the military" question.
If you didn't, you're phuqued. If you did, you've got a screw loose.


Someone will bite. Just hang in there. Look in the mirror while you're
waiting.
--
John H

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.

Ask that Question in Argentina.

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:26:58 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
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


Nice. That adds a new twist to the "Did you serve in the military"
question.
If you didn't, you're phuqued. If you did, you've got a screw loose.


Someone will bite. Just hang in there. Look in the mirror while you're
waiting.
--
John H


You missed the point, John. The 3rd paragraph at the bartcopnation link
will help you, if you read it. I'm saying that you're damned if you and
you're damned if you don't, depending on how the information is used.

***ALWAYS*** read at least some of the linked information before you
respond.

wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:13:25 -0500, HK wrote:

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.

Hillary is probably unelectable in a national election. Those
elections are decided by swing voters, and with Hillary, you either
love her or hate her. She's not going to do well with swing voters. If
the contest is between her and McCain, I think you'll see a lot of
moderate Dems voting for McCain, because there is no way they will
vote for Hillary if they have an escape route that is at all
palatable.






Your guess is as good as mine on this, but I think a Hillary-Barack
ticket would be unstoppable.

"HK" wrote in message
...


Your guess is as good as mine on this, but I think a Hillary-Barack ticket
would be unstoppable.

Barack-Hillary would be better.

Oh, wait. She already *had* that job.

Eisboch

On Jan 30, 10:17*am, wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:49:20 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...

Your guess is as good as mine on this, but I think a Hillary-Barack ticket
would be unstoppable.

Barack-Hillary would be better.

Oh, wait. *She already **had* that job.

Eisboch

*I think Obama-Richardson would be a strong ticket. It adds someone
with substantial experience and expertise in foreign policy, and has
the added advantage of not including someone very divisive near the
top of the ticket.

I kind of like Richardson, the only thing I see wrong with him is he
was soooooo deep in Billarys pocket, I don't know if he could climb
out...

wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:49:20 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...

Your guess is as good as mine on this, but I think a Hillary-Barack ticket
would be unstoppable.
Barack-Hillary would be better.

Oh, wait. She already *had* that job.

Eisboch


I think Obama-Richardson would be a strong ticket. It adds someone
with substantial experience and expertise in foreign policy, and has
the added advantage of not including someone very divisive near the
top of the ticket.



Are we going to hear the "gravitas" chorus from all of the political
pundits just like we did in 2000 when Bush picked Chenney? You do
realize what you are saying is that Obama is an empty suit and can't
handle the job without adult supervision.

On Jan 30, 10:20*am, BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:49:20 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...

Your guess is as good as mine on this, but I think a Hillary-Barack ticket
would be unstoppable.
Barack-Hillary would be better.

Oh, wait. *She already **had* that job.

Eisboch

*I think Obama-Richardson would be a strong ticket. It adds someone
with substantial experience and expertise in foreign policy, and has
the added advantage of not including someone very divisive near the
top of the ticket.

Are we going to hear the "gravitas" chorus from all of the political
pundits just like we did in 2000 when Bush picked Chenney? You do
realize what you are saying is that Obama is an empty suit and can't
handle the job without adult supervision.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That is one reason I could take Obama over Billary....

On Jan 30, 10:35*am, wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:20:02 -0500, BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:49:20 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...

Your guess is as good as mine on this, but I think a Hillary-Barack ticket
would be unstoppable.
Barack-Hillary would be better.

Oh, wait. *She already **had* that job.

Eisboch

*I think Obama-Richardson would be a strong ticket. It adds someone
with substantial experience and expertise in foreign policy, and has
the added advantage of not including someone very divisive near the
top of the ticket.

Are we going to hear the "gravitas" chorus from all of the political
pundits just like we did in 2000 when Bush picked Chenney? You do
realize what you are saying is that Obama is an empty suit and can't
handle the job without adult supervision.

Not saying that at all. And when they picked a baby sitter for GWB,
it's too bad they settled on Jeffrey Dahmer.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dahmer was an amateur

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RA...CS/BODIES.html