Glad to see it. I've been a McCain fan ever since the Bushcrappers
screwed him over in South Carolina in 2000.

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.

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.

On Jan 29, 10:34Â*pm, 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.

Now I'm not up on the political scam er scheme, but how could Hillary
get such a huge cropping over Barrak, and no delegates, and McCain
topples Romney and gets 52???

Really I don't know that much about the whole primary process.

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.

Anyway, down South Carolina way those good ol' "legitimate voters"
probably figured that where there was smoke there just might be some
fire; and if getting a blow job from a white woman was enough grounds
to try to terminate one presidency then having an extra-marital affair
that resulted in a mixed race ******* child was no way to begin
another.

Here's hoping both of your parties can field quality candidates that
can run on the issues instead of trying to win with sickening, sleazy
tricks and character assassination.

On Jan 29, 8:44Â*pm, Tim wrote:
On Jan 29, 10:34Â*pm, 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.

Now I'm not up on the political scam er scheme, but how could Hillary
get such a huge cropping over Barrak, and no delegates, and McCain
topples Romney and gets 52???

Really I don't know that much about the whole primary process.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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.

On Jan 29, 10:47*pm, Chuck Gould wrote:


Here's hoping both of your parties can field quality candidates that
can run on the issues instead of trying to win with sickening, sleazy
tricks and character assassination.

chuck, now you're hypothetically speaking...

?:

"HK" wrote in message
...
Glad to see it. I've been a McCain fan ever since the Bushcrappers screwed
him over in South Carolina in 2000.

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.

On Jan 29, 11:47Â*pm, 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.

Anyway, down South Carolina way those good ol' "legitimate voters"
probably figured that where there was smoke there just might be some
fire; and if getting a blow job from a white woman was enough grounds
to try to terminate one presidency then having an extra-marital affair
that resulted in a mixed race ******* child was no way to begin
another.

Here's hoping both of your parties can field quality candidates that
can run on the issues instead of trying to win with sickening, sleazy
tricks and character assassination.

Pushpolling... hummm, new concept??

"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