"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 18:24:22 -0400, Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
>>>> I wonder if Hillary would have run if McCain picked her. Both are
>>>> desperate
>>>> enough to win to do something like that.
>>>
>>> are you nuts? whatever else you want to say, hillary is a democrat to
>>> the
>>> bone.
>>>
>>> your pal,
>>> blake
>>
>> She's a Hillarest to the bone. I imagine she'd do most anything to be
>> VP,
>> let alone the Prez. She has been loyal to the party, but that has paid
>> dividends for her too.
>
> if she's as self-centered as you say, why would she settle for
> vice-president? or do you think she's an assassin as well?
>

I think she is too good for VP. Literally. She might have taken it but I am
glad it was not offered.

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 18:38:14 -0700, Paul M. Cook wrote:

> "Goomba" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>
>>> We don't make an issue out of it. We never ran a phony Texan with a fake
>>> accent and a fake ranch (he's afraid of horses) as a "man of the people"
>>> when he was really a blueblood from Connecticut. Only your guys fall for
>>> that crap.
>>
>> Does living there until age 3 MONTHS old REALLY qualify one as a
>> Connecticut Yankee?
>> Does that make Hillary a fake New Yorker??
>
> He was born in New Haven Connecticut. He lived in Connecticut until the age
> of twelve then spent a year or so in Texas then went back to Connecticut.
> He also went to Philips Andover Academy as a youth. That is the bluest of
> the blue blood schools. His whole family has lived in Connecticut for
> generations. Prescott Bush never left. Bush Senior was a carpetbagger who
> claimed a parking lot in Houston was his home. Bush Junior is the only
> Bush who speaks with an accent. And any Texan will tell you it is a white
> trash accent they call "oil well."
>
> Paul

he also bought his 'ranch' (where apparently he raises only brush) in 1999,
shortly before the election in 2000, some say on the advice of karl rove,
and plans to move from godforsaken crawford in sometime in 2009.

i believe the texas expression is 'all hat, no cattle.'

your pal,
blake

Sheldon > wrote in

oups.com:

> Don't you know how the Kennedys
> obtained their wealth and power, rum running during
> prohibition.

and the Bush's sold arms to the Germans during WWII. what's
your point?


lee <nothin' wrong with rum running>
--
Last night while sitting in my chair
I pinged a host that wasn't there
It wasn't there again today
The host resolved to NSA.

blake murphy > wrote in
news
> gOn Sat, 30 Aug 2008 21:32:50 +0000 (UTC), enigma wrote:
>> i'm pretty sure that Palin just poisoned any chance
>> McCain
>> had of winning my vote anyway.

> good! come on over to the dark side, honey. i promise you
> we have better parties.

and cookies!
actually, i'm registered independent. i *have* to seriously
consider who says what, & how much is just standard election
politicking bullshit.
i'm afraid i won't be adding a new Democratic senator this
year though. i happen to like the Republican one we have
now...


lee
--
Last night while sitting in my chair
I pinged a host that wasn't there
It wasn't there again today
The host resolved to NSA.

"enigma" > wrote in message
. ..
> blake murphy > wrote in
> news >
>> gOn Sat, 30 Aug 2008 21:32:50 +0000 (UTC), enigma wrote:
>>> i'm pretty sure that Palin just poisoned any chance
>>> McCain
>>> had of winning my vote anyway.
>
>> good! come on over to the dark side, honey. i promise you
>> we have better parties.
>
> and cookies!
> actually, i'm registered independent. i *have* to seriously
> consider who says what, & how much is just standard election
> politicking bullshit.
> i'm afraid i won't be adding a new Democratic senator this
> year though. i happen to like the Republican one we have
> now...
>

This is the intelligent way to be, IMO. I became a knee-jerk Democrat only
after Clinton was impeached. I'd like to wend my way back to an open mind,
but as long as the Republicans keep up the freak show, I don't see it
happening.

"enigma" > wrote in message
. ..
> Sheldon > wrote in
>
> oups.com:
>
>> Don't you know how the Kennedys
>> obtained their wealth and power, rum running during
>> prohibition.
>
> and the Bush's sold arms to the Germans during WWII. what's
> your point?
>
>

Not to mention the fact that there were not many ways for good Irish
Catholics to get ahead. Bootlegging, like moneylending, was too good for
most Protestants.




Okay, it's not true, but it ought to be.

"blake murphy" > wrote:
>
> i believe the texas expression is 'all hat, no cattle.'
>
I really miss Molly Ivins.

"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote in message
...
> cyber**** wrote:
>
>> You're sounding just a tad hysterical there, old girl. Touch a nerve, did
>> I?
>
> I think you gots a big ol' block o' gubmint cheese in yo' fridge, lil'
> ho'.
>

You so precious.

"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote :
>
> BTW, there's a term for the kind of government which tries to "level the
> playing field" by giving money-for-nothing to the "disadvantaged." It's
> called socialism. I personally don't care for it -- but that's because I
> don't receive NEARLY as much from the government as I give to it. I can
> understand why cyber****'s outlook would vary from mine.
>

I see Greg as revealed that I am a black welfare mom with seven kids and
eight babydaddies. The boy just can't keep a secret.

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 17:22:11 -0400, cybercat wrote:

> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> "Nancy2" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> On Aug 29, 10:02 am, jay > wrote:
>>>> Sheldon wrote:
>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin
>>>>
>>>> Yep Baracks F'd UP when he didn't pick Hillary. That would have been a
>>>> hard to beat duo. His ego got the best of him and he F'd Up. His
>>>> speech was nauseating. All scripted BS.
>>>>
>>>> So the "race" is on! Is it ok to be proud of a historical VP pick such
>>>> as a white woman?
>>>>
>>>> jay
>>>
>>>>I find it odd that Barak is being lauded for "representing the common
>>>>man," when last year's income was $4.2M. How does that relate to the
>>>>blue-collar worker, or the "common man?"
>>>
>>
>> unlike salt-of-the-earth john mccain with the forty-million-dollar wife.
>> he made his money the old-fashioned way - by ditching wife number one and
>> marrying it.
>>
>
> Hmmm .... I just can't decide between my little plaid flippy skirt and my
> cheerleader outfit.

why not bring both?

your pal,
blake

"cybercat" > wrote in message
> I think she is too good for VP. Literally. She might have taken it but I
> am glad it was not offered.

She'll be back in eight years, maybe four.

"Michael "Dog3"" > wrote

> "Edwin Pawlowski" >

>> "cybercat" > wrote in message
>>> I think she is too good for VP. Literally. She might have taken it
>>> but I am glad it was not offered.
>>
>> She'll be back in eight years, maybe four.
>
> I agree. I think we've just seen the beginning.

Gag, I know, please don't remind me.

nancy

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 18:38:14 -0700, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>
>> "Goomba" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>>
>>>> We don't make an issue out of it. We never ran a phony Texan with a
>>>> fake
>>>> accent and a fake ranch (he's afraid of horses) as a "man of the
>>>> people"
>>>> when he was really a blueblood from Connecticut. Only your guys fall
>>>> for
>>>> that crap.
>>>
>>> Does living there until age 3 MONTHS old REALLY qualify one as a
>>> Connecticut Yankee?
>>> Does that make Hillary a fake New Yorker??
>>
>> He was born in New Haven Connecticut. He lived in Connecticut until the
>> age
>> of twelve then spent a year or so in Texas then went back to Connecticut.
>> He also went to Philips Andover Academy as a youth. That is the bluest
>> of
>> the blue blood schools. His whole family has lived in Connecticut for
>> generations. Prescott Bush never left. Bush Senior was a carpetbagger
>> who
>> claimed a parking lot in Houston was his home. Bush Junior is the only
>> Bush who speaks with an accent. And any Texan will tell you it is a
>> white
>> trash accent they call "oil well."
>>
>> Paul
>
> he also bought his 'ranch' (where apparently he raises only brush) in
> 1999,
> shortly before the election in 2000, some say on the advice of karl rove,
> and plans to move from godforsaken crawford in sometime in 2009.
>
> i believe the texas expression is 'all hat, no cattle.'


Apparently the ranch has been sold already, actually last year. Whoever
owns it now is leasing it to the Bush's if what I read is correct. Bush now
owns 100,000 acres in Paraguay. A very odd purchase and one that leads to
many questions.

Paul

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 19:17:27 GMT, blake murphy
> wrote:

>On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:16:18 -0400, Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
>>
>> You're too funny. Hillary is a carpetbagger that went to NY because there
>> was an opening. Yes, she has done a lot of good work for the Democrats, but
>> she has political ambitions and wants to be President. I think you'd be
>> amazed at just how far she'd go. She has been good for the people of NY,
>> but that does not make her any less of an opportunist.
>
>she went looking for a job, got it, and does it well. what a she-devil!
>

If Hillary is a carpet bagger for being a New York State senator, then
what did that make Jeb Bush when he was governor of Florida and GWB
when he was governor of Texas?


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 19:56:04 GMT, blake murphy
> wrote:

>it's just bizarre. i don't know how he expects this to woo disaffected
>hillary voters. choosing a hot younger woman over the women you mention?
>shades of cindy!
>
>meanwhile, all the movement conservative types are scratching their heads
>and saying 'what the ****?'

He's definitely carved out his niche. There is no middle ground with
Mc Cain.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

"Stan Horwitz" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "cybercat" > wrote:
>
>> "Shiral" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> On Aug 29, 10:57 am, "Joe Cilinceon" > wrote:
>> > Am I the only one that the name Sally Fields came to mind the moment
>> > she
>> > started to speak. LOL
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Joe Cilinceon
>>
>> >Yeah, me too. And she's got the international gravitas of a flea.
>>
>> >Did John McCain choose her so she could act as his external heart
>> >pacemaker?
>> >He's shot himself in the foot--the ultimate experiment in "Friendly
>> >Fire." Sarah Palin is a gift--to the Democratic Party.
>>
>> Yepper. He looks so pleased and proud of himself. Maybe because she's
>> purty. lmao!! Stupid old man.
>
> McCain's an idiot, through and through. Talk about flip flopping; he
> tries to distance himself from Bush's failed policies, yet back in 2000
> after McCain was swift boated by Bush and his man Rove, he
> enthusiastically endorsed Bush
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEFrKWeFTSo
>
> And back in March of THIS YEAR, McCain was all cozy with Bush to get his
> endorsement for his candidacy. Just listen to Bush. He says right there,
> that McCain is not going to change in how he deals with Iraq, yet
> everybody but McCain and Bush realize that the Iraq war is a huge
> disaster for both Iraq and the United States.
>
> If anyone's a political whore, its McCain. He wants Bush to campaign
> with him and raise money for his campaign, but he says he's opposed to
> Bush's policies, yet he voted for over 90% of Bush's policies. Talk
> about shameless flip flopping!


By far and away the worst is his stance on immigration. He said he can't
vote for the immigration reform bill in Congress. But the thing is HE wrote
it. It was his baby from the start and now he wants to distance himself
from it completely.

Paul

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 08:35:20 -0700 (PDT), Brawny wrote:
>
>> Why does the liberal press have such a hard time with successful
>> people? And yes, she has ONE home unlike the Biden Compound with
>> many houses.
>>
>> Jus Say NO to JOBama!
>
> the *biden* compound? you really are a ****ing idiot. he is ninety-ninth
> on the list of wealthiest senators and i don't even think he has a house
> in
> d.c. he goes home on amtrack every night.
>
> let's see, how does that compare with the seven to twelve homes (poor
> p.o.w. john can't remember, exactly) that mccain owns?
>
> i mean, republican drones are usually brainless, but you take the cake.
>

Not to mention the liberal media is panning the story that her DS baby
really is her granddaughter. Now if this was a democrat "scandal" it would
be all over the place in 30 seconds.

Paul

<sf> wrote in message
>
> If Hillary is a carpet bagger for being a New York State senator, then
> what did that make Jeb Bush when he was governor of Florida and GWB
> when he was governor of Texas?
>


Carpet baggers. Lots of opportunists around. Some of the Kennedys and
Rockerfellers too.

blake murphy wrote:

> i don't know that his former p.o.w. status is a barrier, but it certainly
> isn't a *qualification*. at this point it's getting almost comical how his
> campaign trots it out as some kind of defense against any criticism of any
> kind. it's nuts.
>
> your pal,
> blake

Any more nuts than Obama claiming he didn't know what his crazy pastor
was saying for those 20 years?

In article >,
"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:

> Stan wrote:
>
> > If experience is so important for presidential candidates, then why in the
> > world did the Republicans eschew McCain in the 2000 Republican primary and
> > nominate a draft dodger with zero experience in foreign and national
> > politics; a person who had never even traveled abroad?
>
> Because that's who the voters *wanted*. I think hindsight shows it was a
> disastrous mistake.

In the case of the current president, I agree that picking him over
McCain was a disastrous mistake. Ironically, during the past eight
years, McCain has remanufactured himself into Bush Lite in his bid to
win the White House this year. Considering that the vast majority of
presidents came into the White House with no experience, I think McCain
made a strategic error in his campaign by emphasizing his experience and
playing down Obama's, especially since Obama is really the maverick
McCain once was. McCain's an idiot if he thinks he can foist himself as
a political maverick while voting with Bush over 90% of the time.

Except for Nixon and the first President Bush, no other president since
JFK came into the White House with any real experience for the job, yet
now the Republicans are couching McCain's experience as an essential.
This is all the more hypocritical in light of the fact that the
Republicans down McCain 8 years ago in favor of an inexperienced draft
dodger and that McCain has voted with this failure of a president over
90% of the time. The Republicans can't win on the experience card,
especially with Palin on their ticket, and even if they could get away
with playing the experience card, it is clear that McCain's experience
shows a lack of foresight and a total disregard for what's important to
most Americans.

McCain's entire campaign strategy, especially his selection of Palin, is
a clear demonstration of the Republicans' desperation and hypocrisy to
keep the White House.

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 06:55:41 -0400, Stan Horwitz wrote:
> >
> > If anyone's a political whore, its McCain. He wants Bush to campaign
> > with him and raise money for his campaign, but he says he's opposed to
> > Bush's policies, yet he voted for over 90% of Bush's policies. Talk
> > about shameless flip flopping!
>
> yet the media keeps talking about what a 'maverick' he is. maybe in 2000,
> no more. it's maddening.

Up until 2000 when McCain last the primary to the draft dodger in the
White House now, he really was a political maverick. Then after he was
swift boated by Rove and Bush, McCain made a conscious decision to
remake himself into a politician like the Shrub. As it happens, he tried
to emulate a man who turned out to be one of our worst presidents. Oops!
If I am not mistaken, the only key area where McCain parted company with
Bush since 2000 was in stem cell research. Big deal.

McCain literally sold his soul to the devil. Now he thinks we Americans
are too stupid to realize that. McCain's days in politics are numbered,
as are Karl Rove's. If Rove really thinks Palin will win over a lot of
far right conservatives and Hillary supporters, he's living in a fantasy
land.

The far right has already made their decision. Obama will never get
votes from the far right, yet McCain seems to be chasing after voters
who are already in his column. That's a huge tactical error.

Hillary Clinton's supporters will no doubt vote for McCain, but only in
small numbers because they are republicans with a small "R". Those
moderate conservatives voted for Hillary only because she has a uterus.
When Hillary bowed out of the primary, those moderate Republicans when
back from whence they came. Most Hillary Clinton supporters are
Democrats with a big D (many are long-time union members) and they will
vote for Obama over McCain in a heartbeat. Selecting Palin to run with
McCain changes nothing for the liberals who voted for Hillary and it
chances nothing for the Republicans who supported her because most of
the people who supported Hillary already made up their minds on how they
will vote.

So what voters does that leave McCain? The independent voters are still
up for grabs. Selecting Palin for McCain's ticket won't win over many of
independents because she's far too conservative. The voters Palin
appeals to are already in McCain's camp, so what does she bring to the
table in terms of getting more voters to vote for McCain? Probably a
great big nothing.

McCain needed to find a running mate who appeals to the independent
voters. If he had selected Tom Ridge from Pennsylvania or maybe Olympia
Snow, he might have secured more independent voters, but selecting a
political unknown with a history of far right views certainly won't win
any points with independent voters. At best, McCain's VP choice will
prompt a lot of independent voters to say home on election day or vote
for a third party candidate.

"Stan Horwitz" > wrote in message
> At best, McCain's VP choice will
> prompt a lot of independent voters to say home on election day or vote
> for a third party candidate.

IMO, staying home is not an option. I'm going to check out the third party
candidates. I think that sends a better message than does non-participation.

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:19:52 -0400, Stan Horwitz wrote:
> >
> > I spent today (Saturday) assisting residential college students where I
> > work with setting up their computers for Internet access. While I was
> > helping one freshman, she was sitting in her dorm talking with her
> > roommate and a friend about the election and Palin.
> >
> > This young woman said she honestly thinks her parents would rather her
> > be a ******* then a Democrat, but that there is no way she would ever
> > vote for McCain due to his opposition to abortion rights. Her two
> > friends said the same thing.
>
> that's why i thought george would never make it 2000. either the women
> didn't know, or what?

The woman who I spoke with on Saturday is a college freshman. She was
too young to vote in 2000 and 2004. This is no doubt the first
presidential election where she's old enough to vote.

> > I also spoke with a 50 something female friend of mine who is a
> > long-time Hillary supporter. She thinks it was a lousy idea for McCain
> > to pick Palin. She said McCain has to be nuts if he thinks he'll win a
> > lot of votes from Hillary supporters by picking an anti-choice woman as
> > his running mate.
>
> that's my thought as well. had your hillary supporter been thinking about
> voting for mcgrampa before?

I think she was leaning toward McCain, but I am not sure. Some other
women I know (also in their 50s) said they felt McCain's decision to
select a far right woman as his running mate is an insult to them, but
those women are all Obama supporters from the get go. This means that
McCain certainly isn't winning any points with Obama supporters (no
surprise there), but he's not even winning any supporters over from the
Hillary camp, except for those few who have already decided to support
him because they were Republicans in the first place.

I also spoke with some other young women yesterday while I was sitting
in their dorm rooms waiting for Symantec Endpoint Protection software to
install (its a slow process). They all said they would never ever vote
for a candidate who opposes their right to chose regardless of the
candidate's gender or party affiliation. One group of three women who I
asked (all in the same dorm) thanked me when they asked me who I plan to
vote for and I told them Obama.

In article > ,
"Gregory Morrow" > wrote:
>
> Of course that's *not* McCain's strategy at *all*, Stan...and those "long -
> time Hillary supporters" need to grow up, their candidate did not make the
> cut. They need to move on with life...

McCain's strategy by appointing a female political maverick is as clear
as the computer in front of my face now. He is trying to win over some
more Hillary supporters and some more right wing supporters, as well as
some independents who want a political maverick in the White House. Its
a bad strategy because he's trying to win over two groups voters who're
already going to vote for him regardless of who he picked as his VP
running mate and another group that won't be fooled by this stunt.

I totally agree with you that Hillary's supporters need to get over her
loss. Hillary ran an impressive campaign, but so did Obama. Hillary did
make some huge errors in her campaign. She lost of her own accord, not
because of sexism on the part of the media or anyone else. If Hillary
won the primary, I would vote for her this November.

That being said, I think the news media is exaggerating the situation
with Hillary's supporters. Most Hillary supporters will vote for Obama.
I was at one of Hillary's political rallies a few months ago and the
majority of them were obviously union people. Most of them were from a
nurses' union. If McCain thinks he secured any more Hillary voters by
picking Palin, he's off his rocker. If he thinks Palin will gain
political maverick status for McCain and that he's an agent of change,
he's an idiot. McCain's voting record is over 90% in agreement with
Bush. McCain cannot escape his last eight years of voting with Bush no
matte what he does, and there's not a think Karl Rove can do to help him
out of the pit that Rove obviously helped create.

If McCain wants to avoid being seen as a flip flop artist, he last that
chance eight years ago. Kerry got reamed in the polls for flip flopping
four years ago. Now, the same fate is heading toward McCain. Both McCain
and Rove are heading for a political fall of epic proportions. They are
also both idiots of they think the narrow difference between them in the
polls now means anything on election day. The reality is that new voter
registrations for Democrats are far outpacing Republicans, and that's a
much more telling statistic then anything that CNN, Gallop, and the
other polling organizations can share with us.

In article >,
"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:

> "Gregory Morrow" > wrote in message
> >
> > Of course that's *not* McCain's strategy at *all*, Stan...and those
> > "long -
> > time Hillary supporters" need to grow up, their candidate did not make the
> > cut. They need to move on with life...
> >
>
> From my unscientific observations, there are two kinds of Hillary
> supporters. Those the look at her accomplishments and agenda and support
> it. The other is the ones that will vote for her because she is a woman.
> The first ones are rational thinkers and will find a different candidate to
> support whose ideas are similar to their own. The second group will vote for
> any woman in any party no matter the qualifications.
>
> Single issue voters are usually very shortsighted and have no idea how our
> congress works.

I disagree. Most Hillary supporters are liberals, through and through.
Hillary had a huge amount of support from liberal union members. Union
members tend to vote Democrat. We know that some people supported
Hillary only because she has a uterus. Those who supported Hillary only
because she has a uterus are a mix of moderate Republicans and
independents. Some of those people will vote for McCain, a few will stay
home on election day, and the others will vote third party. The majority
of Hillary's supporters will vote for Obama because they support
Hillary's campaign platform and they oppose everything McCain/Bush stand
for.

Keep in mind that the reason Obama and Hillary came up so close in many
states' primaries is because their platforms are nearly identical. The
close similarity between their platforms made it difficult for me to
decide who to vote for in New Jersey's primary. I ended up voting for
Obama, but I have enormous respect for Hillary.

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:08:42 -0400, Stan Horwitz wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Goomba > wrote:
> >
> >> Michael "Dog3" wrote:
> >>
> >>> Of course but most of us might need a tad bit more experience than 2
> >>> years as Governor before stepping into the White House. Would you like
> >>> her running the country? I wouldn't. Nothing trumps her current
> >>> position. Apparently Alaskans are fond of her for whatever reason. IMO
> >>> she sure as hell doesn't have what it takes to assume the Presidency. As
> >>> VP I'm sure she would be fine.
> >>>
> >>> Michael
> >>
> >> I'd venture to say her two years of executive state government
> >> experience is about equal to Obama's, eh?
> >
> > If so, then McCain and his supporters can't take Obama to task for
> > lacking enough experience to be president. Eh?
>
> trust me, it won't slow them down in the least. repeat after me the
> all-purpose mantra: 'it's o.k. if you're a republican.'

Perhaps, but I don't think so. I strongly suspect that all of those who
are on tap to speak at the Republican convention this week hurriedly
rewrote their speeches to de-emphasize Obama's lack of experience when
McCain picked Palin. I expect that McCain will stop airing radio and TV
ads that talk about Obama's lack of experience, which is what he's been
running in Pennsylvania (a key swing state).

Even if you're right, it will just sink the Republicans' credibility
lower in many voters' minds and give more grist for Democrats to take
Republicans to task for their flip flopping. With Palin, McCain made a
lose lose selection. Heh! heh!

Don't get my wrong. I have nothing against Palin as a person, but as a
VP candidate for McCain's platform, she is totally opposite of the kind
of person he needed on his team. At best, Palin will win over voters who
already intended to vote for McCain, so her presence on his ticket will
be a net wash for him, and spell a huge win for Obama.

In article <%gCuk.147$jE1.144@trnddc03>,
"Dave Bugg" > wrote:

> Stan Horwitz wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Goomba > wrote:
> >
> >> Michael "Dog3" wrote:
> >>
> >>> Of course but most of us might need a tad bit more experience than 2
> >>> years as Governor before stepping into the White House. Would you
> >>> like her running the country? I wouldn't. Nothing trumps her
> >>> current position. Apparently Alaskans are fond of her for whatever
> >>> reason. IMO she sure as hell doesn't have what it takes to assume
> >>> the Presidency. As VP I'm sure she would be fine.
> >>>
> >>> Michael
> >>
> >> I'd venture to say her two years of executive state government
> >> experience is about equal to Obama's, eh?
> >
> > If so, then McCain and his supporters can't take Obama to task for
> > lacking enough experience to be president. Eh?
>
> Sure they can, Stan. After all it is McCain vs. Obama, not Palin vs. Obama.

Wrong. Its McCain vs. Obama and Palin vs. Biden. With McCain's advanced
age and his history of skin cancer, there's a strong likelihood that if
McCain wins the election, Palin will be president some day. McCain can't
campaign effectively against Obama while picking a potential president
on his ticket who has even less experience then Obama has.

> One candidate, among the 4 people running for the presidential ticket, would
> learn from the long-term national experiences of an elected president.

That experience is terrible and has gotten us into the worst economic
situation in our nation's history.

> Another would learn from the long-term experiences of an elected vice
> president.

Right, Biden, who has even more experience in foreign affairs then
McCain does. Biden has his liabilities too, but they are miniscule in
camparison to McCain and his attempt to mold himself into a new Bush
over the past eight years. Biden also isn't going to **** off everyone
except the far right, like Palin will.

> For those of you in this thread to argue that McCain lost credibility by
> claiming the need for experience in an elected president, based on the
> selection of a running mate, is silly and weak and doesn't hold up to the
> giggle test. It sounds more like serious spinning and grasping at straws in
> order to find something, ANYTHING, to overcome the perceived weakness of
> Obama's lack of experience. The only folks that will buy the 'Palin has no
> more experience than Obama' rationalization are those who are firmly in
> Obama's camp regardless. It is better to focus on whether the qualities
> Barack might bring as president, outweighs the experience that McCain might
> bring as president.

We'll see. You may be right. I bet we'll see a lot less talk about
Obama's lack of experience during the convention speeches this week as a
result of Palin being on McCain's ticket.

I agree that its better to focus on the issues that McCain and Obama
bring to the table. I have always maintained that the issue of
experience or lack thereof is a charade, but now McCain makes that view
even more obvious. Unfortunately for McCain, campaigning on real issues
works to his disadvantage.

McCain's campaign is built upon a house of cards. That house of cards
was built by George W. Bush. We all know that Bush's job approval rating
is abysmal, for good reason. McCain can flip flop all he wants, but over
the past eight years, he has obviously been molding himself into another
George W. Bush, so if McCain and his defenders want to campaign on the
issues, I say "bring it on" to quote his idol, George W. Bush.

> And you McCain supporters, you really need to look at how silly you make
> McCain look when you waste time arguing such stupid minutiae. You need to
> recognize the logical fallacy of the Palin-Obama-McCain-Experience nonsense
> and quit giving such a lame argument validation. I don't give a rat's ass
> worth of time obsessing on the experience issue. Experience is nice. But so
> is the ability to find the best advisors, to evaluate what those advisors
> say, and then to make a timely decision based on what you believe is the
> right thing to do for *America*, not what is politically expedient.

I totally agree. What McCain's supporters conveniently seem to forget is
that most presidents enter the White House for the first time with
little to no experience. How can one possibly serve as president for a
first term with experience, doing a job that is like no other? Its
impossible and for McCain and his supporters to imply otherwise is yet
another example of the Republicans' lies and deceit. What's more, the
current president had four years of experience when he ran for office in
2004 and look where its gotten us. Our current president is the best
example I can think of to point out that on-the-job experience is not a
valid qualifier to be president, which is another reason why I think
this entire issue of experience is a charade that's being foisted upon
us by the McCain/Rove campaign machine ... until he picked Palin.

> I don't know if I will vote for either of the two "Big Politics" offerings.
> Reading this thread and absorbing the juvenile antics of both camps leaves
> me shaking my head at the the level of behavior, which seems to be reflected
> in much of the voting population at large. I don't know if I want to vote
> for a candidate of either stripe whose devotees have no more faith in their
> candidate than to focus on the kind of tripe (ob food) offered in this
> thread. Some of you are clearly capable of offering a more cogent argument
> on the strengths of your favored candidate than what this thread represents.
> You should reserve your credibility for those instances.

The issues and ideals will come out in the debates. None of us is on
either candidate's campaign team so we are not in the best position to
campaign for either of them. I prefer for voters to listen to both
candidates in their debates and study their platforms via their web
sites, then make an informed decision on November 4th.

In article >,
Goomba > wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>
> > i don't know that his former p.o.w. status is a barrier, but it certainly
> > isn't a *qualification*. at this point it's getting almost comical how his
> > campaign trots it out as some kind of defense against any criticism of any
> > kind. it's nuts.
> >
> > your pal,
> > blake
>
> Any more nuts than Obama claiming he didn't know what his crazy pastor
> was saying for those 20 years?

Yawn. Why are you not taking McCain to task for taking so long to
disassociate himself with his KKK friends?

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 01:23:12 +0000 (UTC), enigma wrote:
>
> > blake murphy > wrote in
> > :
> >
> >> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 08:40:39 -0400, Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Stan Horwitz" > wrote in message
> >>>> No way. If Obama picked Hillary, it would have been a
> >>>> huge sign of weakness on his part because he would have
> >>>> caved into the Clintons.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I wonder if Hillary would have run if McCain picked her.
> >>> Both are desperate enough to win to do something like
> >>> that.
> >>
> >> are you nuts? whatever else you want to say, hillary is a
> >> democrat to the bone.
> >
> > um, no, she's not. she was originally a die hard Republican.
> > she still sounds like a Republican if you listen.
> > lee
>
> sure, *forty-four years ago* in 1964. she was a goldwater girl (following
> her parents lead politically, as most people do), but supported eugene
> mccarthy in 1968, and democrats ever after.
>
> if you want to argue that she's not particularly *liberal*, i'd agree with
> that, pretty much. but i can no more imagine her running on a republican
> ticket than robbing a gas station.

Right. Anyone can say what they want, but accusing Hillary of being a
closet Republican is silly. Hell, Ronald Reagan was a Democrat for a
while before he became president as a Republican.

In article >, sf wrote:

> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 19:17:27 GMT, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:16:18 -0400, Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> You're too funny. Hillary is a carpetbagger that went to NY because there
> >> was an opening. Yes, she has done a lot of good work for the Democrats,
> >> but
> >> she has political ambitions and wants to be President. I think you'd be
> >> amazed at just how far she'd go. She has been good for the people of NY,
> >> but that does not make her any less of an opportunist.
> >
> >she went looking for a job, got it, and does it well. what a she-devil!
> >
>
> If Hillary is a carpet bagger for being a New York State senator, then
> what did that make Jeb Bush when he was governor of Florida and GWB
> when he was governor of Texas?

And Elizebeth Dole and Alan Keys for running for senate in states where
they didn't live.

In article >,
"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:

> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
> >
> > if she's as self-centered as you say, why would she settle for
> > vice-president? or do you think she's an assassin as well?
> >
> > your pal,
> > blake
>
> She ran for President but did not make it. VP is a good step. It worked
> for many other VPs. She may even make a decent President, or at least
> better than others that want the job.

Its a moot point now considering that Obama and McCain picked their
running mates, and neither of them picked Hillary.

"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Stan Horwitz" > wrote in message
>> At best, McCain's VP choice will
>> prompt a lot of independent voters to say home on election day or vote
>> for a third party candidate.
>
> IMO, staying home is not an option. I'm going to check out the third
> party candidates. I think that sends a better message than does
> non-participation.
>

YAY Edwin!!

In article > ,
"Gregory Morrow" > wrote:

> Michael "Dog3" wrote:
>
> > enigma > news:Xns9B0AD98E5633Eenigmaempirenet@
> > 199.125.85.9: in rec.food.cooking
> >
> > > blake murphy > wrote in
> > > :
> > >
> > >> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 08:40:39 -0400, Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> "Stan Horwitz" > wrote in message
> > >>>> No way. If Obama picked Hillary, it would have been a
> > >>>> huge sign of weakness on his part because he would have
> > >>>> caved into the Clintons.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I wonder if Hillary would have run if McCain picked her.
> > >>> Both are desperate enough to win to do something like
> > >>> that.
> > >>
> > >> are you nuts? whatever else you want to say, hillary is a
> > >> democrat to the bone.
> > >
> > > um, no, she's not. she was originally a die hard Republican.
> > > she still sounds like a Republican if you listen.
> > > lee
> >
> > I think she sounds savvy and is very seasoned in Washington politics. Of
> > all the candidates she's my choice. Since she did not get the nomination
> > I've gone to the Obama camp. I sure as hell don't want 4 more years of
> > the same crap we've had in the past 8.
>
>
>
> I'd dearly love to vote for him, but I increasingly think he simply does not
> have the experience and thus the chops to be POTUS...

Did Clinton (Bill) have the experience when he started his first term?
What about Reagan, Carter, or the current president? The only two
presidents since JFK who had any semblance of prior experience are Nixon
and th first President Bush. Do you feel that Bush 41 and Nixon were
good presidents? Both of them have a lot to be desired.

Look at the four years of experience our current president had when he
was re-elected in 2004. What good did Bush's first four years of
experience in the White House get us in his second four years? Nothing,
except if you are fabulously wealthy.

There is no job on this planet like job of POTUS, so no one can begin a
first term without undergoing a huge learning curve. The idea that Obama
doesn't have enough experience to be president is silly because neither
does McCain. What's more, McCain's experience in the Senate has simply
been doing everything Bush asked him to do, except on the issue of stem
cell research. McCain's military experience consists of graduating third
from the bottom of his class, crashing multiple times, and spending five
years as a POW, none of which is applicable toward being our Commander
in Chief or CEO.

> I'm also not real impressed with some of the louche characters he's chosen
> to consort with (Rezko, the black preacher, etc.). Shows very poor
> judgement IMNSHO, he should have known better...

Yawn. Take a look at McCain's cast of characters sometime.

> The last times I voted for "new" and "change" I get Jimmy Carter, Illinois
> Senator Carole Mosely - Braun and Bill Clinton. All terrible disasters, all
> terribly disappointing...

On Bill Clinton, I disagree. The facts speak for themselves. Under
Clinton, we had huge prosperity, record low federal deficits, and record
low violent crime, all of which have been reversed under Bush and all of
Bush's economic policies have been firmly embraced by McCain. As far as
Carter's concerned, I agree totally that he was a lousy president.

> It's fun to get caught up in the "Obama wave", but it's a ruch similar to
> being at a rock concert or other "feel - good" event. When we have to go
> toe - to - toe with forces for evil such as the Russians or Islamists all
> that counts for nothing...
>
> I don't like McCain either, so I'm kinda stuck...heck, mebbe I'll write in
> Pauly Shore or somebody, lol.

Mickey Mouse.

Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> Stan wrote:
>
>> If experience is so important for presidential candidates, then why
>> in the world did the Republicans eschew McCain in the 2000 Republican
>> primary and nominate a draft dodger with zero experience in foreign
>> and national politics; a person who had never even traveled abroad?
>
> Because that's who the voters *wanted*. I think hindsight shows it was
> a disastrous mistake.
>
> Bob

Nah. I think it was because they didn't have a MCINL option on the
ballot.
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

There is no such thing as a little garlic. ~A. Baer

cybercat wrote:

> "Bob Terwilliger" > wrote :
> >
> > BTW, there's a term for the kind of government which tries to "level the
> > playing field" by giving money-for-nothing to the "disadvantaged." It's
> > called socialism. I personally don't care for it -- but that's because I
> > don't receive NEARLY as much from the government as I give to it. I can
> > understand why cyber****'s outlook would vary from mine.
> >
>
> I see Greg as revealed that I am a black welfare mom with seven kids and
> eight babydaddies. The boy just can't keep a secret.


Yup...you are a 300 lb. crackhead 'ho who wears "low - rider" jeans, too...

lol...


--
Best
Greg

" I find Greg Morrow lowbrow, witless, and obnoxious. For him to claim that
we are some
kind of comedy team turns my stomach."
- "cybercat" to me on rec.food.cooking

On Sep 1, 9:39�am, ChattyCathy > wrote:
> Bob Terwilliger wrote:
> > Stan wrote:
>
> >> If experience is so important for presidential candidates, then why
> >> in the world did the Republicans eschew McCain in the 2000 Republican
> >> primary and nominate a draft dodger with zero experience in foreign
> >> and national politics; a person who had never even traveled abroad?
>
> > Because that's who the voters *wanted*. I think hindsight shows it was
> > a disastrous mistake.
>
> > Bob
>
> Nah. I think it was because they didn't have a MCINL option on the
> ballot.

In the US write-ins are permitted... anyone can vote for themself.

ChattyCathy > fnord news:g9gr5g$ntu$1
@registered.motzarella.org:

> Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>
>> Stan wrote:
>>
>>> If experience is so important for presidential candidates, then why
>>> in the world did the Republicans eschew McCain in the 2000
Republican
>>> primary and nominate a draft dodger with zero experience in foreign
>>> and national politics; a person who had never even traveled abroad?
>>
>> Because that's who the voters *wanted*. I think hindsight shows it
was
>> a disastrous mistake.
>>
>> Bob
>
> Nah. I think it was because they didn't have a MCINL option on the
> ballot.

There's an idea!

--
Saerah

"Welcome to Usenet, Biatch! Adapt or haul ass!"
- some hillbilly from FL

www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/30/121350/137

This is a link to a blog where the writer talks about the vp's baby
actually being her grandchild. It's an interesting read.

"Stan Horwitz" > wrote in message
> They all said they would never ever vote
> for a candidate who opposes their right to chose regardless of the
> candidate's gender or party affiliation.

Since when did the President get the power to control women's bodies? IMO,
single issue decisions such as that are ignorance on the part of the voter.
It would take a Supreme Court decision to change the law and I doubt they'd
be dumb enough to try it.

On Aug 31, 4:50*pm, "cybercat" > wrote:
> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 12:37:29 -0400, George wrote:
>
> >> cybercat wrote:
>
> >>> It was an accident, George. Many people make egregious mistakes when
> >>> they
> >>> are young. It is absurd to pretend that this event defines this man.
>
> >> You conveniently snipped what I wrote:
>
> >> "To answer your question. According to Google Kennedy was born in 1932
> >> and Mary Jo Kopechne died in 1969 so he was 37. He was also a US senator
> >> at the time who swore to uphold the Constitution when he walked away
> >> from the car that contained another human. So he wasn't a confused
> >> teenager who might be excused from bad behavior who might go on to
> >> better himself as an adult."
>
> >> So at about age do you suppose one becomes a responsible adult?
>
> > well since george bush stopped drinking and snorting coke at age forty, i
> > guess we can still condider him a drunk and drug addict. *it *would*
> > explain a lot.
>
> Can you imagine him intoxicated? How could it be much different than the way
> he behaves every day?-
More coherent?