I'm voting republican because...
 

On Sep 20, 7:24*am, Cliff wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:58:38 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Sep 15, 11:16*am, Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 03:41:14 -0700, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote:
Do you really look forward to putting the United States in the hands of
a housewife without foreign exposure? *

Better than putting it in the hands of a foreigner.

Another lie, irrelevant, and the old "lesser of two evils" argument that
got us in this mess to begin with.

Clinton was not the lesser of two evils, he was the "I voted for an
independant and we got a liberal."

* Clinton was a moderate conservative.
--
Cliff

Cliffie is nuts. Stay away from squirrelly... he's nutless.

Little Squirrel's failed logic... was: I'm voting republicanbecause...
 

On Sep 16, 9:37*pm, wrote:
On Sep 14, 1:54*pm, wrote:





On Sep 13, 4:01*pm, Curly Surmudgeon wrote:

On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 07:07:16 -0700, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote:
On Sep 12, 5:58*pm, Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:24:30 -0700, Roy Blankenship wrote:

"greylock" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:16:05 -0500, "Rob Fraser"
FraserRacing"AT"RobFraser.Net wrote:

Well this is cruel but true- If the Republicans do win, She has a kid who
is
retarded so there will technically still be a retard in the White House.

*Does the Vice-President live in the White House in your world?

How interesting !!!

And I wouldn't call it cruel - I'd call it - and you - *assinine.

All the bull**** the neocons have thrown out? Give it a rest.

McCain won't finish his term, and then she WILL be in the White House.

Palin is another
bible-thumping crazymother****er (yeah, I know that's redundant) that
risks our civli liberties.

At least what is left of them.

--
Regards, Curly

Curly, Roy is saying Sarah Palin will be president and you give us
Quayle and Cheney???

Where is your cognitive disconnect? *

I have none, but thanks for asking.

Cheney and Quayle were Vice Presidents of the United States, no? *

Correct.

Cheney and Quayle were one heartbeat away from the Presidency, no? *

Correct.

Cheney and Quayle were horrid examples of what "might have been" if they had ascended the throne, no?

No/Yes. *I'd have preferred Cheney as president. *I don't think about
Quayle much.

And you have changed the parameters of the above dialog. *Neither
Quayle nor Cheney were president nor occupied the White House.

Why doesn't the little squirrel reply?





How does that differ in kind, not detail, from Sarah Palin ascending to
the Presidency when/if McCain is elected and dies?

Perhaps you want her "creature" billeted at the White House kennel?

Do you ever read what it is you are replying to, or do you just unroll
the dem talking points scroll and start posting?

"Phoney Outrage" is the term, you make **** up to get your panties in a
bunch. *Follow the logic, even though that appears difficult in your case.

My underwear are just fine. *As a matter of fact I just got some of
those new Hanes that are quite comfy. *They're probably not available
in Argentina yet.

Neither Quayle nor Cheney have become president. *And Hillary was more
of a VP than Algore.

Nor has Sarah Palin "become" president. *

Correct. *Curly: *"Dan Quayle and Dick Cheney have proven the dangers
of electing an administration with a terrible 2nd in command."

So how does Cheney and Quayle having NOT been president PROVEN your
perceived danger?

Why doesn't the little squirrel reply?

Perhaps parallel thinking is
difficult for you but not the rest of us.

I'm not the one saying that something that didn't happen is PROOF that
Sarah Palin is unfit to be president. *You are.

So why doesn't the little squirrel address his failed logic?

Everyone knows he is so much smarter than me so it should be a simple
matter for him to use "honest dialog" to dispatch me.

Where are you, little squirrel???

Where Oh where has my little squirrel gone, Oh where oh where can he
be?

Our economy...
 

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 00:13:48 -0700, Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 01:16:20 -0400, Bob Brock wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 21:55:08 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 15:48:47 -0700, "Roy Blankenship"
wrote:


"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
news:csadnZztGfh6kknVnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@earthlin k.com...

john wrote:

Bob Brock wrote:

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 08:19:51 -0700, Gunner
wrote:


On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:40:14 -0400, john
wrote:



Gunner wrote:


On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:34:55 -0400, john
wrote:



Gasoline is selling for three times what it was when Bush
presumed
office.

Gasoline is going down, does he get credit for that too?

Gummer apparently hasn't bought any gasoline in the past
week or
so.



Odd...Last week it was $3.71, at the end of the week, it was
$3.65, this morning I filled up at $3.59

Doesnt seem like much of a rise, least not on this planet






You aint seen nuffing yet.

Yet the claim was the price of fuel has skyrocketed in the last
month, when its easily demonstrated its been falling.

Sounds like the claiment is an outright liar, no?

Gunner


No. Gasoline has gone from 3.59 to 4.09 in the past two weeks
here. Sounds like you think that your little corner of the world
is the whole world.


It went from $4.07 to $3.56 around here in North Central Florida.

North Central Florida.

That explains your other dumbass post.




"Your little corner"

exquisite.....


You're the one who claims to live in a small desert town.

Didn't he claim to have plonked you, too?

Several times. Here lately, he's been piggybacking on replies to my
posts claiming not to be able to see the answers.

I'm voting republican because...
 

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 07:50:14 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sep 20, 7:24*am, Cliff wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:58:38 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Sep 15, 11:16*am, Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 03:41:14 -0700, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote:
Do you really look forward to putting the United States in the hands of
a housewife without foreign exposure? *

Better than putting it in the hands of a foreigner.

Another lie, irrelevant, and the old "lesser of two evils" argument that
got us in this mess to begin with.

Clinton was not the lesser of two evils, he was the "I voted for an
independant and we got a liberal."

* Clinton was a moderate conservative.
--
Cliff

Cliffie is nuts. Stay away from squirrelly... he's nutless.

Clinton was a moderate conservative.
Why did you think he got elected? Twice?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton
[
His policies, on issues such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and
welfare reform, have been described as "centrist." Clinton presided over the
longest period of peace-time economic expansion in American history, which
included a balanced budget and a reported federal surplus. Based on
Congressional accounting rules, at the end of his presidency Clinton reported a
surplus of $559 billion.
]
[
Clinton left office with an approval rating at 65%, the highest end of office
rating of any President since World War II.
]
--
Cliff

I'm voting republican because...
 

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 07:37:56 -0700, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote:

On Sep 15, 1:13Â*am, Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 21:46:24 -0700, Calif Bill wrote:

"Curly Surmudgeon" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:24:13 -0500, Jerry wrote:

"John R. Carroll" wrote in
message
...

Cheney and Quayle weren't in line behind a guy that is likely to be
undergoing chemo during the first few month's after an election.
Palin is.

Good, then we get to watch her on TV for the next eight years,
instead of some liberal boner shrinker.

Do you really look forward to putting the United States in the hands
of a housewife without foreign exposure? Â*Sarah Palin who began her
campaign with lies and misrepresentations, someone without a shred of
strategic or tactical experience, speaks no other languages, no
military experience, and wants to burn library books based upon her
religion?

You evaded this question.

Are you really postulating that Sarah Palin, who thinks God
commanded the Iraq and Afghanistani wars, is qualified to run
America in its current condition?

You evaded this question.

Or are you a pacifist troll trying to tweak noses?

You evaded this question.

--
Regards, Curly
---------------------------------------------------------------------------Â*---
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*I Love Republicans, They Taste Just Like
Chickenhawks
---------------------------------------------------------------------------Â*---

.................................................. .............. Â*
Â* * Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access Â* Â* Â* Â*
Â* Â*
athttp://www.TitanNews.com -=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous,
UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

She is the Veep.

No, she's not.

Why do you say Sarah Palin is the Vice President of the United States?

What foreign experience does Obama have?

Irrelevant in the Sara Palin context. Â*Of all the highly qualified
people McCain could have had for the position he chose a right-wing
wacko who thinks God commanded these wars, that library material must be
censored, and that the earth was created 4,000 years ago.

That is a very bad choice for John McCain and unacceptable for America.

Not a lot from his few days he has showed up in the Senate. Â*Being the
most liberal legislator is enough to give the shivers to anybody who
works for a living.

Do not expect me to defend Barak Obama, ask someone who will vote for
him.

Instead of trying to detour the thread, why not stay on topic?

How much of your wages are you going to contribute to his social
programs?

None, but that, too, is irrelevant to the qualifications, or lack of, of
Sarah Palin.

You asked for a cite, little squirrel, and here it is.

What are you babbling about now? I "asked for a cite"? Where do you see
a request in this thread?

You've evaded the rebuttal to your mistruths and now fabricate nonsense to
what end? Man, you're raising insanity to a new level...

How much do you want to mortgage your children and grandchildrens
earnings?

That implies that Obama/Biden are worse than McCain/Palin. Â*I will get
into that useless, futile, arguement. Â*Instead I will vote for a good
candidate not a pawn of others.

Any other gymnastics to avoid substantive discourse on the thread?

--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bush Doctrine: Privatize Profits, Socialize Losses
------------------------------------------------------------------------------




.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
at http://www.TitanNews.com
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

Our economy...
 

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 11:09:42 -0400, Bob Brock wrote:

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 00:13:48 -0700, Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 01:16:20 -0400, Bob Brock wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 21:55:08 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 15:48:47 -0700, "Roy Blankenship"
wrote:


"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
news:csadnZztGfh6kknVnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@earthli nk.com...

john wrote:

Bob Brock wrote:

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 08:19:51 -0700, Gunner
wrote:


On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:40:14 -0400, john
wrote:



Gunner wrote:


On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:34:55 -0400, john
wrote:



Gasoline is selling for three times what it was when
Bush
presumed
office.

Gasoline is going down, does he get credit for that too?

Gummer apparently hasn't bought any gasoline in the past
week or
so.



Odd...Last week it was $3.71, at the end of the week, it was
$3.65, this morning I filled up at $3.59

Doesnt seem like much of a rise, least not on this planet






You aint seen nuffing yet.

Yet the claim was the price of fuel has skyrocketed in the last
month, when its easily demonstrated its been falling.

Sounds like the claiment is an outright liar, no?

Gunner


No. Gasoline has gone from 3.59 to 4.09 in the past two weeks
here. Sounds like you think that your little corner of the world
is the whole world.


It went from $4.07 to $3.56 around here in North Central Florida.

North Central Florida.

That explains your other dumbass post.




"Your little corner"

exquisite.....


You're the one who claims to live in a small desert town.

Didn't he claim to have plonked you, too?

Several times. Here lately, he's been piggybacking on replies to my posts
claiming not to be able to see the answers.

Yeah, I noticed that he did that to me also until a couple of days ago and
he slipped responding directly. Bizarre that we have so many
pathologoical liars here for many of their lies are completely unnecessary.

It's gotten to the point that after visiting misc.survivalism I have to
wash my hands...

--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bush Doctrine: Privatize Profits, Socialize Losses
------------------------------------------------------------------------------




.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
at http://www.TitanNews.com
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

Curly admits he doesn't or won't apy taxes... I'm votingrepublican because...
 

On Sep 21, 1:32*pm, Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 07:37:56 -0700, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote:
On Sep 15, 1:13Â*am, Curly Surmudgeon wrote:

How much of your wages are you going to contribute to his social
programs?

None, but that, too, is irrelevant to the qualifications, or lack of, of
Sarah Palin.

You asked for a cite, little squirrel, and here it is.

What are you babbling about now? *I "asked for a cite"? *Where do you see
a request in this thread?

This is the cite you've asked for. If you don't remember when or
where you asked for such a cite, that's your problem.

Anyway, good luck with your tax evasion program.

Another lie from HH&C
 

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 11:15:36 -0700, almostcutmyhairtoday wrote:

On Sep 21, 1:32*pm, Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 07:37:56 -0700, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote:
On Sep 15, 1:13Â*am, Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:

How much of your wages are you going to contribute to his social
programs?

None, but that, too, is irrelevant to the qualifications, or lack of,
of Sarah Palin.

You asked for a cite, little squirrel, and here it is.

What are you babbling about now? *I "asked for a cite"? *Where do you
see a request in this thread?

This is the cite you've asked for. If you don't remember when or where
you asked for such a cite, that's your problem.

You're making **** up again, just like your twisted subject line.

Anyway, good luck with your tax evasion program.

You are a pathological liar:

"From Andrea Broadbent "The Truth about Truman": To begin, the definition
of pathological actually means abnormal or grossly atypical. Therefore, a
pathological liar prevaricates more frequently than the average person or
tells more abnormal lies. In most cases, pathological liars tell lies that
are "unplanned and impulsive" (Hausman). These lies are usually very
emotional stories that tend to serve no purpose except to impress people
(Ford 133). As of now, psychiatrists are unsure whether or not
pathological liars are fully capable of realizing if and when they are
lying, so detecting whether or not a person is a pathological liar is a
very difficult task (Hausman). By looking at the list of conditions
commonly connected with people considered to be pathological liars,
psychiatrists are better able to determine whether or not a person might
actually have the disorder. Some main qualities linked with pathological
liars include dysfunctional family origin, family lying patterns,
anomalies of sexual life, frequent substance abuse, and a great capacity
for language."

--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bush Doctrine: Privatize Profits, Socialize Losses
------------------------------------------------------------------------------




.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
at http://www.TitanNews.com
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

I'm voting republican because...
 

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 13:29:07 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 07:50:14 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Sep 20, 7:24*am, Cliff wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:58:38 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:
On Sep 15, 11:16*am, Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 03:41:14 -0700, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote:
Do you really look forward to putting the United States in the
hands of a housewife without foreign exposure? *

Better than putting it in the hands of a foreigner.

Another lie, irrelevant, and the old "lesser of two evils" argument
that got us in this mess to begin with.

Clinton was not the lesser of two evils, he was the "I voted for an
independant and we got a liberal."

* Clinton was a moderate conservative. --
Cliff

Cliffie is nuts. Stay away from squirrelly... he's nutless.

Clinton was a moderate conservative.
Why did you think he got elected? Twice?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton
[
His policies, on issues such as the North American Free Trade Agreement
and welfare reform, have been described as "centrist." Clinton presided
over the longest period of peace-time economic expansion in American
history, which included a balanced budget and a reported federal surplus.
Based on Congressional accounting rules, at the end of his presidency
Clinton reported a surplus of $559 billion.
]
[
Clinton left office with an approval rating at 65%, the highest end of
office rating of any President since World War II. ]

That's why the Wackos want to disparage him, he was an economic success
that violated some of their deeply held precepts. To admit Slick Willies
success would undermine their delusions.

Sometimes we have to admit that our opinions were wrong. I don't like
Clinton but he did a good job on the economy.

--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bush Doctrine: Privatize Profits, Socialize Losses
------------------------------------------------------------------------------




.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
at http://www.TitanNews.com
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

Another lie from HH&C
 

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 13:37:42 -0700, Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:


"From Andrea Broadbent "The Truth about Truman": Some main qualities linked with pathological
liars include dysfunctional family origin, family lying patterns,
anomalies of sexual life, frequent substance abuse, and a great capacity
for language."

Wow.
--
John H.