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. :-)

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.


It doesn't sit well with me, either. I'd feel a lot better about it if
its perpetrators, Bush and Cheney, would 'fess up, ask for forgiveness,
and then leave it to the next administration to clean up their mess.

Iraq allegedly has hundreds of thousands of troops and police either
ready, willing and able or *almost* at that stage. Seems to me if the
Iraqis want a country, they'll know what to do.

Of course, they don't have a government, either.

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.

"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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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..

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?