Ed Huntress wrote:
"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
m...

Ed Huntress wrote:


Besides, you're just lengthening Ed's hardon for Sarah, if that's
possible. wink (Note to Ed: I voted for McCain and Palin
yesterday. I drop it in the mail today. Oregon is all vote-by-mail.)


Good for you! It's good to hear that you voted for a real candidate. Now
you're partly responsible for whatever happens, whether your candidate
wins or loses. That's the price of democracy. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

We went to dinner tonight at Jason's Deli where the big screen TV on the
wall said Obama had already won this election.

Two things?

First, I remember why I turned off commercial TV. (gag)

Second, I thought we get to vote first?!?


Not anymore. You can read the Weekly Standard today (I think it was WS,
anyway), and they said that McCain's chances are better than even. Fox
probably would say the same thing except their own polls today show Obama
winning every state they polled. Everyone else is saying Obama has already
won.

I didn't check the Union Leader. They're probably already celebrating for
McCain.

The nice thing about it is that you can choose who won, just by going to the
right news site.

--
Ed Huntress




For 8 more days...

--

Richard

(remove the X to email)

:

Jeez, and here Sarah Palin thinks they're about as accurate as can be.
As she said on Oct. 4th, "Turns out one of Barack's earliest
supporters is a man who, according to the New York Times, and they are
hardly ever wrong..."

Do you know something she doesn't? Or is she really just as dumb as a
fence post?

She has an especially fine-tuned appreciation for Irony. G

Please don't post metalworking items in the metal newsgroups, Eregon.
This is a political group. :^)

Besides, you're just lengthening Ed's hardon for Sarah, if that's
possible. wink (Note to Ed: I voted for McCain and Palin
yesterday. I drop it in the mail today. Oregon is all vote-by-mail.)

Good for you! It's good to hear that you voted for a real candidate. Now
you're partly responsible for whatever happens, whether your candidate
wins
or loses. That's the price of democracy. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Luckily for the country Oregon is a blue state and is going to go for Obama
in a big way. That means his vote is meaningless and won't cause any harm.
Thank Zeus for small blessings.

Hawke

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
m...
Ed Huntress wrote:

Besides, you're just lengthening Ed's hardon for Sarah, if that's
possible. wink (Note to Ed: I voted for McCain and Palin
yesterday. I drop it in the mail today. Oregon is all vote-by-mail.)


Good for you! It's good to hear that you voted for a real candidate. Now
you're partly responsible for whatever happens, whether your candidate
wins
or loses. That's the price of democracy. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress



We went to dinner tonight at Jason's Deli where the big screen TV on the
wall said Obama had already won this election.

Two things?

First, I remember why I turned off commercial TV. (gag)

Second, I thought we get to vote first?!?


Even the McCain campaign is resigned to defeat at this point. Palin is not
taking orders from McCain anymore, she's looking out for her future in the
party now, Romney is slated to be running the party as of Nov 5th, staffers
are fighting with each other, there is still no coherent message for the
campaign, and Obama is leading in so many "red" states that he's already got
enough electoral votes for a victory. As of today it's all over but the
shouting and the McCain team knows this better than anyone.

Hawke

"Ignoramus13094" wrote in message
...
Here's a list of prominent Republicans who support Obama:


http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/1...-behind-obama/

i

When even republicans stop supporting their own party's candidate you know
the jig is up.


Hawke

i

Cripes, I'll bet my name isn't on the list. g

BTW, I've volunteered to be a poll worker. They need Republicans. Most of
them around here are blind or otherwise incapacitated.

I'm anticipating an interesting day.

Maybe, but you'll most likely be bored because you'll have nothing to do.

Hawke

Here's a list of prominent Republicans who support Obama:


http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/1...republicans-li
ne-up-behind-obama/

i



http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/d...15/104660.html

http://www.democratsformccain.com/

http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blog...hn-mccain.html

Friday, September 19, 2008
More Democrats Switching To John McCain

While the Obama campaign has seen a few Republicans switching to
Barack Obama, word is coming down that more and more Democrats are
publicly coming out for John McCain.

The Obama campaign touts Republicans like Rep. Wayne Gilchrest of
Maryland, former Iowa Rep. Jim Leach and former Rhode Island Sen.
Lincoln Chafee.

Recently a high profile Clinton supporter and DNC member, Lynn
Forester de Rothschild also known as a "Hillraiser" (someone that
helped collect over $100,000 for the Clinton campaign) made a public
announcement that she was endorsing John McCain and would be
campaigning on his behalf until election day.

Yesterday we reported that real estate magnate Donald Trump had
announced his endorsement of John McCain and he did so on CNN's Larry
King. Trump has previously donated to Hillary Clinton until May when
he made contributions to the McCain campaign

Today we see more previous Clinton supporters coming out in favor of
McCain, such as lifelong Democrat Miguel D. Lausell who is a leading
Latino backer of Hillary Clinton.

Lausell is a Puerto Rican businessman and longtime Democratic activist
and fund-raiser and he says that while he doesn't agree with McCain on
every policy issue, he finds "McCain to be a sound person and a man
with a track record." He continues on to say "I know where he is
coming from."

Mr. Lausell said he feels Sen. Obama "doesn't really regard the
Hispanic community as important." Sen. Clinton won a large majority of
the Hispanic vote in most primaries, and Latino voters are an
important bloc in swing states such as Florida, Nevada and New Mexico.
Most polls show Sen. Obama leads Sen. McCain among Latinos.

Mr. Lausell said that as a "lifelong Democrat," this is the first
time he has supported a Republican presidential candidate. A Harvard
Law School graduate, Mr. Lausell's business career has included a
stint as chief executive of the Puerto Rico Telephone Co. and chairman
of PonceBank, a large Puerto Rican financial institution. Mr. Lausell
once had a position with the Democratic National Committee and served
on a national finance board for Al Gore's unsuccessful 2000
presidential run. In 2004, he helped start a nonprofit aimed at
boosting Latino turnout for Democrats.



Lausell gives his reason for opposing Obama as president by saying,
"The U.S. is in a very difficult situation these days and I don't want
someone without experience at the helm."


Other registered Democrats, every day voters, are going to see
McCain/Palin's campaign stops and rallies and saying they too will be
voting for McCain in November.

Kathy Riordan of Wausau is a registered Democrat who planned to
vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Now she intends to cast a ballot for Republican presidential
nominee John McCain and his running mate Sarah Palin, the governor of
Alaska.

"I think Sarah Palin is an excellent choice, and not just because
she's a woman," Riordan said before Thursday's McCain-Palin rally at
the Resch Center. "It's good to have a governor on one of the tickets.
. I think she brings a different set of skills."



While the latest Rasmussen poll shows McCain and Obama still tied,
people are starting to pay attention to the choices before them and
more and more former Clinton supporters that had previously not made
up their minds are finding themselves drawn to the McCain/Palin
ticket.

Riordan says her decision has nothing to do with gender, but is
instead based on politics. Her problem with Obama she says is that he
is too far to the left for her liking.

Now that prominent Clinton supporters are going public with their
support for John McCain, it will not be surprising if many more follow
their lead.


With McCain doing so well how can we get Gummer to bet on the election.
He'll take McCain, of course. I'll bet 1,000. against his house.


Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...


:

Jeez, and here Sarah Palin thinks they're about as accurate as can
be.
As she said on Oct. 4th, "Turns out one of Barack's earliest
supporters is a man who, according to the New York Times, and they
are
hardly ever wrong..."

Do you know something she doesn't? Or is she really just as dumb as a
fence post?

She has an especially fine-tuned appreciation for Irony. G

Please don't post metalworking items in the metal newsgroups, Eregon.
This is a political group. :^)

Besides, you're just lengthening Ed's hardon for Sarah, if that's
possible. wink (Note to Ed: I voted for McCain and Palin
yesterday. I drop it in the mail today. Oregon is all vote-by-mail.)

Good for you! It's good to hear that you voted for a real candidate. Now
you're partly responsible for whatever happens, whether your candidate
wins
or loses. That's the price of democracy. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Luckily for the country Oregon is a blue state and is going to go for
Obama
in a big way. That means his vote is meaningless and won't cause any harm.
Thank Zeus for small blessings.

Nobody's vote is meaningless! Even the failure to vote has meaning -- it
means you'll forfeit to others the decision about how you'll be governed.
But voting for anyone has a significant meaning.

If you mean that his candidate probably won't determine who wins, you could
say the same of any vote, including a vote for Obama. Voting is an
individual act in support of democracy, not an individual decision about how
the country will be run.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:31:00 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On 27 Oct 2008 02:49:18 GMT, the infamous Eregon Eregon@Saphira.ørg
scrawled the following:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:

Jeez, and here Sarah Palin thinks they're about as accurate as can be.
As she said on Oct. 4th, "Turns out one of Barack's earliest
supporters is a man who, according to the New York Times, and they are
hardly ever wrong..."

Do you know something she doesn't? Or is she really just as dumb as a
fence post?

She has an especially fine-tuned appreciation for Irony. G

Please don't post metalworking items in the metal newsgroups, Eregon.
This is a political group. :^)

Besides, you're just lengthening Ed's hardon for Sarah, if that's
possible. wink (Note to Ed: I voted for McCain and Palin
yesterday. I drop it in the mail today. Oregon is all vote-by-mail.)

Good for you! It's good to hear that you voted for a real candidate. Now

Heh heh heh. I thought you'd like that.


you're partly responsible for whatever happens, whether your candidate wins
or loses. That's the price of democracy. d8-)

Just as you will be responsible for what your candidate does if he is
elected. I believe you have the heavier burden there, Ed. And if so,
what'll you -do- once Sarah is gone from the media circus? snort

--
Some days, it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 21:46:02 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .

P.S: What's the wife's take on your Sarah fetish?

My wife thinks that Sarah is in over her head and that John McCain must be
off his rocker.

That's likely true of -all- candidates for Prez, VP, and political
positions everywhere. So what's new?


She also thinks that spending $150,000 for clothes is
insane, and she used to be a buyer for fashion departments in Macy's and
Stern's -- buying trips to Italy, and all that.

But SARAH didn't buy (or approve of) them. What's the big problem?
****, Obama and Biden probably spend that much on new suits every
year, and they're _men_. The wardrobe was for both Palin and her
entire family. Dems don't have anything better to criticize?


She keeps trying to watch
Tina Fay on SNL but she falls asleep. g

Can you say "VCR"? I knew you could.


Keep in mind that my wife is from Pontiac, Illinois, where you probably
would be considered a dangerous socialist. d8-)

=:0

--
Some days, it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 06:36:31 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Hawke" wrote in message
...


:

Jeez, and here Sarah Palin thinks they're about as accurate as can
be.
As she said on Oct. 4th, "Turns out one of Barack's earliest
supporters is a man who, according to the New York Times, and they
are
hardly ever wrong..."

Do you know something she doesn't? Or is she really just as dumb as a
fence post?

She has an especially fine-tuned appreciation for Irony. G

Please don't post metalworking items in the metal newsgroups, Eregon.
This is a political group. :^)

Besides, you're just lengthening Ed's hardon for Sarah, if that's
possible. wink (Note to Ed: I voted for McCain and Palin
yesterday. I drop it in the mail today. Oregon is all vote-by-mail.)

Good for you! It's good to hear that you voted for a real candidate. Now
you're partly responsible for whatever happens, whether your candidate
wins
or loses. That's the price of democracy. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Luckily for the country Oregon is a blue state and is going to go for
Obama
in a big way. That means his vote is meaningless and won't cause any harm.
Thank Zeus for small blessings.

(Note to parakeet: 95% of the signs around -here- are McCain/Palin.
It's those turkeys in Portland who may vote for your BamBam.)


Nobody's vote is meaningless! Even the failure to vote has meaning -- it
means you'll forfeit to others the decision about how you'll be governed.
But voting for anyone has a significant meaning.

Aw, hell, Ed. Don't you remember dissing the crap out of me every year
for my 3rd party voting? You kept saying I was wasting my votes, ya
2-face. sticking tongue out at Ed


If you mean that his candidate probably won't determine who wins, you could
say the same of any vote, including a vote for Obama. Voting is an
individual act in support of democracy, not an individual decision about how
the country will be run.

And a non-religious, non-sectarian "Amen" there, brother.

P.S: Why are you bothering to reply to the known trolls like parakeet?

--
Some days, it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:31:00 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On 27 Oct 2008 02:49:18 GMT, the infamous Eregon Eregon@Saphira.ørg
scrawled the following:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:

Jeez, and here Sarah Palin thinks they're about as accurate as can be.
As she said on Oct. 4th, "Turns out one of Barack's earliest
supporters is a man who, according to the New York Times, and they are
hardly ever wrong..."

Do you know something she doesn't? Or is she really just as dumb as a
fence post?

She has an especially fine-tuned appreciation for Irony. G

Please don't post metalworking items in the metal newsgroups, Eregon.
This is a political group. :^)

Besides, you're just lengthening Ed's hardon for Sarah, if that's
possible. wink (Note to Ed: I voted for McCain and Palin
yesterday. I drop it in the mail today. Oregon is all vote-by-mail.)

Good for you! It's good to hear that you voted for a real candidate. Now

Heh heh heh. I thought you'd like that.


you're partly responsible for whatever happens, whether your candidate
wins
or loses. That's the price of democracy. d8-)

Just as you will be responsible for what your candidate does if he is
elected. I believe you have the heavier burden there, Ed.

It wouldn't matter who was elected, he's in for a hellish time. It would be
worse for McCain, with a Congress trying to pull in another direction.

And if so,
what'll you -do- once Sarah is gone from the media circus? snort

She won't be gone. Watch her make a play to be the de-facto leader of the
Republican Party, starting...oh, say last week. g

The Party is already polarized as a result of this election. If she has a
between-elections presence, she'll split it right in two. The Republicans
are going to have a battle for the new direction the Party will take.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:47:24 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .

Just as you will be responsible for what your candidate does if he is
elected. I believe you have the heavier burden there, Ed.

It wouldn't matter who was elected, he's in for a hellish time. It would be
worse for McCain, with a Congress trying to pull in another direction.

Perhaps, but I was thinking about how the fit's gonna hit the shan
when Obama's projects end up costing us more than the war has.


And if so,
what'll you -do- once Sarah is gone from the media circus? snort

She won't be gone. Watch her make a play to be the de-facto leader of the
Republican Party, starting...oh, say last week. g

You'd like that, wouldn't you, ya horndog?


The Party is already polarized as a result of this election. If she has a
between-elections presence, she'll split it right in two. The Republicans
are going to have a battle for the new direction the Party will take.

If the party takes the high road, that'll be good. But if they revert
to their lower selves and turn super-conservative and moral-majoritize
(like my new word?) it again, they're in for real trouble, as they
should be.

--
Some days, it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 21:46:02 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..

P.S: What's the wife's take on your Sarah fetish?

My wife thinks that Sarah is in over her head and that John McCain must be
off his rocker.

That's likely true of -all- candidates for Prez, VP, and political
positions everywhere. So what's new?


She also thinks that spending $150,000 for clothes is
insane, and she used to be a buyer for fashion departments in Macy's and
Stern's -- buying trips to Italy, and all that.

But SARAH didn't buy (or approve of) them.

At first it looked like Sarah was nutz. Now, with further reports, it's
clear that her aides are nutz.

What's the big problem?

Joe Sixpacks, hockey moms, working men and women, the middle class...and
$150,000 wardrobes. That's called "cognitive dissonance."

****, Obama and Biden probably spend that much on new suits every
year, and they're _men_.

That's absurd.

The wardrobe was for both Palin and her
entire family.

It's still nutz. It's for clothes for one month.

Dems don't have anything better to criticize?

Sure. They have quite a laundry list. d8-)

She keeps trying to watch
Tina Fay on SNL but she falls asleep. g

Can you say "VCR"? I knew you could.

The VCR died about four years ago. And our DVD player doesn't record.



Keep in mind that my wife is from Pontiac, Illinois, where you probably
would be considered a dangerous socialist. d8-)

=:0

You'd be in trouble there, pard'. I wear camo or overalls when I visit.

--
Ed Huntress

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 06:36:31 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

snip



Nobody's vote is meaningless! Even the failure to vote has meaning -- it
means you'll forfeit to others the decision about how you'll be governed.
But voting for anyone has a significant meaning.

Aw, hell, Ed. Don't you remember dissing the crap out of me every year
for my 3rd party voting? You kept saying I was wasting my votes, ya
2-face. sticking tongue out at Ed

Hey, I didn't say that all votes are signs of positive mental health. They
just mean *something*. For example, a vote for Ralph Nader means "I forgot
to refill my prescription." A vote for Barr means "My grandfather's horse
has lumbago."


If you mean that his candidate probably won't determine who wins, you
could
say the same of any vote, including a vote for Obama. Voting is an
individual act in support of democracy, not an individual decision about
how
the country will be run.

And a non-religious, non-sectarian "Amen" there, brother.

P.S: Why are you bothering to reply to the known trolls like parakeet?

Some things just need to be addressed.

--
Ed Huntress

On 2008-10-28, Larry Jaques novalidaddress@di wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:47:24 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..

Just as you will be responsible for what your candidate does if he is
elected. I believe you have the heavier burden there, Ed.

It wouldn't matter who was elected, he's in for a hellish time. It would be
worse for McCain, with a Congress trying to pull in another direction.

Perhaps, but I was thinking about how the fit's gonna hit the shan
when Obama's projects end up costing us more than the war has.

The hope is that there is some benefit from these projects, unlike
from the war.

If the party takes the high road, that'll be good. But if they revert
to their lower selves and turn super-conservative and moral-majoritize
(like my new word?) it again, they're in for real trouble, as they
should be.

I think that the Republican party is becoming marginalized.

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

"Ignoramus20172" wrote in message
...
On 2008-10-28, Larry Jaques novalidaddress@di wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:47:24 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

Just as you will be responsible for what your candidate does if he is
elected. I believe you have the heavier burden there, Ed.

It wouldn't matter who was elected, he's in for a hellish time. It would
be
worse for McCain, with a Congress trying to pull in another direction.

Perhaps, but I was thinking about how the fit's gonna hit the shan
when Obama's projects end up costing us more than the war has.

The hope is that there is some benefit from these projects, unlike
from the war.

If the party takes the high road, that'll be good. But if they revert
to their lower selves and turn super-conservative and moral-majoritize
(like my new word?) it again, they're in for real trouble, as they
should be.

I think that the Republican party is becoming marginalized.


"Radical conservatives in this country have an interesting time of it, for
when they are not being suppressed or mutilated by Liberals, they are being
ignored or humiliated by a great many of those of the well-fed Right, whose
ignorance and amorality have never been exaggerated for the same reason that
one cannot exaggerate infinity."

Fast-forward half a century, and the old is the new.

Radical conservatives are still having an interesting time of it, though
these days they are being mutilated by fellow "conservatives." The well-fed
Right now cultivates ignorance as a political strategy and humiliates itself
when its brightest sons seek sanctuary in the solitude of personal honor.

The truth few wish to utter is that the GOP has abandoned many
conservatives, who mostly nurse their angst in private. Those chickens we
keep hearing about have indeed come home to roost. Years of pandering to the
extreme wing -- the "kooks" the senior Buckley tried to separate from the
right -- have created a party no longer attentive to its principles.

Instead, as Christopher Buckley pointed out in a blog post on
thedailybeast.com explaining his departure from National Review, eight years
of "conservatism" have brought us "a doubled national debt, ruinous
expansion of entitlement programs, bridges to nowhere, poster boy Jack
Abramoff and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of
breathtaking arrogance."



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1



JC

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:47:24 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..

Just as you will be responsible for what your candidate does if he is
elected. I believe you have the heavier burden there, Ed.

It wouldn't matter who was elected, he's in for a hellish time. It would
be
worse for McCain, with a Congress trying to pull in another direction.

Perhaps, but I was thinking about how the fit's gonna hit the shan
when Obama's projects end up costing us more than the war has.

If you read any of the economic analyses by real economists, McCain's
program would cut revenues by $4.2 trillion over ten years; Obama's would
cut them by $2.9 trillion. McCain would, if he could, dig us a far deeper
hole than Obama. The national debt would be off the charts.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publi....cfm?ID=411750

You have to read a lot of stuff to see what the experts are saying about the
prospects for either program stimulating economic growth. The consensus
seems to be that either program would have any positive effects completely
masked by deficits: in other words, neither program would contribute to real
growth in the economy; we'd get only a debt-based sugar high, like the ones
that Bush has accomplished, while the hole was getting dug deeper. FWIW,
_The Economist_ polled a few hundred of the world's top economists and 80%
said Obama's plan is the better one for the economy. I'm not going to argue
the point because neither you nor I, nor anyone else here, could possibly
judge it.

However, neither one of them will be able to do what they want. They'll go
"on hold," and some of it will dribble out when the economy picks up. Don't
expect much to happen on healthcare for a while. And don't expect those
bridges to be fixed.


And if so,
what'll you -do- once Sarah is gone from the media circus? snort

She won't be gone. Watch her make a play to be the de-facto leader of the
Republican Party, starting...oh, say last week. g

You'd like that, wouldn't you, ya horndog?


The Party is already polarized as a result of this election. If she has a
between-elections presence, she'll split it right in two. The Republicans
are going to have a battle for the new direction the Party will take.

If the party takes the high road, that'll be good. But if they revert
to their lower selves and turn super-conservative and moral-majoritize
(like my new word?) it again, they're in for real trouble, as they
should be.

Probably true. But I see no way that new leadership will come from the
moderates. If it's Romney, he'll turn on a dime to pander to one side or the
other, and everyone knows it. I don't believe he can unify the party. I
don't think anyone can, because the Republican Party is an ad-hoc coalition
that was thrown together to win elections. It has no real coherence, and no
staying power. Gingrich's dream has gone upside-down.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:19:08 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 21:46:02 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

P.S: What's the wife's take on your Sarah fetish?

My wife thinks that Sarah is in over her head and that John McCain must be
off his rocker.

That's likely true of -all- candidates for Prez, VP, and political
positions everywhere. So what's new?


She also thinks that spending $150,000 for clothes is
insane, and she used to be a buyer for fashion departments in Macy's and
Stern's -- buying trips to Italy, and all that.

But SARAH didn't buy (or approve of) them.

At first it looked like Sarah was nutz. Now, with further reports, it's
clear that her aides are nutz.

What's the big problem?

Joe Sixpacks, hockey moms, working men and women, the middle class...and
$150,000 wardrobes. That's called "cognitive dissonance."

Only in the minds of people looking to ruin someone's rep. Then
again, politics itself is cognitive dissonance.

Besides, Joe Sixpack didn't run for VP, but if he did, he'd want a
nice suit, eh? That money was for, what?, a _year's_ outfits for the
woman and her entire family, and that was only -after- the Dems had
been dissing her current wardrobe. The aides decided to do something
about it and got a bit carried away, but it's really nothing. I wish
we had some figures from other nominees with which to compare.


****, Obama and Biden probably spend that much on new suits every
year, and they're _men_.

That's absurd.

OK, let's say $20k each, but not a penny less. That kind of wardrobe
money would see -me- through the rest of my life.


The wardrobe was for both Palin and her
entire family.

It's still nutz. It's for clothes for one month.

Ed, it was NOT clothes for a month. It it was all the clothes,
makeup, and accessories since her nomination, for the convention,
stumping through the states, and covering her through her installation
as VP. Clothes for an entire family for the better part of a year.

I wonder what Hillary's clothing allotment was for her run for Prez.
I'd give you million to one odds it easily beat the $159k. The
Clintons grossed $109 million last year. I wish I had kept a copy of
Hillabitch's tax record page when it was still up. I'd show you.


Dems don't have anything better to criticize?

Sure. They have quite a laundry list. d8-)

I believe you misspelled "we" there, Ed. You're right in there.
And their laundry list is as probably made by the same type of people
you don't like making laundry lists on Obama, but from the other side
of the aisle. You'll believe theirs but not ours? Mmm hmm.


She keeps trying to watch
Tina Fay on SNL but she falls asleep. g

Can you say "VCR"? I knew you could.

The VCR died about four years ago. And our DVD player doesn't record.

Her loss.


Keep in mind that my wife is from Pontiac, Illinois, where you probably
would be considered a dangerous socialist. d8-)

=:0

You'd be in trouble there, pard'. I wear camo or overalls when I visit.

Oy vay!

--
Some days, it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:49:17 -0500, the infamous Ignoramus20172
scrawled the following:

On 2008-10-28, Larry Jaques novalidaddress@di wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:47:24 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

Just as you will be responsible for what your candidate does if he is
elected. I believe you have the heavier burden there, Ed.

It wouldn't matter who was elected, he's in for a hellish time. It would be
worse for McCain, with a Congress trying to pull in another direction.

Perhaps, but I was thinking about how the fit's gonna hit the shan
when Obama's projects end up costing us more than the war has.

The hope is that there is some benefit from these projects, unlike
from the war.

Isn't that like Paulson's "hope" that banks would use the @#$%@#$
bailout money to make _loans_?


If the party takes the high road, that'll be good. But if they revert
to their lower selves and turn super-conservative and moral-majoritize
(like my new word?) it again, they're in for real trouble, as they
should be.

I think that the Republican party is becoming marginalized.

No, the American people have become marginalized...by the media, our
politicians, and their puppeteers.

--
Some days, it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.

On 2008-10-29, Larry Jaques novalidaddress@di wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:49:17 -0500, the infamous Ignoramus20172
scrawled the following:

On 2008-10-28, Larry Jaques novalidaddress@di wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:47:24 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
m...

Just as you will be responsible for what your candidate does if he is
elected. I believe you have the heavier burden there, Ed.

It wouldn't matter who was elected, he's in for a hellish time. It would be
worse for McCain, with a Congress trying to pull in another direction.

Perhaps, but I was thinking about how the fit's gonna hit the shan
when Obama's projects end up costing us more than the war has.

The hope is that there is some benefit from these projects, unlike
from the war.

Isn't that like Paulson's "hope" that banks would use the @#$%@#$
bailout money to make _loans_?

Possibly, Obama will do something smarter with the money. Possibly, not.


If the party takes the high road, that'll be good. But if they revert
to their lower selves and turn super-conservative and moral-majoritize
(like my new word?) it again, they're in for real trouble, as they
should be.

I think that the Republican party is becoming marginalized.

No, the American people have become marginalized...by the media, our
politicians, and their puppeteers.

That's now how I personally feel.

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

On Oct 28, 8:51*pm, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:19:08 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:







"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 21:46:02 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

P.S: What's the wife's take on your Sarah fetish?

My wife thinks that Sarah is in over her head and that John McCain must be
off his rocker.

That's likely true of -all- candidates for Prez, VP, and political
positions everywhere. *So what's new?

She also thinks that spending $150,000 for clothes is
insane, and she used to be a buyer for fashion departments in Macy's and
Stern's -- buying trips to Italy, and all that.

But SARAH didn't buy (or approve of) them.

At first it looked like Sarah was nutz. Now, with further reports, it's
clear that her aides are nutz.

What's the big problem?

Joe Sixpacks, hockey moms, working men and women, the middle class...and
$150,000 wardrobes. That's called "cognitive dissonance."

Only in the minds of people looking to ruin someone's rep. *Then
again, politics itself is cognitive dissonance.

Besides, Joe Sixpack didn't run for VP, but if he did, he'd want a
nice suit, eh? *That money was for, what?, a _year's_ outfits for the
woman and her entire family, and that was only -after- the Dems had
been dissing her current wardrobe. The aides decided to do something
about it and got a bit carried away, but it's really nothing. I wish
we had some figures from other nominees with which to compare.

****, Obama and Biden probably spend that much on new suits every
year, and they're _men_.

That's absurd.

OK, let's say $20k each, but not a penny less. *That kind of wardrobe
money would see -me- through the rest of my life. *

The wardrobe was for both Palin and her
entire family.

It's still nutz. It's for clothes for one month.

Ed, it was NOT clothes for a month. *It it was all the clothes,
makeup, and accessories since her nomination, for the convention,
stumping through the states, and covering her through her installation
as VP. *Clothes for an entire family for the better part of a year.

I wonder what Hillary's clothing allotment was for her run for Prez.
I'd give you million to one odds it easily beat the $159k. The
Clintons grossed $109 million last year. *I wish I had kept a copy of
Hillabitch's tax record page when it was still up. I'd show you.

Dems don't have anything better to criticize?

Sure. They have quite a laundry list. d8-)

I believe you misspelled "we" there, Ed. *You're right in there.
And their laundry list is as probably made by the same type of people
you don't like making laundry lists on Obama, but from the other side
of the aisle. *You'll believe theirs but not ours? *Mmm hmm.

She keeps trying to watch
Tina Fay on SNL but she falls asleep. g

Can you say "VCR"? *I knew you could.

The VCR died about four years ago. And our DVD player doesn't record.

Her loss.

Keep in mind that my wife is from Pontiac, Illinois, where you probably
would be considered a dangerous socialist. d8-)

=:0

You'd be in trouble there, pard'. I wear camo or overalls when I visit.

Oy vay!

--
Some days, it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The cost of the other candidates clothes is not an issue.

Each of the other three canidates, including McSame, have stated
they buy their own clothes. Only Palin, who reported her family
income last year as over $250,000.00, received anything.

dennis
in nca

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:38:28 -0700 (PDT), the infamous rigger
scrawled the following:

On Oct 28, 8:51*pm, Larry Jaques
wrote:

Ed, it was NOT clothes for a month. *It it was all the clothes,
makeup, and accessories since her nomination, for the convention,
stumping through the states, and covering her through her installation
as VP. *Clothes for an entire family for the better part of a year.

The cost of the other candidates clothes is not an issue.

Each of the other three canidates, including McSame, have stated
they buy their own clothes. Only Palin, who reported her family
income last year as over $250,000.00, received anything.

Please note that Palin did NOT request the clothing -or- the allotment
for such. She generally buys her own clothes.

The decision to outfit the nominee and her family was a marketing
thing by the RNC, whether you like it or not. It backfired on them
and that's that.

Move along. There's just flat _nothing_ to see here, folks.

--
Change is the process by which the future invades our lives.
-- Alvin Toffler

On Oct 30, 12:18*pm, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:38:28 -0700 (PDT), the infamous rigger
scrawled the following:

On Oct 28, 8:51*pm, Larry Jaques
wrote:
Ed, it was NOT clothes for a month. *It it was all the clothes,
makeup, and accessories since her nomination, for the convention,
stumping through the states, and covering her through her installation
as VP. *Clothes for an entire family for the better part of a year.

The cost of the other candidates clothes is not an issue.

Each of the other three canidates, including McSame, have stated
they buy their own clothes. *Only Palin, who reported her family
income last year as over $250,000.00, received anything.

Please note that Palin did NOT request the clothing -or- the allotment
for such. She generally buys her own clothes.

The decision to outfit the nominee and her family was a marketing
thing by the RNC, whether you like it or not. *It backfired on them
and that's that.

Move along. *There's just flat _nothing_ to see here, folks.

--
Change is the process by which the future invades our lives.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Alvin Toffler

Move along. There's just flat _nothing_ to see here, folks.

Except for the fact that after Palin reported her $250,000.00
income is when she said she and her family shop at thrift
stores. Even if you were so gullable as to believe this you'd
have to also believe she's whipping the bargains out from under
the noses of people with families that NEED to shop at thrift
stores.

Anyway you look at it it stinks.

dennis
in nca

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:18:47 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:
snip
Please note that Palin did NOT request the clothing -or- the allotment
for such. She generally buys her own clothes.

The decision to outfit the nominee and her family was a marketing
thing by the RNC, whether you like it or not. It backfired on them
and that's that.

Move along. There's just flat _nothing_ to see here, folks.
----------------------
The story is *NOT* about the clothes, but how far out of touch
the RNC now is with the real world. Laissez-les manger
gteau! (Let them eat cake!) seems to be their current guiding
principal.

If the RNC was to set down and try to come up with some
in-your-face action that would alienate the maximum numbers of
their base/core constituent, as well as the huge block of
"undecided" voters, they would be hard pressed to top this.

---------------
snip
Pat’s attitude toward politics changed in the 1952 election, when
her husband, the vice presidential nominee on the Republican
ticket, was forced to defend himself from charges that he had
kept a secret slush fund for campaign expenses. In his nationally
televised “Checkers” speech, Richard bared the family finances
and spoke admiringly of Pat, ==noting that she did not own a fur
coat but only a “respectable Republican cloth coat.”== {emphasis
added}
snip
----------------
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...6462/Pat-Nixon

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:21:26 -0700 (PDT), the infamous rigger
scrawled the following:

On Oct 30, 12:18*pm, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:38:28 -0700 (PDT), the infamous rigger
scrawled the following:

On Oct 28, 8:51*pm, Larry Jaques
wrote:
Ed, it was NOT clothes for a month. *It it was all the clothes,
makeup, and accessories since her nomination, for the convention,
stumping through the states, and covering her through her installation
as VP. *Clothes for an entire family for the better part of a year.

The cost of the other candidates clothes is not an issue.

Each of the other three canidates, including McSame, have stated
they buy their own clothes. *Only Palin, who reported her family
income last year as over $250,000.00, received anything.

Please note that Palin did NOT request the clothing -or- the allotment
for such. She generally buys her own clothes.

The decision to outfit the nominee and her family was a marketing
thing by the RNC, whether you like it or not. *It backfired on them
and that's that.

Move along. *There's just flat _nothing_ to see here, folks.

--
Change is the process by which the future invades our lives.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Alvin Toffler

Move along. There's just flat _nothing_ to see here, folks.

Except for the fact that after Palin reported her $250,000.00
income is when she said she and her family shop at thrift
stores. Even if you were so gullable as to believe this you'd
have to also believe she's whipping the bargains out from under
the noses of people with families that NEED to shop at thrift
stores.

People of all income levels -like- to find bargains. That's why so
bloody many pawn shops, flea markets, import shops, garage sales,
thrift shops, and 2nd hand dress stores stay in business. If you're
"above" that, so be it. Just don't overlook facts of life, eh?

And if she weren't Thrift Shop Chic, why did the RNC think she needed
all those new clothes, hmmm?


Anyway you look at it it stinks.

Perhaps to a liberal Democrat. To Joe Average Voter, it doesn't.
One of the polls I took part in (NYDN) showed 44% saying "Who Cares?"
in regard to the wardrobe issue.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/2008/10/27/2008-10-27_barbara_walters_blames_republicans_not_s.html

--
Everything I did in my life that was worthwhile I caught hell for.
-- Earl Warren

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:22:59 -0600, the infamous F. George McDuffee
scrawled the following:

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:18:47 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:
snip
Please note that Palin did NOT request the clothing -or- the allotment
for such. She generally buys her own clothes.

The decision to outfit the nominee and her family was a marketing
thing by the RNC, whether you like it or not. It backfired on them
and that's that.

Move along. There's just flat _nothing_ to see here, folks.
----------------------
The story is *NOT* about the clothes, but how far out of touch
the RNC now is with the real world. Laissez-les manger
gteau! (Let them eat cake!) seems to be their current guiding
principal.

If the RNC was to set down and try to come up with some
in-your-face action that would alienate the maximum numbers of
their base/core constituent, as well as the huge block of
"undecided" voters, they would be hard pressed to top this.

You've got to admit that she looks much better in the more nicely cut
anf fitted clothes. What ****es me off is that the press and Dems are
sniffing after her as if she was the next person to be chosen for a
Goddess.

She's not, she's simply a person running for VP, a fairly lowly job in
the gov't with the one exception of being next in line after a death.

Has anyone figured the odds of her having to take over the top job in
the next 4 years? They've got to be awfully high.

I'm sure glad I gave up TV and broadcast radio. Newsies are bad
enough. Feh!

--
Everything I did in my life that was worthwhile I caught hell for.
-- Earl Warren

On Oct 31, 9:10*pm, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:21:26 -0700 (PDT), the infamous rigger
scrawled the following:





On Oct 30, 12:18*pm, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:38:28 -0700 (PDT), the infamous rigger
scrawled the following:

On Oct 28, 8:51*pm, Larry Jaques
wrote:
Ed, it was NOT clothes for a month. *It it was all the clothes,
makeup, and accessories since her nomination, for the convention,
stumping through the states, and covering her through her installation
as VP. *Clothes for an entire family for the better part of a year.

On Oct 31, 9:17*pm, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:22:59 -0600, the infamous F. George McDuffee
scrawled the following:





On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:18:47 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:
snip
Please note that Palin did NOT request the clothing -or- the allotment
for such. She generally buys her own clothes.

The decision to outfit the nominee and her family was a marketing
thing by the RNC, whether you like it or not. *It backfired on them
and that's that.

Move along. *There's just flat _nothing_ to see here, folks.
----------------------
The story is *NOT* about the clothes, but how far out of touch
the RNC now is with the real world. *Laissez-les manger
gteau! (Let them eat cake!) seems to be their current guiding
principal.

If the RNC was to set down and try to come up with some
in-your-face action that would alienate the maximum numbers of
their base/core constituent, as well as the huge block of
"undecided" *voters, they would be hard pressed to top this.

You've got to admit that she looks much better in the more nicely cut
anf fitted clothes. *What ****es me off is that the press and Dems are
sniffing after her as if she was the next person to be chosen for a
Goddess.

She's not, she's simply a person running for VP, a fairly lowly job in
the gov't with the one exception of being next in line after a death.

Has anyone figured the odds of her having to take over the top job in
the next 4 years? *They've got to be awfully high.

I'm sure glad I gave up TV and broadcast radio. Newsies are bad
enough. *Feh!

--
Everything I did in my life that was worthwhile I caught hell for.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Earl Warren- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Has anyone figured the odds of her having to take over the top job
in
the next 4 years? They've got to be awfully high. "

Heh, it's funny about that; we really don't know.

Would you know a way to get McSame to make
a full disclosure of his health records??????

WHY, WHY WHY WHY hasen't he?????????

But you'll vote for him anyway??? Good thinking.

dennis
in nca

On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 11:12:33 -0700 (PDT), the infamous rigger
scrawled the following:

I say bull**** to that idea Larry.

Of course you do, Dennis.


If the sides were switched and it was Obama
or Biden spending the party's money, to the
tune of $150.000.00 on clothes you'd be
screaming your head off as would every
pub on the group.

Why would I care what they spent on clothes, fer chrissake?
They've spent millions a day on other types of advertising.

What sickens me is the total money wasted on these bloody campaigns
are in the $100-million area. That's enough to run a small _country_
for a year, knowwhatImean,Vern?


To say nothing of the $10,000.00 or so a
month for makeup.
Where's the "conservative" part?
Be honest.

National campaigns _aren't_.

Only a local can get away with a conservative campaign.

--
Everything I did in my life that was worthwhile I caught hell for.
-- Earl Warren

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 17:05:08 -0700, the infamous Larry Jaques
scrawled the following:

On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 11:12:33 -0700 (PDT), the infamous rigger
scrawled the following:

I say bull**** to that idea Larry.

Of course you do, Dennis.


If the sides were switched and it was Obama
or Biden spending the party's money, to the
tune of $150.000.00 on clothes you'd be
screaming your head off as would every
pub on the group.

Why would I care what they spent on clothes, fer chrissake?
They've spent millions a day on other types of advertising.

What sickens me is the total money wasted on these bloody campaigns
are in the $100-million area. That's enough to run a small _country_
for a year, knowwhatImean,Vern?

Oops, correction: I forgot that $100Mil figure was just what BamBam
raised by himself. The campaigns have cost close to two and a half
BILLION.

--
Everything I did in my life that was worthwhile I caught hell for.
-- Earl Warren

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:21:26 -0700 (PDT), rigger
wrote:


Move along. There's just flat _nothing_ to see here, folks.

Except for the fact that after Palin reported her $250,000.00
income is when she said she and her family shop at thrift
stores. Even if you were so gullable as to believe this you'd
have to also believe she's whipping the bargains out from under
the noses of people with families that NEED to shop at thrift
stores.

Anyway you look at it it stinks.

dennis


You of course have proof that she and her family doesnt shop at thrift
stored.

Please trot it out so the rest of us can view it.

Or are you again, simply spewing your bilious opinion?

Gunner

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 11:12:33 -0700 (PDT), rigger wrote:


Perhaps to a liberal Democrat. *To Joe Average Voter, it doesn't.
One of the polls I took part in (NYDN) showed 44% saying "Who Cares?"
in regard to the wardrobe issue.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/2008/10/27/2008-10-27_bar...

--
Everything I did in my life that was worthwhile I caught hell for.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Earl Warren- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I say bull**** to that idea Larry.


And your cites are where?

Or do you have MPS so bad its driving you insane?

Gunner

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

In article
,
rigger wrote:

Move along. There's just flat _nothing_ to see here, folks.

Except for the fact that after Palin reported her $250,000.00
income is when she said she and her family shop at thrift
stores. Even if you were so gullable as to believe this you'd
have to also believe she's whipping the bargains out from under
the noses of people with families that NEED to shop at thrift
stores.

And she'd be giving money to those who need it that had their clothes on
consignment at the thrift store.
There is nothing stopping those who are more needy than the Palins from
getting to the thrift shop before they do. Well, nothing other than
that which puts them in that position to begin with.

Anyway you look at it it stinks.

Of course, if that's what you want.