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.