wrote:
On Jan 30, 2:07 pm, HK wrote:

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..


My determination about Bush had nothing to do with his "R."

It was based upon two incidents:

1. When he declared "Jesus Day" in Texas, an act totally inappropriate
for the chief secular official of a state, and,

2. When he appeared on television, gleeful and mocking, about the
execution of Karla F. Tucker.

Those incidents convinced me that Bush was a p.o.s.

Had nothing to do with his political party.


You ought to consider what you post here from time to time, especially
when you think you know what is in the head of another person. As
evidenced by your many weird posts here, you're not well equipped for
that sort of duty.

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:52:47 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:44:49 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 06:44:42 -0500, "Jim"
wrote:

This is basically the real estate agent relief act of 2008.

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

We are already seeing new home orders. All they had to do was drop the
price to a more realistic level. The real tax problem is the
government was spending, based on that artifically inflated home
value. Home prices are down 25-30% but government spending is still
gong up.

25/30%?

Maybe in some over inflated markets - not around here.

Nor here. Maybe 10%.
--
John H

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

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

"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?

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:43:10 -0000, wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:14:16 -0500, HK wrote:


There's very little difference between Hillary or Barack on ending
Bush's war. Hillary has said she will have a formal plan for doing so
within 60 days of assuming office.
You know, I was against this war from the start, but there is something
about invading a country, wiping out it's government structure, and then
leaving it in shambles, that doesn't set well with me. It seems to me,
we now have a duty. How much of a duty? How many lives? I don't know,
but I'll be interested in the debate without the Nitwit and his unending
"terrorists" statements. I wonder if we will ever learn the real reason
for this war. It sure as hell wasn't WMD.
Get your head out of the liberal sand. The whole world *knew* the man had
WMD, including the Democrats.

That liberal line has been old for a long time.
--
John H


Where did those WMDs go?




Buried in either Herring's head or his backyard. I had no idea he was
*that* delusional.

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
...

Depends what states you win. Big states, more delegates. I don't know
how many states have "winner take all" primaries, and in those that do
not a 60-40 vote split can mean six delegates for the "winner" and
four for the "loser". One of Hillary's victories was in a state that
was disqualtifed by the D party for holding its primary too early, so
she got no delegates there. IIRC- Obama didn't campaing too vigorously
in the "no delegate" state.

--------------------------------------------------------------


Florida forfeited any Democratic Delegates because of the date change of
the primary.
Hillary initially didn't pay too much attention either until Obama won so
big in SC.
Then she did an about-face and campaigned in Florida.

She was just on MSNBC, claiming a "huge" victory.

Comical.

Eisboch


And trying to change the rules after the election. Sound familiar.

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

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:52:47 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Home prices are down 25-30% but government spending is still
gong up.

25/30%?

Maybe in some over inflated markets - not around here.

That is what the price of houses that actually sell reflects. (SW Fla)
Certainly people may be thinking their market is better than that but
what is the price of the houses that actually move?

I'd buy those numbers in certain parts of Florida. For several years the
market value of some homes were going up by 15-20 percent/year. It all
came to a screeching halt in 2003-2004.

Eisboch



I always like to ask the question "Why should prices go up by those
percentages?" In many cases, there's no sane reason. Here, there were a
couple of neighborhoods where that happened. The excuse was that the schools
were so much better. Later, people who moved to those places said that the
only thing "better" were the drugs the kids could get, and the cars their
parents bought them. Quite a few people have moved back to the place they
thought they wanted to get away from: The city.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

"HK" wrote in message

There's very little difference between Hillary or Barack on ending Bush's
war. Hillary has said she will have a formal plan for doing so within 60
days of assuming office.


Don't get too excited about anybody's plan, regardless of their political
party. Decisions will be made based on the miserable reality of the
situation, not on what politicians say on television.



Exactly right. People, especially Hillary, promise a lot of things if it
gets a vote.
Big difference when you have to produce.

Eisboch