Jim wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...
Tim wrote:
John, it will still all be Bush's fault.

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 00:38:37 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
. ..

Delightfully, it doesn't matter to me whether Hillary or Barack wins,
since I will be happy with either in the White House.

It would be very interesting and refreshing to see you "happy".
Somehow I doubt it will ever happen though, regardless of the election
outcome.

Eisboch

It will be fun to watch Harry bitch when the Democrats are in charge
and
the USA is going to hell in a hand basket.
--
John H


This country already is in hell in a hand basket. Either Barack or
Hillary will be a huge improvement.

You are just reading cue cards. Do you have any thoughts of your own
that might justify her being president? Bet you don't.


My thoughts have to do with the need to have a Democrat in the White
House. Either Hillary or Barack will be fine with me.

wrote:
On Feb 6, 11:30 am, HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 11:18:38 -0500, wrote:
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 07:24:35 -0500, HK wrote:
And when the voters get fed up with higher taxes, "wait-your-turn"
medical care and cowardice abroad, the Republicans will take Congress
back in 2010, the White House in 2012.
Not to worry, Lu...the way we are arranging it, only you and your
conservacrap buddies will find themselves paying higher taxes and
waiting in line for health care.
By 2012 it will become clear that Social Security will become a drain
on the treasury instead of the cash cow it has been since 1939 when
FDR allowed the government to spend the surplus. Medicare will already
be a major expense, far exceeding what the medicare taxes take in. The
stock matket will be in trouble as boomers liquidate their 401ks and
IRAs. At that time I imagine people will start thinking Ron Paul was
right. We can't depend on the government to give us "free" stuff with
borrowed money and we can't afford to have 700 military bases
scattered around the globe.
Well, I can sum it all up with this song...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z47EU...eature=related
A song about what the GOP fanatics will be doing this fall:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDQHjYIojTs- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, I won't bother with the link, in all fairness I didn't go to
Tom's either... Anyway, hopefully the republicans will be fixing the
holes in our process, allowing democrats to subvert and quell our
voices. Bob Bekel openly calling for dems to step into republican
votes to take away the republicans real voice is about as un-American
as you can get, but they are democrats, power is more important than
the country.. Who knew??


Are you referring to "open" primaries? I don't like them much, either,
and I also don't like caucuses.

wrote:
On Feb 6, 11:39 am, "Jim" wrote:
"HK" wrote in message

...





Tim wrote:
John, it will still all be Bush's fault.
John H. wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 00:38:37 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Delightfully, it doesn't matter to me whether Hillary or Barack wins,
since I will be happy with either in the White House.
It would be very interesting and refreshing to see you "happy".
Somehow I doubt it will ever happen though, regardless of the election
outcome.
Eisboch
It will be fun to watch Harry bitch when the Democrats are in charge and
the USA is going to hell in a hand basket.
--
John H
This country already is in hell in a hand basket. Either Barack or Hillary
will be a huge improvement.
You are just reading cue cards. Do you have any thoughts of your own that
might justify her being president? Bet you don't.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, he only has name calling.. can't even refer to real events and
situations as most of us do, does not have time for facts

I see no reason to waste time and effort typing "thoughts" into this
snake pit of conservative vipers.

wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 08:45:42 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

Pfttttt.

That sure sounds like a brain fart to me!




That's awfully presumptive. You're assuming he has one to have one.

On Feb 6, 11:51*am, wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 08:45:42 -0800 (PST),

wrote:
Pfttttt. * *

That sure sounds like a brain fart to me!

copy and paste that thought too??

wrote:
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 11:46:27 -0500, HK wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 07:55:46 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

John, it will still all be Bush's fault.

The unfortunate reality is that the next administrator will be
devoting most or all of it's energy to fixing what Bush has destroyed,
rather than moving the country forward very much. I wouldn't be at all
surprised if that is the task of the next 3 or 4 administrations.
Dropping a coffee mug on the floor and shattering it into a million
pieces is a lot easier and faster than trying to put it back together.



Yep, this fall's election is going to be fun.

I can't imagine any sane, intelligent, caring person thinking there is
anything gleeful to be had in this election.




The election means we'll soon be turning out Bush, Cheney, and the rest
of that administration's thugs.

"Jim" wrote in message
...

"HK" wrote in message
...
Tim wrote:
John, it will still all be Bush's fault.

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 00:38:37 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
. ..

Delightfully, it doesn't matter to me whether Hillary or Barack wins,
since I will be happy with either in the White House.

It would be very interesting and refreshing to see you "happy".
Somehow I doubt it will ever happen though, regardless of the election
outcome.

Eisboch

It will be fun to watch Harry bitch when the Democrats are in charge
and
the USA is going to hell in a hand basket.
--
John H


This country already is in hell in a hand basket. Either Barack or
Hillary will be a huge improvement.

You are just reading cue cards. Do you have any thoughts of your own that
might justify her being president? Bet you don't.

What if there were only two candidates right now: Hillary, with her current
senate experience, and Bush-2, with his experience as governor of Texas.

Which would you consider to be more qualified for the White House?

HK wrote:
Jim wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...
Lu Powell wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 01:14:37 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

So far, the early exiting polls are showing Obama really laying the
timber to Clinton.

Maginally, but getting wins straight up.

Very interesting.
Now pretty even up - Obama got five states, Clinton has five states.

Curiously, it seems to be breaking along race lines.

This is going to be very interesting.

Yeah, the "breaking along racial lines" bit worries me. I'd rather
see it breaking much, much closer in that area. But I can't fault
black voters for going en masse for Barack Obama. He's got a lot of
charisma, he's really smart and accomplished, and he's a positive
role model for young blacks, especially taking into account his
modest beginnings.

I'll be delighted to see him in the Oval Office, as I would with
Hillary there.

I'm very happy to see Romney tanking.

And when the voters get fed up with higher taxes, "wait-your-turn"
medical care and cowardice abroad, the Republicans will take
Congress back in 2010, the White House in 2012.




Not to worry, Lu...the way we are arranging it, only you and your
conservacrap buddies will find themselves paying higher taxes and
waiting in line for health care. Turnabout is fair play, after all!

As for cowardice abroad, that's an attribute of George W. Bush. He's
scared of meeting with his adversaries and sends in the troops, instead.

:}
What would you do if you were president? Macho man. Talk about the
balls of a brass monkey; you got em Harry. Geeeze. Have you forgotten
your military days? Or lack thereof.


If I had been president after 9-11 and determined that attacking another
country was necessary, I would have made damned sure the attack was
aimed at the right country. Iraq was not the right country. But before
that, I would have worked a bit harder than Bush did.


Harry,
Right after 9/11, you said you would drop leaflets all over Iraq telling
everyone to get out of the cities, then the next day you would bomb them
into the dark ages. I think you said completely destroy their
infrastructure so they could not spend any time with terrorism.

It seems that as bad as Bush handled the situation, he did it much
better than you would.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
...
Tim wrote:
John, it will still all be Bush's fault.

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 00:38:37 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
. ..

Delightfully, it doesn't matter to me whether Hillary or Barack wins,
since I will be happy with either in the White House.
It would be very interesting and refreshing to see you "happy".
Somehow I doubt it will ever happen though, regardless of the election
outcome.

Eisboch

It will be fun to watch Harry bitch when the Democrats are in charge
and
the USA is going to hell in a hand basket.
--
John H

This country already is in hell in a hand basket. Either Barack or
Hillary will be a huge improvement.
You are just reading cue cards. Do you have any thoughts of your own that
might justify her being president? Bet you don't.

What if there were only two candidates right now: Hillary, with her current
senate experience, and Bush-2, with his experience as governor of Texas.

Which would you consider to be more qualified for the White House?


Obama

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 11:46:27 -0500, HK wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 07:55:46 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

John, it will still all be Bush's fault.


The unfortunate reality is that the next administrator will be
devoting most or all of it's energy to fixing what Bush has destroyed,
rather than moving the country forward very much. I wouldn't be at all
surprised if that is the task of the next 3 or 4 administrations.
Dropping a coffee mug on the floor and shattering it into a million
pieces is a lot easier and faster than trying to put it back together.




Yep, this fall's election is going to be fun.

I can't imagine any sane, intelligent, caring person thinking there is
anything gleeful to be had in this election.



A journalist I like managed to sum it up nicely:

After debacles in Iraq and New Orleans and mushrooming scandals that exposed
much of Congress and the Cabinet as a low-rent crime family hired to collect
protection money for the likes of Halliburton and Pfizer, people simply do
not trust the politicians they vote for to be anything less than an
embarrassment. You get the sense they approach the upcoming election with
the enthusiasm of a two-time loser offered a selection of plea deals.

People hate the mechanized speeches, they hate the negative ads, and they
especially hate venomous news creatures, myself included. It's now so bad
that a poll last month found that fifty-six percent of all likely voters
agreed with the phrase that the presidential race is "annoying and a waste
of time" - a shocking number, given that it excludes the forty to fifty
percent of Americans who already don't vote in presidential races.

People don't want to feel this way, but the attitude everywhere is the same:
What choice do these assholes give us? And it's that grim prejudice that has
pervaded this process for a generation, forcing the public to choose from an
endless succession of lesser evils and second- raters of the Kerry-Dole
genus, stuffed suits who offered nothing like a solution to the main problem
of feeling like **** about the American civic experiment.