This is just too delicious not to comment...
 

hkrause wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 25, 8:58 pm, WaIIy wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:28:41 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
Obama may have the highest IQ of the three, or may be about tied with
Clinton who is personally very bright.
She's so smart she flunked her bar exam.



Even McCain appears much
smarter than the average person, so we can expect a substantial
improvement in that particular presidential quality regardless of the
outcome in November.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Somehow Chuck is under the impression that he is a moderate
centerist... of course so do Hillary, Obama, Pelosi, Kennedy,
Sharpton, Enfume....


Please...I expelled a bit of stomach gas a few minutes ago. Even that
was smarter than Bush.

President Bush will be called Mr. President for the rest of his life.
You are just a petty player and an acknowledge liar.

This is just too delicious not to comment...
 

hkrause wrote:
WaIIy wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:50:25 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Feb 25, 10:30 pm, WaIIy wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:59:24 -0800 (PST),





wrote:
On Feb 25, 8:58 pm, WaIIy wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:28:41 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:
Obama may have the highest IQ of the three, or may be about tied
with
Clinton who is personally very bright.
She's so smart she flunked her bar exam.
Even McCain appears much
smarter than the average person, so we can expect a substantial
improvement in that particular presidential quality regardless of
the
outcome in November.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Somehow Chuck is under the impression that he is a moderate
centerist... of course so do Hillary, Obama, Pelosi, Kennedy,
Sharpton, Enfume....
He's a "progressive" with pagan attributes.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Not that there is anything wrong with that, but somehow these folks
don't even comprehend that they are very left, far from centerist..
And if they actually do understand where they are ideologically, why
are they ashamed to admit it;) ?

Well, it's because they don't perceive themselves as such. They have
the answers for the rest of us. They are certainly open to spirited
discussions as long as you don't disagree with their fundamental
principles, since that is leftist blasphemy.

and on and on


That sounds like the crap the rightie loonies are giving mccain.

Because McCain is a liberal/lefty/progressive.

This is just too delicious not to comment...
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:46:45 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

That's why I say that McCain is "the most presidential of the
batch"- even though I despise many of his political positions and he
would certainly despise many of mine.

Well, I'm not too proud to admit it - I'm firmly in the McCain camp.

I have my reasons which, oddly, have nothing to do with his politics
and has more to do with him as a person.

I am not in his camp and it is due to his politics.

Long story - might tell it sometime.

Go ahead ask me.

This is just too delicious not to comment...
 

hkrause wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 26, 8:21 am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:05:27 -0500, John H.





wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 02:21:30 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:00:16 -0500, John H.
wrote:
Nader is my man!
Take a trip to Winstead, CT and ask about Ralph Nader.
Report back when you are finished.
If you leave alive and not dismembered by the irate citizens of their
fair city when rendering their opinions on Raplhie boy. :)
Tom, if Nader screws the Democrat pooch, then he's my man -
regardless of
the folks in Winstead!
Hey - I'm just sayin'... :)

Nader isn't going to have any imact on this election except for taking
out the fringe element and there is always that .00001% who will vote
for the fringe candidate.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You don't consider the most liberal, and third most liberal in
congress, fringe candidates?? I think nearly half the country will
vote for a fringe candidate this time around...


If you are referring to Hillary and Obama, I don't believe either of
them are liberal enough, but either is fine with me as POTUS. It is
going to take some doing to undo the damage Bush has done to this
country and the world.

You and Chuck need to mend fences, you two are peas in the same pod.

This is just too delicious not to comment...
 

On Feb 26, 7:08Â*am, BAR wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Feb 25, 2:58�pm, Valgard Toebreakerson wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 08:24:56 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
On Feb 25, 7:54?am, Valgard Toebreakerson wrote:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8667.html
The Clintons - who 'da thunk it? ?Even Lee A****er would never stoop
this low.
Scorched earth baby - scorched earth.
A photo of Obama eating watermelon and/or fried chicken can't be far
behind.
LOL!!

You know - that's exactly what I thought when I saw that.

Just shows how desperate the Clinton's are becoming. Strike one for
the Clinton's: When things get tense and difficult, resort to panic
and
try to manipulate opinion rather than solve the problem. Score one for
Obama? Maybe so, let's see if he handles these racial and religious
slams like a statesman, or like a vengeful child in a boating NG. :-)
He strikes me as sincere, but...

I'm not at all sure he's not just an empty suit with a good speil.
Hope, change and what not are all well and good, but after looking
through his campaign site and his ideas and proposals, it would seem
to me that he might just be another McGovern only with a more
messianic following.

Or worse, another Dukakis. He is good friends with Duval Patrick which
also bothers me quite a bit as Patrick is as tone deaf as any Democrat
could possibly be - Kuchinich type.

We'll see.

The rough guesstimate of an undecided independent:

McCain: Most "presidential" of the batch, has an encouraging history
of not automatically toeing the party line. Represents "politics as
usual", but with a guy at the helm a bit more independent than the
current prez and less susceptible to being manipulated by his
advisors.

Clinton: Old broad is as tough as nails (that's in her favor).
Probably represents the worst prospect for "politics as usual", with
policy being made in smoke-filled rooms and with a long list of
political favors to satisfy.

Obama: Best prospect for escaping the cycle of "poltics as usual", but
what does he offer except unusual politics? Many outsiders have been
ineffective in office.

Obama may have the highest IQ of the three, or may be about tied with
Clinton who is personally very bright. Even McCain appears much
smarter than the average person, so we can expect a substantial
improvement in that particular presidential quality regardless of the
outcome in November.

Ask McCain for his college transcripts. He comes in third, a very
distant third.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

College transcripts don't represent intelligence, only the grades
earned in college. Some bright people goof off and party too much,
pulling in B's and C's. Some folks with only average capacity or so
might spend more time studying and preparing and get A's and B's.
After 4 years, the party with the most native intelligence is
unchanged, but the party with less native intelligence may have earned
a better education.

This is just too delicious not to comment...
 

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:46:45 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

That's why I say that McCain is "the most presidential of the
batch"- even though I despise many of his political positions and he
would certainly despise many of mine.

Well, I'm not too proud to admit it - I'm firmly in the McCain camp.

I have my reasons which, oddly, have nothing to do with his politics
and has more to do with him as a person.

I am not in his camp and it is due to his politics.

Long story - might tell it sometime.

Go ahead ask me.



Why?? You'll probably just blurt it out anyways.

This is just too delicious not to comment...
 

Chuck Gould wrote:
On Feb 26, 7:08 am, BAR wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Feb 25, 2:58�pm, Valgard Toebreakerson wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 08:24:56 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:
On Feb 25, 7:54?am, Valgard Toebreakerson wrote:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8667.html
The Clintons - who 'da thunk it? ?Even Lee A****er would never stoop
this low.
Scorched earth baby - scorched earth.
A photo of Obama eating watermelon and/or fried chicken can't be far
behind.
LOL!!
You know - that's exactly what I thought when I saw that.
Just shows how desperate the Clinton's are becoming. Strike one for
the Clinton's: When things get tense and difficult, resort to panic
and
try to manipulate opinion rather than solve the problem. Score one for
Obama? Maybe so, let's see if he handles these racial and religious
slams like a statesman, or like a vengeful child in a boating NG. :-)
He strikes me as sincere, but...
I'm not at all sure he's not just an empty suit with a good speil.
Hope, change and what not are all well and good, but after looking
through his campaign site and his ideas and proposals, it would seem
to me that he might just be another McGovern only with a more
messianic following.
Or worse, another Dukakis. He is good friends with Duval Patrick which
also bothers me quite a bit as Patrick is as tone deaf as any Democrat
could possibly be - Kuchinich type.
We'll see.
The rough guesstimate of an undecided independent:
McCain: Most "presidential" of the batch, has an encouraging history
of not automatically toeing the party line. Represents "politics as
usual", but with a guy at the helm a bit more independent than the
current prez and less susceptible to being manipulated by his
advisors.
Clinton: Old broad is as tough as nails (that's in her favor).
Probably represents the worst prospect for "politics as usual", with
policy being made in smoke-filled rooms and with a long list of
political favors to satisfy.
Obama: Best prospect for escaping the cycle of "poltics as usual", but
what does he offer except unusual politics? Many outsiders have been
ineffective in office.
Obama may have the highest IQ of the three, or may be about tied with
Clinton who is personally very bright. Even McCain appears much
smarter than the average person, so we can expect a substantial
improvement in that particular presidential quality regardless of the
outcome in November.
Ask McCain for his college transcripts. He comes in third, a very
distant third.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

College transcripts don't represent intelligence, only the grades
earned in college. Some bright people goof off and party too much,
pulling in B's and C's. Some folks with only average capacity or so
might spend more time studying and preparing and get A's and B's.
After 4 years, the party with the most native intelligence is
unchanged, but the party with less native intelligence may have earned
a better education.

Great, now that we have that on the record.

This is just too delicious not to comment...
 

Don White wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:46:45 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

That's why I say that McCain is "the most presidential of the
batch"- even though I despise many of his political positions and he
would certainly despise many of mine.
Well, I'm not too proud to admit it - I'm firmly in the McCain camp.

I have my reasons which, oddly, have nothing to do with his politics
and has more to do with him as a person.
I am not in his camp and it is due to his politics.

Long story - might tell it sometime.
Go ahead ask me.



Why?? You'll probably just blurt it out anyways.



Ask me nicely Don.

This is just too delicious not to comment...
 

JimH wrote:
"hkrause" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Feb 26, 8:21 am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:05:27 -0500, John H.





wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 02:21:30 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:00:16 -0500, John H.
wrote:
Nader is my man!
Take a trip to Winstead, CT and ask about Ralph Nader.
Report back when you are finished.
If you leave alive and not dismembered by the irate citizens of their
fair city when rendering their opinions on Raplhie boy. :)
Tom, if Nader screws the Democrat pooch, then he's my man - regardless
of
the folks in Winstead!
Hey - I'm just sayin'... :)

Nader isn't going to have any imact on this election except for taking
out the fringe element and there is always that .00001% who will vote
for the fringe candidate.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
You don't consider the most liberal, and third most liberal in
congress, fringe candidates?? I think nearly half the country will
vote for a fringe candidate this time around...

If you are referring to Hillary and Obama, I don't believe either of them
are liberal enough, but either is fine with me as POTUS. It is going to
take some doing to undo the damage Bush has done to this country and the
world.

What damage would that be Harry and how will Hilarity or Hussein Obama undo
it?



Jim, the list of the damage the Bush Admin has done to this country is
almost endless. Either Clinton or Obama with a *working* Democratic
majority in Congress can start to turn things around.

This is just too delicious not to comment...
 

BAR wrote:
hkrause wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Feb 25, 5:34 am, hkrause wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Feb 25, 7:54�am, Valgard Toebreakerson wrote:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8667.html
The Clintons - who 'da thunk it? �Even Lee A****er would never stoop
this low.
Scorched earth baby - scorched earth.
A photo of Obama eating watermelon and/or fried chicken can't be far
behind.
Just shows how desperate the Clinton's are becoming. Strike one for
the Clinton's: When things get tense and difficult, resort to panic
and
try to manipulate opinion rather than solve the problem. Score one for
Obama? Maybe so, let's see if he handles these racial and religious
slams like a statesman, or like a vengeful child in a boating NG. :-)
Much ado here about nothing. Lots of visitors to foreign cultures
try on
local costumes and clothing. What would you conclude from the photo,
that Obama visited Africa and tried on a tribal elder's clothing? Big
whoop. It's not like he put on a pilot's jumpsuit, landed on an
aircraft
carrier and walked out in front of a sign saying "mission
accomplished."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I entirely agree; it's the *misuse* of this photo by the Clinton
campaign that's the issue. If the chief of some tribe down in the
South Pacific were invited to the White House to meet the POTUS, odds
are that he would show up wearing a suit instead of a loincloth. Yes,
it is very customary to dress in the formal attire of a host country
before meeting with the head of state.

I'm sure that if we dug deeply enough into the archives we could find
photos of Nixon quite literally bowing to some dignitaries in
Communist China during his initial visit there. Out of context, it
would be really scandalous.




In the case of the photo in question (and I don't believe that the
Clintons released it, either, despite what the Republican Drudge guy

Is that from the HRC campaign talking points memo for Monday?

says), anyone who sees more in Obama wearing that costume than just a
visitor trying out a local custom doesn't deserve a vote.

Agreed.

Sometime in the next year or two, my wife and I will be going to Kenya
as touristas and to visit a classmate of hers who is Kenyan. I'm sure
both of us will be encouraged to try on various "tribal" regalia.
I wouldn't mind being a local chieftain for a half hour or so.

See if they can offer you a permanent position.



Nah. It can be a nice place to visit, we've been told (when peace breaks
out again), but we wouldn't want to live there. Turistas'R'Us.

This is just too delicious not to comment...
 

BAR wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Feb 25, 2:58�pm, Valgard Toebreakerson wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 08:24:56 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
On Feb 25, 7:54?am, Valgard Toebreakerson wrote:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8667.html
The Clintons - who 'da thunk it? ?Even Lee A****er would never stoop
this low.
Scorched earth baby - scorched earth.
A photo of Obama eating watermelon and/or fried chicken can't be far
behind.
LOL!!

You know - that's exactly what I thought when I saw that.

Just shows how desperate the Clinton's are becoming. Strike one for
the Clinton's: When things get tense and difficult, resort to panic
and
try to manipulate opinion rather than solve the problem. Score one for
Obama? Maybe so, let's see if he handles these racial and religious
slams like a statesman, or like a vengeful child in a boating NG. :-)
He strikes me as sincere, but...

I'm not at all sure he's not just an empty suit with a good speil.
Hope, change and what not are all well and good, but after looking
through his campaign site and his ideas and proposals, it would seem
to me that he might just be another McGovern only with a more
messianic following.

Or worse, another Dukakis. He is good friends with Duval Patrick which
also bothers me quite a bit as Patrick is as tone deaf as any Democrat
could possibly be - Kuchinich type.

We'll see.

The rough guesstimate of an undecided independent:

McCain: Most "presidential" of the batch, has an encouraging history
of not automatically toeing the party line. Represents "politics as
usual", but with a guy at the helm a bit more independent than the
current prez and less susceptible to being manipulated by his
advisors.

Clinton: Old broad is as tough as nails (that's in her favor).
Probably represents the worst prospect for "politics as usual", with
policy being made in smoke-filled rooms and with a long list of
political favors to satisfy.

Obama: Best prospect for escaping the cycle of "poltics as usual", but
what does he offer except unusual politics? Many outsiders have been
ineffective in office.

Obama may have the highest IQ of the three, or may be about tied with
Clinton who is personally very bright. Even McCain appears much
smarter than the average person, so we can expect a substantial
improvement in that particular presidential quality regardless of the
outcome in November.

Ask McCain for his college transcripts. He comes in third, a very
distant third.



It pleases me no end that no matter who wins, you'll be sooooo upset.

This is just too delicious not to comment...
 

BAR wrote:
hkrause wrote:
Valgard Toebreakerson wrote:


I'm not at all sure he's not just an empty suit with a good speil.


You mean, as opposed to Bush, an empty suit who is also embarrassingly
inarticulate? :)

Public speaking is not an identifier of character and integrity and vision.



That's ok...Bush has no character, integrity or vision either. He is
*the* empty suit. The guy is a bozo, the worst president in this
nation's history.

This is just too delicious not to comment...
 

BAR wrote:
hkrause wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 25, 8:58 pm, WaIIy wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:28:41 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
Obama may have the highest IQ of the three, or may be about tied with
Clinton who is personally very bright.
She's so smart she flunked her bar exam.



Even McCain appears much
smarter than the average person, so we can expect a substantial
improvement in that particular presidential quality regardless of the
outcome in November.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Somehow Chuck is under the impression that he is a moderate
centerist... of course so do Hillary, Obama, Pelosi, Kennedy,
Sharpton, Enfume....


Please...I expelled a bit of stomach gas a few minutes ago. Even that
was smarter than Bush.

President Bush will be called Mr. President for the rest of his life.
You are just a petty player and an acknowledge liar.


I suspect a lot of folks will not be referring to George W. Bush as "Mr.
President."

This is just too delicious not to comment...
 

JimH wrote:
"hkrause" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
"hkrause" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Feb 26, 8:21 am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:05:27 -0500, John H.





wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 02:21:30 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:00:16 -0500, John H.
wrote:
Nader is my man!
Take a trip to Winstead, CT and ask about Ralph Nader.
Report back when you are finished.
If you leave alive and not dismembered by the irate citizens of
their
fair city when rendering their opinions on Raplhie boy. :)
Tom, if Nader screws the Democrat pooch, then he's my man -
regardless of
the folks in Winstead!
Hey - I'm just sayin'... :)

Nader isn't going to have any imact on this election except for taking
out the fringe element and there is always that .00001% who will vote
for the fringe candidate.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
You don't consider the most liberal, and third most liberal in
congress, fringe candidates?? I think nearly half the country will
vote for a fringe candidate this time around...
If you are referring to Hillary and Obama, I don't believe either of
them are liberal enough, but either is fine with me as POTUS. It is
going to take some doing to undo the damage Bush has done to this
country and the world.
What damage would that be Harry and how will Hilarity or Hussein Obama
undo it?
Jim, the list of the damage the Bush Admin has done to this country is
almost endless. Either Clinton or Obama with a *working* Democratic
majority in Congress can start to turn things around.

So give me a dozen examples and then explain the plans to fix that damage.



You know how to google...go for it. And just to keep it light:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFCxpuHWMy0

This is just too delicious not to comment...
 

BAR wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Feb 26, 7:08 am, BAR wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Feb 25, 2:58�pm, Valgard Toebreakerson wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 08:24:56 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:
On Feb 25, 7:54?am, Valgard Toebreakerson wrote:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8667.html
The Clintons - who 'da thunk it? ?Even Lee A****er would never stoop
this low.
Scorched earth baby - scorched earth.
A photo of Obama eating watermelon and/or fried chicken can't be far
behind.
LOL!!
You know - that's exactly what I thought when I saw that.
Just shows how desperate the Clinton's are becoming. Strike one for
the Clinton's: When things get tense and difficult, resort to panic
and
try to manipulate opinion rather than solve the problem. Score one
for
Obama? Maybe so, let's see if he handles these racial and religious
slams like a statesman, or like a vengeful child in a boating NG. :-)
He strikes me as sincere, but...
I'm not at all sure he's not just an empty suit with a good speil.
Hope, change and what not are all well and good, but after looking
through his campaign site and his ideas and proposals, it would seem
to me that he might just be another McGovern only with a more
messianic following.
Or worse, another Dukakis. He is good friends with Duval Patrick which
also bothers me quite a bit as Patrick is as tone deaf as any Democrat
could possibly be - Kuchinich type.
We'll see.
The rough guesstimate of an undecided independent:
McCain: Most "presidential" of the batch, has an encouraging history
of not automatically toeing the party line. Represents "politics as
usual", but with a guy at the helm a bit more independent than the
current prez and less susceptible to being manipulated by his
advisors.
Clinton: Old broad is as tough as nails (that's in her favor).
Probably represents the worst prospect for "politics as usual", with
policy being made in smoke-filled rooms and with a long list of
political favors to satisfy.
Obama: Best prospect for escaping the cycle of "poltics as usual", but
what does he offer except unusual politics? Many outsiders have been
ineffective in office.
Obama may have the highest IQ of the three, or may be about tied with
Clinton who is personally very bright. Even McCain appears much
smarter than the average person, so we can expect a substantial
improvement in that particular presidential quality regardless of the
outcome in November.
Ask McCain for his college transcripts. He comes in third, a very
distant third.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

College transcripts don't represent intelligence, only the grades
earned in college. Some bright people goof off and party too much,
pulling in B's and C's. Some folks with only average capacity or so
might spend more time studying and preparing and get A's and B's.
After 4 years, the party with the most native intelligence is
unchanged, but the party with less native intelligence may have earned
a better education.

Great, now that we have that on the record.


Does it bother you in any way to know that McCain graduated number 894
out of 899 in his class at the naval academy? It could be posited that
he graduated that high due to his Admiral father and Admiral
grand-father? The real question is why wasn't he thrown out due to his
disciplinary problems? Oh, wait a minute, it was because of his Admiral
Admiral ancestry.

This is just too delicious not to comment...
 

On Feb 26, 8:35�am, "John" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

news:f2994bc2-15e3-495a-a122-

The rough guesstimate of an undecided independent:

McCain: Most "presidential" of the batch, has an encouraging history
of not automatically toeing the party line. Represents "politics as
usual", but with a guy at the helm a bit more independent than the
current prez and less susceptible to being manipulated by his
advisors.
************************

Most presidential????
Have you forgotten about the Keating Five?????
McCain considered Keating a friend - in the best republican tradition....

No I haven't forgotten about the Keating Five. McCain's involvement
was
peripheral.

Yes, of the three candidates still effectively standing John McCain
appears to be the most presidential at this time. Doesn't make him the
most presidential person in the country, merely the most presidential
of the three.

Hillary is damaging herself, badly, with this week's attacks on Obama.
She can be such a jerk. The attacks of course say much more about what
sort of person she is than what sort of person Obama might be.
She represents the same old corrupted, sold out, traditional political
game playing we have endured for the last couple of decades. No change
of course with her at all, just a change in party and gender.

Obama is mesmerizing his audiences with rhetoric. He's one of the best
orators to trek down the presidential trail in quite a while, IMO
surpassing even BJ Clinton in this respect. But once he gets our
attention with a brilliantly orchestrated fanfare, what's next? Oh,
look- yet another fanfare! Obama needs to find the courage to take a
stand on more issues.

It's hard to pick an outstanding candidate from among the three- but
anything will be better than what we have endured for the last 7
years.
About 70% of the country is eager to see GWB retire to Crawford.

This is just too delicious not to comment...
 

BAR wrote:
BAR wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Feb 26, 7:08 am, BAR wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Feb 25, 2:58�pm, Valgard Toebreakerson wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 08:24:56 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:
On Feb 25, 7:54?am, Valgard Toebreakerson wrote:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8667.html
The Clintons - who 'da thunk it? ?Even Lee A****er would never
stoop
this low.
Scorched earth baby - scorched earth.
A photo of Obama eating watermelon and/or fried chicken can't be far
behind.
LOL!!
You know - that's exactly what I thought when I saw that.
Just shows how desperate the Clinton's are becoming. Strike one for
the Clinton's: When things get tense and difficult, resort to panic
and
try to manipulate opinion rather than solve the problem. Score
one for
Obama? Maybe so, let's see if he handles these racial and religious
slams like a statesman, or like a vengeful child in a boating NG.
:-)
He strikes me as sincere, but...
I'm not at all sure he's not just an empty suit with a good speil.
Hope, change and what not are all well and good, but after looking
through his campaign site and his ideas and proposals, it would seem
to me that he might just be another McGovern only with a more
messianic following.
Or worse, another Dukakis. He is good friends with Duval Patrick
which
also bothers me quite a bit as Patrick is as tone deaf as any
Democrat
could possibly be - Kuchinich type.
We'll see.
The rough guesstimate of an undecided independent:
McCain: Most "presidential" of the batch, has an encouraging history
of not automatically toeing the party line. Represents "politics as
usual", but with a guy at the helm a bit more independent than the
current prez and less susceptible to being manipulated by his
advisors.
Clinton: Old broad is as tough as nails (that's in her favor).
Probably represents the worst prospect for "politics as usual", with
policy being made in smoke-filled rooms and with a long list of
political favors to satisfy.
Obama: Best prospect for escaping the cycle of "poltics as usual", but
what does he offer except unusual politics? Many outsiders have been
ineffective in office.
Obama may have the highest IQ of the three, or may be about tied with
Clinton who is personally very bright. Even McCain appears much
smarter than the average person, so we can expect a substantial
improvement in that particular presidential quality regardless of the
outcome in November.
Ask McCain for his college transcripts. He comes in third, a very
distant third.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

College transcripts don't represent intelligence, only the grades
earned in college. Some bright people goof off and party too much,
pulling in B's and C's. Some folks with only average capacity or so
might spend more time studying and preparing and get A's and B's.
After 4 years, the party with the most native intelligence is
unchanged, but the party with less native intelligence may have earned
a better education.

Great, now that we have that on the record.


Does it bother you in any way to know that McCain graduated number 894
out of 899 in his class at the naval academy? It could be posited that
he graduated that high due to his Admiral father and Admiral
grand-father? The real question is why wasn't he thrown out due to his
disciplinary problems? Oh, wait a minute, it was because of his Admiral
Admiral ancestry.



snerk

It sure doesn't bother me. McCain is a bright guy, and his college
grades in his case are not relevant. Your boy Bush on the other hand was
a stunatz in college and is still a stunatz.

McCain is a worthy candidate for POTUS. I don't believe he has a chance
of winning, but he has the best chance of the Republicans who were striving.

This is just too delicious not to comment...
 

"BAR" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Feb 26, 7:08 am, BAR wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Feb 25, 2:58?pm, Valgard Toebreakerson wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 08:24:56 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:
On Feb 25, 7:54?am, Valgard Toebreakerson wrote:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8667.html
The Clintons - who 'da thunk it? ?Even Lee A****er would never
stoop
this low.
Scorched earth baby - scorched earth.
A photo of Obama eating watermelon and/or fried chicken can't be far
behind.
LOL!!
You know - that's exactly what I thought when I saw that.
Just shows how desperate the Clinton's are becoming. Strike one for
the Clinton's: When things get tense and difficult, resort to panic
and
try to manipulate opinion rather than solve the problem. Score one
for
Obama? Maybe so, let's see if he handles these racial and religious
slams like a statesman, or like a vengeful child in a boating NG.
:-)
He strikes me as sincere, but...
I'm not at all sure he's not just an empty suit with a good speil.
Hope, change and what not are all well and good, but after looking
through his campaign site and his ideas and proposals, it would seem
to me that he might just be another McGovern only with a more
messianic following.
Or worse, another Dukakis. He is good friends with Duval Patrick
which
also bothers me quite a bit as Patrick is as tone deaf as any
Democrat
could possibly be - Kuchinich type.
We'll see.
The rough guesstimate of an undecided independent:
McCain: Most "presidential" of the batch, has an encouraging history
of not automatically toeing the party line. Represents "politics as
usual", but with a guy at the helm a bit more independent than the
current prez and less susceptible to being manipulated by his
advisors.
Clinton: Old broad is as tough as nails (that's in her favor).
Probably represents the worst prospect for "politics as usual", with
policy being made in smoke-filled rooms and with a long list of
political favors to satisfy.
Obama: Best prospect for escaping the cycle of "poltics as usual", but
what does he offer except unusual politics? Many outsiders have been
ineffective in office.
Obama may have the highest IQ of the three, or may be about tied with
Clinton who is personally very bright. Even McCain appears much
smarter than the average person, so we can expect a substantial
improvement in that particular presidential quality regardless of the
outcome in November.
Ask McCain for his college transcripts. He comes in third, a very
distant third.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

College transcripts don't represent intelligence, only the grades
earned in college. Some bright people goof off and party too much,
pulling in B's and C's. Some folks with only average capacity or so
might spend more time studying and preparing and get A's and B's.
After 4 years, the party with the most native intelligence is
unchanged, but the party with less native intelligence may have earned
a better education.

Great, now that we have that on the record.


Does it bother you in any way to know that McCain graduated number 894 out
of 899 in his class at the naval academy? It could be posited that he
graduated that high due to his Admiral father and Admiral grand-father?
The real question is why wasn't he thrown out due to his disciplinary
problems? Oh, wait a minute, it was because of his Admiral Admiral
ancestry.

That sounds like 5 from the bottom.

This is just too delicious not to comment...
 

On Feb 26, 8:06�am, hkrause wrote:
BAR wrote:
hkrause wrote:
Valgard Toebreakerson wrote:

I'm not at all sure he's not just an empty suit with a good speil.

You mean, as opposed to Bush, an empty suit who is also embarrassingly
inarticulate? � :)

Public speaking is not an identifier of character and integrity and vision.

That's ok...Bush has no character, integrity or vision either. He is
*the* empty suit. The guy is a bozo, the worst president in this
nation's history.

Are you overlooking Millard Fillmore?

(Maybe Fillmore was just the most forgettable.)

This is just too delicious not to comment...
 

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:44:45 -0500, BAR wrote:

Does it bother you in any way to know that McCain graduated number 894
out of 899 in his class at the naval academy? It could be posited that
he graduated that high due to his Admiral father and Admiral
grand-father? The real question is why wasn't he thrown out due to his
disciplinary problems? Oh, wait a minute, it was because of his Admiral
Admiral ancestry.

Hey - at least he isn't General Custer who graduated last in his
class. :)

This is just too delicious not to comment...
 

Chuck Gould wrote:
On Feb 26, 8:06�am, hkrause wrote:
BAR wrote:
hkrause wrote:
Valgard Toebreakerson wrote:
I'm not at all sure he's not just an empty suit with a good speil.
You mean, as opposed to Bush, an empty suit who is also embarrassingly
inarticulate? � :)
Public speaking is not an identifier of character and integrity and vision.
That's ok...Bush has no character, integrity or vision either. He is
*the* empty suit. The guy is a bozo, the worst president in this
nation's history.

Are you overlooking Millard Fillmore?

(Maybe Fillmore was just the most forgettable.)


I'll be glad to qualify my statement to state that Bush is the worst
president the United States has had in office since I have been alive.
No one even comes close to his horrific-ness.

This is just too delicious not to comment...
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:44:45 -0500, BAR wrote:

Does it bother you in any way to know that McCain graduated number 894
out of 899 in his class at the naval academy? It could be posited that
he graduated that high due to his Admiral father and Admiral
grand-father? The real question is why wasn't he thrown out due to his
disciplinary problems? Oh, wait a minute, it was because of his Admiral
Admiral ancestry.


What was your class standing at the Naval Academy?

This is just too delicious not to comment...
 

Chuck Gould wrote:
On Feb 26, 8:35�am, "John" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

news:f2994bc2-15e3-495a-a122-

The rough guesstimate of an undecided independent:

McCain: Most "presidential" of the batch, has an encouraging history
of not automatically toeing the party line. Represents "politics as
usual", but with a guy at the helm a bit more independent than the
current prez and less susceptible to being manipulated by his
advisors.
************************

Most presidential????
Have you forgotten about the Keating Five?????
McCain considered Keating a friend - in the best republican tradition....

No I haven't forgotten about the Keating Five. McCain's involvement
was
peripheral.

Yes, of the three candidates still effectively standing John McCain
appears to be the most presidential at this time. Doesn't make him the
most presidential person in the country, merely the most presidential
of the three.

Hillary is damaging herself, badly, with this week's attacks on Obama.
She can be such a jerk. The attacks of course say much more about what
sort of person she is than what sort of person Obama might be.
She represents the same old corrupted, sold out, traditional political
game playing we have endured for the last couple of decades. No change
of course with her at all, just a change in party and gender.

Obama is mesmerizing his audiences with rhetoric. He's one of the best
orators to trek down the presidential trail in quite a while, IMO
surpassing even BJ Clinton in this respect. But once he gets our
attention with a brilliantly orchestrated fanfare, what's next? Oh,
look- yet another fanfare! Obama needs to find the courage to take a
stand on more issues.

It's hard to pick an outstanding candidate from among the three- but
anything will be better than what we have endured for the last 7
years.
About 70% of the country is eager to see GWB retire to Crawford.

Obama and McCain are two of the best choices we have had in a long time.
Hillary is be a disaster. I can't believe no one in the press has made
an issue of Bill selling pardons. I can just imagine how many pardons
Hillary could sell with Bill selling them over the internet.

This is just too delicious not to comment...
 

BAR wrote:
hkrause wrote:
Valgard Toebreakerson wrote:


I'm not at all sure he's not just an empty suit with a good speil.


You mean, as opposed to Bush, an empty suit who is also embarrassingly
inarticulate? :)

Public speaking is not an identifier of character and integrity and vision.


You are correct, but it would be hard for anyone to screw up more than
Bush.

This is just too delicious not to comment...
 

hkrause wrote:
JimH wrote:
"hkrause" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Feb 26, 8:21 am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:05:27 -0500, John H.





wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 02:21:30 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:00:16 -0500, John H.
wrote:
Nader is my man!
Take a trip to Winstead, CT and ask about Ralph Nader.
Report back when you are finished.
If you leave alive and not dismembered by the irate citizens of
their
fair city when rendering their opinions on Raplhie boy. :)
Tom, if Nader screws the Democrat pooch, then he's my man -
regardless of
the folks in Winstead!
Hey - I'm just sayin'... :)

Nader isn't going to have any imact on this election except for taking
out the fringe element and there is always that .00001% who will vote
for the fringe candidate.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
You don't consider the most liberal, and third most liberal in
congress, fringe candidates?? I think nearly half the country will
vote for a fringe candidate this time around...

If you are referring to Hillary and Obama, I don't believe either of
them are liberal enough, but either is fine with me as POTUS. It is
going to take some doing to undo the damage Bush has done to this
country and the world.

What damage would that be Harry and how will Hilarity or Hussein Obama
undo it?


Jim, the list of the damage the Bush Admin has done to this country is
almost endless. Either Clinton or Obama with a *working* Democratic
majority in Congress can start to turn things around.

Itemize the list for us Dumb Foch's.

This is just too delicious not to comment...
 

hkrause wrote:
BAR wrote:
hkrause wrote:
Valgard Toebreakerson wrote:


I'm not at all sure he's not just an empty suit with a good speil.


You mean, as opposed to Bush, an empty suit who is also
embarrassingly inarticulate? :)

Public speaking is not an identifier of character and integrity and
vision.



That's ok...Bush has no character, integrity or vision either. He is
*the* empty suit. The guy is a bozo, the worst president in this
nation's history.

Didn't he graduate from two ivy league schools, where you didn't even
attend an ivy league school.

This is just too delicious not to comment...
 

JimH wrote:
"hkrause" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
"hkrause" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Feb 26, 8:21 am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:05:27 -0500, John H.





wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 02:21:30 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:00:16 -0500, John H.
wrote:
Nader is my man!
Take a trip to Winstead, CT and ask about Ralph Nader.
Report back when you are finished.
If you leave alive and not dismembered by the irate citizens of
their
fair city when rendering their opinions on Raplhie boy. :)
Tom, if Nader screws the Democrat pooch, then he's my man -
regardless of
the folks in Winstead!
Hey - I'm just sayin'... :)

Nader isn't going to have any imact on this election except for taking
out the fringe element and there is always that .00001% who will vote
for the fringe candidate.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
You don't consider the most liberal, and third most liberal in
congress, fringe candidates?? I think nearly half the country will
vote for a fringe candidate this time around...
If you are referring to Hillary and Obama, I don't believe either of
them are liberal enough, but either is fine with me as POTUS. It is
going to take some doing to undo the damage Bush has done to this
country and the world.
What damage would that be Harry and how will Hilarity or Hussein Obama
undo it?
Jim, the list of the damage the Bush Admin has done to this country is
almost endless. Either Clinton or Obama with a *working* Democratic
majority in Congress can start to turn things around.

So give me a dozen examples and then explain the plans to fix that damage.



He can't do that, it would be painting himself into a corner.
Liberal/Progressives/Independent Moderates will never give you a plan
for fixing anything. They thrive on the educational model of outcome
based education, where you should be happy with with you end up with
even if it didn't fix the problem.

This is just too delicious not to comment...
 

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:09:52 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

I have my reasons which, oddly, have nothing to do with his politics
and has more to do with him as a person.

Long story - might tell it sometime.


We're you a POW also ?

This is just too delicious not to comment...
 

hkrause wrote:
JimH wrote:
"hkrause" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
"hkrause" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Feb 26, 8:21 am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:05:27 -0500, John H.





wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 02:21:30 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:00:16 -0500, John H.
wrote:
Nader is my man!
Take a trip to Winstead, CT and ask about Ralph Nader.
Report back when you are finished.
If you leave alive and not dismembered by the irate citizens of
their
fair city when rendering their opinions on Raplhie boy. :)
Tom, if Nader screws the Democrat pooch, then he's my man -
regardless of
the folks in Winstead!
Hey - I'm just sayin'... :)

Nader isn't going to have any imact on this election except for
taking
out the fringe element and there is always that .00001% who will
vote
for the fringe candidate.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
You don't consider the most liberal, and third most liberal in
congress, fringe candidates?? I think nearly half the country will
vote for a fringe candidate this time around...
If you are referring to Hillary and Obama, I don't believe either
of them are liberal enough, but either is fine with me as POTUS. It
is going to take some doing to undo the damage Bush has done to
this country and the world.
What damage would that be Harry and how will Hilarity or Hussein
Obama undo it?
Jim, the list of the damage the Bush Admin has done to this country
is almost endless. Either Clinton or Obama with a *working*
Democratic majority in Congress can start to turn things around.

So give me a dozen examples and then explain the plans to fix that
damage.


You know how to google...go for it. And just to keep it light:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFCxpuHWMy0

That is a chicken **** response Harry, you are not Dougie.

This is just too delicious not to comment...
 

hkrause wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:44:45 -0500, BAR wrote:

Does it bother you in any way to know that McCain graduated number
894 out of 899 in his class at the naval academy? It could be posited
that he graduated that high due to his Admiral father and Admiral
grand-father? The real question is why wasn't he thrown out due to
his disciplinary problems? Oh, wait a minute, it was because of his
Admiral Admiral ancestry.


What was your class standing at the Naval Academy?

Mine or Tom's?

If I had wanted to attend it would have been a formality. Having a
father and two war hero grandfathers I would have gotten in easily.

I decided that I would rather go my own way in life.

This is just too delicious not to comment...
 

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
hkrause wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:44:45 -0500, BAR wrote:

Does it bother you in any way to know that McCain graduated number 894
out of 899 in his class at the naval academy? It could be posited that
he graduated that high due to his Admiral father and Admiral
grand-father? The real question is why wasn't he thrown out due to his
disciplinary problems? Oh, wait a minute, it was because of his Admiral
Admiral ancestry.


What was your class standing at the Naval Academy?

Mine or Tom's?

If I had wanted to attend it would have been a formality. Having a father
and two war hero grandfathers I would have gotten in easily.

I decided that I would rather go my own way in life.


~~ SNERK ~~

This is just too delicious not to comment...
 

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:33:41 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:09:52 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

I have my reasons which, oddly, have nothing to do with his politics
and has more to do with him as a person.

Long story - might tell it sometime.

We're you a POW also ?

Good lord no - thank what ever gods there are.

It happened long after the war right after his speech about
reconcilation with the Vietnamese during his first body recovery
mission.

It's also the same reason I dislike John Kerry so much.

This is just too delicious not to comment...
 

Don White wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
hkrause wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:44:45 -0500, BAR wrote:

Does it bother you in any way to know that McCain graduated number 894
out of 899 in his class at the naval academy? It could be posited that
he graduated that high due to his Admiral father and Admiral
grand-father? The real question is why wasn't he thrown out due to his
disciplinary problems? Oh, wait a minute, it was because of his Admiral
Admiral ancestry.

What was your class standing at the Naval Academy?
Mine or Tom's?

If I had wanted to attend it would have been a formality. Having a father
and two war hero grandfathers I would have gotten in easily.

I decided that I would rather go my own way in life.


~~ SNERK ~~



Don,

Send me an e-mail at r6bb at yahoo dot com

Bert

This is just too delicious not to comment...
 

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:51:19 -0500, "John" wrote:


"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
...
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Feb 26, 8:35?am, "John" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

news:f2994bc2-15e3-495a-a122-

The rough guesstimate of an undecided independent:

McCain: Most "presidential" of the batch, has an encouraging history
of not automatically toeing the party line. Represents "politics as
usual", but with a guy at the helm a bit more independent than the
current prez and less susceptible to being manipulated by his
advisors.
************************

Most presidential????
Have you forgotten about the Keating Five?????
McCain considered Keating a friend - in the best republican
tradition....

No I haven't forgotten about the Keating Five. McCain's involvement
was
peripheral.

Yes, of the three candidates still effectively standing John McCain
appears to be the most presidential at this time. Doesn't make him the
most presidential person in the country, merely the most presidential
of the three.

Hillary is damaging herself, badly, with this week's attacks on Obama.
She can be such a jerk. The attacks of course say much more about what
sort of person she is than what sort of person Obama might be.
She represents the same old corrupted, sold out, traditional political
game playing we have endured for the last couple of decades. No change
of course with her at all, just a change in party and gender.

Obama is mesmerizing his audiences with rhetoric. He's one of the best
orators to trek down the presidential trail in quite a while, IMO
surpassing even BJ Clinton in this respect. But once he gets our
attention with a brilliantly orchestrated fanfare, what's next? Oh,
look- yet another fanfare! Obama needs to find the courage to take a
stand on more issues.

It's hard to pick an outstanding candidate from among the three- but
anything will be better than what we have endured for the last 7
years.
About 70% of the country is eager to see GWB retire to Crawford.

Obama and McCain are two of the best choices we have had in a long time.
Hillary is be a disaster. I can't believe no one in the press has made an
issue of Bill selling pardons. I can just imagine how many pardons
Hillary could sell with Bill selling them over the internet.

LOL have you forgotten about the pardon king, GH Bush? He pardoned more
people and people that may have been involved in TREASON! Of course we
will never know because they shredded evrything and cleaned their tracks in
a very professional manner.

On August 11, 1999, Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of
FALN, a violent Puerto Rican nationalist group that set off 120 bombs
in the United States mostly in New York City and Chicago, convicted
for conspiracies to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition, as well
as for firearms and explosives violations. Congress condemned the
action, with a vote of 95-2 in the Senate and 311-41 in the House.
President Clinton cited executive privilege for his refusal to turn
over some documents to Congress related to his decision to offer
clemency to members of the FALN terrorist group.

Let's see - Libby or FALN terrorists?

I think I'll take Libby.

This is just too delicious not to comment...
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:33:41 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:09:52 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

I have my reasons which, oddly, have nothing to do with his politics
and has more to do with him as a person.

Long story - might tell it sometime.
We're you a POW also ?

Good lord no - thank what ever gods there are.

It happened long after the war right after his speech about
reconcilation with the Vietnamese during his first body recovery
mission.

It's also the same reason I dislike John Kerry so much.


More than a million Vietnamese died in *that* idiotic war, plus huge
numbers of Laotians and Cambodians. Reconciliation was the right thing
to do. It usually is after a war. We "reconciled" with the Germans, the
Italians and the Japanese.

This is just too delicious not to comment...
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:51:19 -0500, "John" wrote:

"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
. ..
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Feb 26, 8:35?am, "John" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

news:f2994bc2-15e3-495a-a122-

The rough guesstimate of an undecided independent:

McCain: Most "presidential" of the batch, has an encouraging history
of not automatically toeing the party line. Represents "politics as
usual", but with a guy at the helm a bit more independent than the
current prez and less susceptible to being manipulated by his
advisors.
************************

Most presidential????
Have you forgotten about the Keating Five?????
McCain considered Keating a friend - in the best republican
tradition....
No I haven't forgotten about the Keating Five. McCain's involvement
was
peripheral.

Yes, of the three candidates still effectively standing John McCain
appears to be the most presidential at this time. Doesn't make him the
most presidential person in the country, merely the most presidential
of the three.

Hillary is damaging herself, badly, with this week's attacks on Obama.
She can be such a jerk. The attacks of course say much more about what
sort of person she is than what sort of person Obama might be.
She represents the same old corrupted, sold out, traditional political
game playing we have endured for the last couple of decades. No change
of course with her at all, just a change in party and gender.

Obama is mesmerizing his audiences with rhetoric. He's one of the best
orators to trek down the presidential trail in quite a while, IMO
surpassing even BJ Clinton in this respect. But once he gets our
attention with a brilliantly orchestrated fanfare, what's next? Oh,
look- yet another fanfare! Obama needs to find the courage to take a
stand on more issues.

It's hard to pick an outstanding candidate from among the three- but
anything will be better than what we have endured for the last 7
years.
About 70% of the country is eager to see GWB retire to Crawford.
Obama and McCain are two of the best choices we have had in a long time.
Hillary is be a disaster. I can't believe no one in the press has made an
issue of Bill selling pardons. I can just imagine how many pardons
Hillary could sell with Bill selling them over the internet.
LOL have you forgotten about the pardon king, GH Bush? He pardoned more
people and people that may have been involved in TREASON! Of course we
will never know because they shredded evrything and cleaned their tracks in
a very professional manner.

On August 11, 1999, Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of
FALN, a violent Puerto Rican nationalist group that set off 120 bombs
in the United States mostly in New York City and Chicago, convicted
for conspiracies to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition, as well
as for firearms and explosives violations. Congress condemned the
action, with a vote of 95-2 in the Senate and 311-41 in the House.
President Clinton cited executive privilege for his refusal to turn
over some documents to Congress related to his decision to offer
clemency to members of the FALN terrorist group.

Let's see - Libby or FALN terrorists?

I think I'll take Libby.

Just another payment for the Senatorial seat from New York.

This is just too delicious not to comment...
 

"BAR" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
hkrause wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:44:45 -0500, BAR wrote:

Does it bother you in any way to know that McCain graduated number
894 out of 899 in his class at the naval academy? It could be posited
that he graduated that high due to his Admiral father and Admiral
grand-father? The real question is why wasn't he thrown out due to
his disciplinary problems? Oh, wait a minute, it was because of his
Admiral Admiral ancestry.

What was your class standing at the Naval Academy?
Mine or Tom's?

If I had wanted to attend it would have been a formality. Having a
father and two war hero grandfathers I would have gotten in easily.

I decided that I would rather go my own way in life.


~~ SNERK ~~

Don,

Send me an e-mail at r6bb at yahoo dot com

Bert


Why?

This is just too delicious not to comment...
 

Don White wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
hkrause wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:44:45 -0500, BAR wrote:

Does it bother you in any way to know that McCain graduated number
894 out of 899 in his class at the naval academy? It could be posited
that he graduated that high due to his Admiral father and Admiral
grand-father? The real question is why wasn't he thrown out due to
his disciplinary problems? Oh, wait a minute, it was because of his
Admiral Admiral ancestry.
What was your class standing at the Naval Academy?
Mine or Tom's?

If I had wanted to attend it would have been a formality. Having a
father and two war hero grandfathers I would have gotten in easily.

I decided that I would rather go my own way in life.

~~ SNERK ~~
Don,

Send me an e-mail at r6bb at yahoo dot com

Bert


Why?



You had your chance for verification but, I'll give you one more
opportunity.

This is just too delicious not to comment...
 

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:56:41 -0500, hkrause
wrote:

More than a million Vietnamese died in *that* idiotic war, plus huge
numbers of Laotians and Cambodians. Reconciliation was the right thing
to do. It usually is after a war. We "reconciled" with the Germans, the
Italians and the Japanese.

===========================

How did you avoid the draft ?

This is just too delicious not to comment...
 

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:56:41 -0500, hkrause
wrote:

More than a million Vietnamese died in *that* idiotic war, plus huge
numbers of Laotians and Cambodians. Reconciliation was the right thing
to do. It usually is after a war. We "reconciled" with the Germans, the
Italians and the Japanese.

===========================

How did you avoid the draft ?

Harry has been asked that question many times and he always does his little
dance or ignores the question altogether. He is either too ashamed of
himself or too embarrassed to answer.