On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 08:17:40 -0400, Stan Horwitz >
wrote:

>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.

In fact, she gave the Republicans a lot of good ideas for their
campaign. There's nothing like shooting your own party in the foot!

>If Hillary won the primary, I would vote for her this November.

Me too! If Obama wins, I hope she's offered a supreme court position
when one comes up.
>
>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.

Don't discount Rove. He's the only asset McCain has and he knows how
to run a dirty campaign.
>
>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.

Let's hope those new Democrats make it to the voting booth in
November! One thing Republicans can do well is turn out the vote.


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

Mae West

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 12:30:29 GMT, "Michael \"Dog3\"" >
wrote:

>sf : in rec.food.cooking
>
>> 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.
>
>Well, there is underground =)
>
>Michael <- hanging head in shame for saying that

At least you recognized it was the wrong thing to say.


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

Mae West

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 07:32:20 -0400, Stan Horwitz >
wrote:

>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.

His choice of Palin clearly defines who he is *now* and the voters who
are most likely to put him into office. I bet he lost a lot of
moderate Republicans with Palin. Remember, she'll be only a heartbeat
away from the presidency and with him.... it *could* happen. So, in
this election, *yes* we are voting for VP too.


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

Mae West

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 07:50:05 -0400, Stan Horwitz >
wrote:

>If I am not mistaken, the only key area where McCain parted company with
>Bush since 2000 was in stem cell research. Big deal.

It is a big deal, but with Palin as VP we know that attitude will not
continue.


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

Mae West

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 07:57:50 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
wrote:

>
>"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.
>
Don't be so smug. What you're considering is another reason why Bush
won in 2000, if you can remember back that far. If independents had
voted for Gore instead of Nadar, there may have been a different
outcome to the election. Heck, if Gore had not lost home state
(because he took their vote for granted) he would have won.


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

Mae West

<sf> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 07:57:50 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
> wrote:

>>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.
>>
> Don't be so smug. What you're considering is another reason why Bush
> won in 2000, if you can remember back that far. If independents had
> voted for Gore instead of Nadar, there may have been a different
> outcome to the election. Heck, if Gore had not lost home state
> (because he took their vote for granted) he would have won.

If, if, if. Gore lost. If he was a better liked candidate he would have
won. OK, you can blame me as I did not vote for any of the three you
mentioned. I made my choice and thought Bush, Gore and Nader were all poor
choices so I voted Libertarian. I agree with the overall Libertarian policy
even though they sometimes have a radical running for office.

If you find voting for the lesser of two evils being better than voting for
someone that can be a great leader, that is your choice. I'd really like to
see a good alternative, a good third party that can have a real chance of
winning.

If Gore was truly a great candidate he would have been elected by a
landslide. Same with Kerry. I'd consider a Biden -Obama ticket before the
current one. I'd have voted for McCain in 2000, but don't want to now.
Palin may be a good VP choice in 4 to 8 years. Maybe we can draft Ross
Perot again?

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 12:23:06 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
wrote:

>If you find voting for the lesser of two evils being better than voting for
>someone that can be a great leader, that is your choice.

You voted for a sure loser and look where it got you.


--
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 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.

That's what I said, Stan.

> 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.

Now you're arguing proxy issues which I have to point out, once again, is
grasping for straws in order to overcome Obama's perceived weakness.

> McCain can't campaign effectively against Obama while
> picking a potential president on his ticket who has even less
> experience then Obama has.

That has already been answered, Stan. You can waste time trying to press
that argument all you want, but people are punching hanging chads for the
two who are running for president.

>> 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.

Actually, Carter gave us a far worst situation in terms of the impact of
economic woes on the American people since the 1950's. Some folks would
argue that Herbert Hoover was a contender for the worst in the nation's
history. But Jefferson's economy was pretty darn shaky and should be
nominated as well.

>> 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.

That is a matter for subjective opinion. But I find it puzzling that you
seem to hyperventilate about Palin's experience as a VP candidate, and when
it is Obama who is the one actually running for the chief executive's spot.

> Biden has his liabilities too, but they are miniscule in
> camparison to McCain...

Again, that is subjective and partisan opinion. Biden would probably make a
decent VP, as VP's go. Certainly better than Spiro Agnew or Al Gore. But
once again you keep trying to extrapolate a valid reason for arguing that
Obama's perceived weakness can be overcome by focusing on the VP candidates.
That just looks too desperate. If you keep trying to score rhetorical points
in that manner, all you'll succeed in doing is making the Obama 'lack of
experience' ploy appear valid and paint an even bigger bulls-eye for
partisans to attack.

> and his attempt to mold himself into a new Bush...

Nice line for the partisan choir, but it has nothing to do with the point
that I have been addressing. I have been hoping you might see the fallacy of
wasting time by arguing Obama's experience as a presidential candidate, is
on the same plane as Palin's as a VP candidate.

>> 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 doubt it. But as I said, that line of argument is ineffectual to begin
with. It is a waste of time to argue inexperience; it is neutralized by the
counter argument that experience is gained by being part of the entrenched
establishment.

> 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,

Then don't buy into it.

> but now McCain makes that
> view even more obvious. ....

Sigh.


> McCain's campaign is built upon a house of cards....

I'm going to snip that comment because that has nothing to do with the
purpose of my post.

>> 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. ...

Stan, you have made my point for me. As a supporter of Obama, you are
supporting the republican contention that 'experience matters' by trying to
dig down and pull up anything that seems reasonable TO OBAMA SUPPORTERS to
offset that silly contention. To those who are independent minded, comparing
a VP candidate to a Presidential candidate is just plain silly and
desperate.

>> 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.

I have seen Palin debate. I have seen Biden debate. When Biden and she get
together, it will be bloody. Neither will give ground, neither will pull
punches. Biden will have a good grasp of the issues.... and so will Palin.
That's one thing that she is notable for in debate. I doubt anyone watching
will find those debates exhilarating.

> 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.

Too true dat.

--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

Sharon Chilson wrote:
> 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.

<eye roll>
--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

<sf> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 12:23:06 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
> wrote:
>
>>If you find voting for the lesser of two evils being better than voting
>>for
>>someone that can be a great leader, that is your choice.
>
> You voted for a sure loser and look where it got you.
>
>
>

Same place you are. Did you vote for the winner or the loser? I was true
to my beliefs, not a sell out for expediency.

In article >,
"Paul M. Cook" > wrote:

> "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

The latest news is that Palin's older daughter is 5 months pregnant and
plans to marry the father. So much for abstinence only until marriage
sex education...

OB Food: SO will be making ribs on the grill. I will make the ONE TRUE
COBBLER® with peaches from Yakima. Happy Labor Day, and I hope our
friends on the Gulf Coast are safe from Gustav.

Cindy

--
C.J. Fuller

Delete the obvious to email me

"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
>
> <sf> wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 12:23:06 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>If you find voting for the lesser of two evils being better than voting
>>>for
>>>someone that can be a great leader, that is your choice.
>>
>> You voted for a sure loser and look where it got you.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Same place you are. Did you vote for the winner or the loser? I was
> true to my beliefs, not a sell out for expediency.
As long as you participate, I am happy. I think the bad guys often win by
default due to the apathy of people who are understandably disgusted with
the process.

Anyway, Obama will win it, so it hardly matters. George W. Bush and
everything he has done in the past eight years is what will put Obama in the
White House.

"John Kane" > wrote
>> Can you imagine him intoxicated? How could it be much different than the
>> way
>> he behaves every day?-

>More coherent?

hahah!

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 10:54:17 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
wrote:

>It would take a Supreme Court decision to change the law and I doubt they'd
>be dumb enough to try it.

Don't be so sure about that.


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

Mae West

"cybercat" > wrote in message
> As long as you participate, I am happy. I think the bad guys often win by
> default due to the apathy of people who are understandably disgusted with
> the process.
>
> Anyway, Obama will win it, so it hardly matters. George W. Bush and
> everything he has done in the past eight years is what will put Obama in
> the White House.
>

Unless we participate, the bad guys will always win. We have to let those
running for office how we feel. That is also the way we have term limits
but apathy keeps people in office for many terms.

You are probably right about Obama. IMO, the Republicans let McCain run
because they figure anyone they put up will lose following Bush. He is a
sacrificial figurehead. A few months ago I was somewhat resigned to the
idea that Hillary would be the next President. Maybe 2012 will be Romney
versus Hillary.

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 17:28:38 GMT, Dave Bugg wrote:

> Sharon Chilson wrote:
>> 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.
>
> <eye roll>

did you read it, dave? makes more sense than the 'obama is a communist
muslim from mars'-type shit.

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 17:28:38 GMT, Dave Bugg wrote:
>
>> Sharon Chilson wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> <eye roll>
>
> did you read it, dave? makes more sense than the 'obama is a
> communist muslim from mars'-type shit.

Yup, I read it yesterday when I first became aware of it. I also heard tell
that there are folks who believe 9/11 was an inside job. :-)
--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 19:27:55 GMT, 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.
> One candidate, among the 4 people running for the presidential ticket, would
> learn from the long-term national experiences of an elected president.
> Another would learn from the long-term experiences of an elected vice
> president.
>
> 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.
>

that's all well and good, but you must admit it's a mite irresponsible to
nominate someone for v.p. who is not *remotely* qualified to take over if
(god forbid) mccain should drop dead.

one of the top mccain people said, in effect, 'don't worry, she'll have
plenty of time to learn at the feet of the master.' well, what if 'the
master' plotzes in february?

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 08:43:14 -0400, Stan Horwitz wrote:

> 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.

we'll see about the rhetoric. the reality of the matter is that v.p.
choices don't swing many votes on way or another (except in the v.p.'s home
state; delaware's three electoral votes vs. alaska's three seem pretty
insignificant). but i think there's an argument to be made that mccain's
approach to governance is basically not that of a serious person.

your pal,
blake

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."
>

No, he wasn't a kid. He was a grown man who had attended a drunken orgy
with a group of consenting adults. Then he drove, drunk, with a young
woman who was also presumably drunk, and drove off a wooden platform
causeway. He escaped the car, she didn't. It was a terrible accident
and he deserves the majority of the blame, but don't you think she was
a tiny bit at fault for getting in the car with him or even being there
in the first place? No, I'm NOT blaming the victim, just saying she
wasn't using good judgment either.

In any case, that should not define his entire life and accomplishments
as a politician.

gloria p
Obama in 08

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


AMEN!

gloria p

Michael "Dog3" wrote:
> "Edwin Pawlowski" >
> : in rec.food.cooking
>
>> 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.
>
> Your post makes entirely too much sense. I'm a Hilary supporter but
> moved right on into the Obama camp. Not because he is a minority.
> Because his agenda is what I'm looking at. I'm amazed at the number of
> people that have stated they will vote for him just because he is black.
> That is pretty scary to me.
>
> I was amazed by the number of people that voted for Bush the second time
> only because he was a Republican. <shrug> They reap what they sow.
>


The more amazing stat is how many people still defend him and his
policies. Many people still swear he is doing a marvelous job.

gloria p

"Gloria P" > wrote
> In any case, that should not define his entire life and accomplishments as
> a politician.
>
> gloria p
> Obama in 08

Precisely. George is arguing, "But it was really bad! He did a really bad
thing!" As though that negates everything. It's nonsense.

"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
>
> "cybercat" > wrote in message
>> As long as you participate, I am happy. I think the bad guys often win by
>> default due to the apathy of people who are understandably disgusted with
>> the process.
>>
>> Anyway, Obama will win it, so it hardly matters. George W. Bush and
>> everything he has done in the past eight years is what will put Obama in
>> the White House.
>>
>
> Unless we participate, the bad guys will always win. We have to let those
> running for office how we feel. That is also the way we have term limits
> but apathy keeps people in office for many terms.
>
> You are probably right about Obama. IMO, the Republicans let McCain run
> because they figure anyone they put up will lose following Bush. He is a
> sacrificial figurehead.

Now you're talking! OK, tell another joke and this time I will laugh.

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 19:06:16 GMT, "Dave Bugg" >
wrote:

>blake murphy wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 17:28:38 GMT, Dave Bugg wrote:
>>
>>> Sharon Chilson wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> <eye roll>
>>
>> did you read it, dave? makes more sense than the 'obama is a
>> communist muslim from mars'-type shit.
>
>Yup, I read it yesterday when I first became aware of it. I also heard tell
>that there are folks who believe 9/11 was an inside job. :-)

Here, this one will make you salute
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_122947.html


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

Mae West

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 12:23:06 -0400, Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

> <sf> wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 07:57:50 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
>> wrote:
>
>>>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.
>>>
>> Don't be so smug. What you're considering is another reason why Bush
>> won in 2000, if you can remember back that far. If independents had
>> voted for Gore instead of Nadar, there may have been a different
>> outcome to the election. Heck, if Gore had not lost home state
>> (because he took their vote for granted) he would have won.
>
> If, if, if. Gore lost.
<snip>
> If Gore was truly a great candidate he would have been elected by a
> landslide.

ahem. let's not forget that gore won the popular vote by half a million.
if bush was not helped in ohio and florida by vote-counting shenanigans,
and later installed by the supreme court in a pretty shaky decision
(caution! this decision does not set any precedents! as the fab five
themselves wrote), things might have been different.

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 19:27:55 GMT, 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. One candidate, among the 4 people running for the
>> presidential ticket, would learn from the long-term national
>> experiences of an elected president. Another would learn from the
>> long-term experiences of an elected vice president.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> that's all well and good, but you must admit it's a mite
> irresponsible to nominate someone for v.p. who is not *remotely*
> qualified to take over if (god forbid) mccain should drop dead.
>
> one of the top mccain people said, in effect, 'don't worry, she'll
> have plenty of time to learn at the feet of the master.' well, what
> if 'the master' plotzes in february?

I've made my points, Blake, which is all I can do. If this straw-grasp is
what folks *really* feel will attract voters, instead of only being a
feel-good, high five moment for those already in the Obama camp, I despair.

--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 09:59:41 -0700, sf wrote:

> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 12:23:06 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
> wrote:
>
>>If you find voting for the lesser of two evils being better than voting for
>>someone that can be a great leader, that is your choice.
>
> You voted for a sure loser and look where it got you.

it gives him a feeling of superiority. isn't that what we're all looking
for in a presidential vote?

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 13:23:16 -0600, Gloria P >
wrote:

>Michael "Dog3" wrote:
>>
>> I was amazed by the number of people that voted for Bush the second time
>> only because he was a Republican. <shrug> They reap what they sow.
>>
>
>
>The more amazing stat is how many people still defend him and his
>policies. Many people still swear he is doing a marvelous job.
>
>gloria p

The very people who are being screwed the worst can't understand his
policies are doing it. Blame the Democrats. They're the bad guys.



--
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 18:37:12 -0700, Paul M. Cook wrote:

>"Stan Horwitz" > wrote in message
>>
>> 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

seriously. he also backed away from the campaign finance reform bill that
he wrote. that's our rock-steady maverick john!

your pal,
blake

Sharon Chilson wrote:
> 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.
>



If you liked that one, try THIS one:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/...ter/index.html

gloria p

sf wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 19:06:16 GMT, "Dave Bugg" >
> wrote:
>
>> blake murphy wrote:
>>> On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 17:28:38 GMT, Dave Bugg wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sharon Chilson wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> <eye roll>
>>>
>>> did you read it, dave? makes more sense than the 'obama is a
>>> communist muslim from mars'-type shit.
>>
>> Yup, I read it yesterday when I first became aware of it. I also
>> heard tell that there are folks who believe 9/11 was an inside job.
>> :-)
>
> Here, this one will make you salute
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_122947.html

Yeah, I heard that today. I think Obama said, when queried for a reaction
by reporters, that he considers family to be off-limits. Now that is
admirable.

BTW, is this the same daughter that supposedly birthed the Down's-syndrome
child?

--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

On Sep 1, 9:21 am, "cybercat" > wrote:
> "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!!

Unless there are local elections, refferenda that you need to vote for
anyway, voting a third party IS staying home. Well-meaning Nader
voters helped get us Dubya.

Make a choice, not a statememt. In this case, the differences are so
great it shouldn't be that hard.

bulka

On Sep 1, 2:12 pm, Cindy Fuller >
wrote:
> In article >,
> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "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
>
> The latest news is that Palin's older daughter is 5 months pregnant and
> plans to marry the father. So much for abstinence only until marriage
> sex education...
>
> OB Food: SO will be making ribs on the grill. I will make the ONE TRUE
> COBBLER® with peaches from Yakima. Happy Labor Day, and I hope our
> friends on the Gulf Coast are safe from Gustav.
>
> Cindy
>
> --
> C.J. Fuller
>
> Delete the obvious to email me

Just heard about Gidget's 17yo getting knocked up.

If the Dems can't win this one, I'm moving to Finland.

In a year of "firsts", we've never had a "first *******" living in the
White House.

Bulka

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 19:44:44 GMT, "Dave Bugg" >
wrote:

>BTW, is this the same daughter that supposedly birthed the Down's-syndrome
>child?

I don't know, maybe. I'd have to look at pictures. Did you read the
article? She came out with this to quell the internet rumor about the
baby being one of her daughter's.


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

Mae West

cybercat wrote:

> "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > <sf> wrote in message ...
> >> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 12:23:06 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>If you find voting for the lesser of two evils being better than voting
> >>>for
> >>>someone that can be a great leader, that is your choice.
> >>
> >> You voted for a sure loser and look where it got you.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Same place you are. Did you vote for the winner or the loser? I was
> > true to my beliefs, not a sell out for expediency.
> As long as you participate, I am happy. I think the bad guys often win by
> default due to the apathy of people who are understandably disgusted with
> the process.
>
> Anyway, Obama will win it, so it hardly matters. George W. Bush and
> everything he has done in the past eight years is what will put Obama in
the
> White House.


Yup...and I when I voted in 2000 and 2004 I was *sure* that we'd have a Dem
in the White House, cybergamble...I was all smug like you are right now.

Hopefully come November 5th your words above will not come to haunt you...


--
Best
Greg

"bulka" > wrote in message
...
On Sep 1, 2:12 pm, Cindy Fuller >
wrote:
> In article >,
> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "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
>
> The latest news is that Palin's older daughter is 5 months pregnant and
> plans to marry the father. So much for abstinence only until marriage
> sex education...
>
> OB Food: SO will be making ribs on the grill. I will make the ONE TRUE
> COBBLER® with peaches from Yakima. Happy Labor Day, and I hope our
> friends on the Gulf Coast are safe from Gustav.
>
> Cindy
>
> --
> C.J. Fuller
>
> Delete the obvious to email me

Just heard about Gidget's 17yo getting knocked up.

If the Dems can't win this one, I'm moving to Finland.

In a year of "firsts", we've never had a "first *******" living in the
White House.



I dunno what's going on with this story. It mutates every hour. One minute
it sounds plausible then the next it sounds implausible then back to
plausible again.

Does this woman look 8 months pregnant?
http://www.alaskapffa.org/index.cfm?...m&HomeID=59844

That picture was taken 1 week before she is said to have given birth. They
claim Bristol (weird name) is 5 months pregnant yet she is looking very trim
in the pic taken last week. Is that possible? We'll know in 4 months I
guess. I'm thinking this one isn't going away soon. And also the Palin
pictures from the Alaska site are gone and other sites are pulling her
family pictures as well.

Very strange.

Paul

cybercat wrote:

> "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > <sf> wrote in message ...
> >> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 12:23:06 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>If you find voting for the lesser of two evils being better than voting
> >>>for
> >>>someone that can be a great leader, that is your choice.
> >>
> >> You voted for a sure loser and look where it got you.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Same place you are. Did you vote for the winner or the loser? I was
> > true to my beliefs, not a sell out for expediency.
> As long as you participate, I am happy. I think the bad guys often win by
> default due to the apathy of people who are understandably disgusted with
> the process.
>
> Anyway, Obama will win it, so it hardly matters. George W. Bush and
> everything he has done in the past eight years is what will put Obama in
the
> White House.


"Women - ya let 'em smoke, ya let 'me vote, and the next thing ya know we've
got a Democrat for President...!!!"

- "The Old Man" in _Faster Pussycat, Kill, Kill!_


--
Best
Greg

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 18:37:12 -0700, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>
>>"Stan Horwitz" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> 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
>
> seriously. he also backed away from the campaign finance reform bill that
> he wrote. that's our rock-steady maverick john!


And the anti-torture bill. And he does know torture.

Paul

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
>> If, if, if. Gore lost.
> <snip>
>> If Gore was truly a great candidate he would have been elected by a
>> landslide.
>
> ahem. let's not forget that gore won the popular vote by half a million.
> if bush was not helped in ohio and florida by vote-counting shenanigans,
> and later installed by the supreme court in a pretty shaky decision
> (caution! this decision does not set any precedents! as the fab five
> themselves wrote), things might have been different.
>
> your pal,
> blake

What is to forget? He lost. We have, like it or not, and electoral college
system to arrive at who becomes President. One candidate loses, the other
wins. Had Gore gotten more votes in different states he would have won. He
didn't.
If people lived in different states Gore would have won
If Gore was popular with everyone he'd have won
If the Republicans ran a monkey, Gore would have won.
If, If, If. Superbowl games would have different outcomes if the game was
just a few minutes longer.