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. :)