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...
 

"JG2U" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:28:33 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 23:49:29 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
m...
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"?

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.