http://www.iowapresidentialwatch.com...reYears-Md.jpg



JOAT
Even Popeye didn't eat his spinach until he had to.

On Dec 6, 12:36 am, (J T) wrote:
http://www.iowapresidentialwatch.com...reYears-Md.jpg

JOAT
Even Popeye didn't eat his spinach until he had to.

Hillary.... could the Democrats do the GOP a bigger favour?

On Dec 6, 6:48 am, Robatoy wrote:
On Dec 6, 12:36 am, (J T) wrote:

http://www.iowapresidentialwatch.com...reYears-Md.jpg

JOAT
Even Popeye didn't eat his spinach until he had to.

Hillary.... could the Democrats do the GOP a bigger favour?

Think of all the chicks the Big Dog can nail when she's in overseas
conferences.

Remember, it's marathon, not a sprint. My money's on Barry HUSSEIN
Obama. Which is cool with me cos he'll represent a "first". We've
never had a President Barry. Nothing but Jameses, Johns and
Franklins...

Jeff

Robatoy wrote:

Hillary.... could the Democrats do the GOP a bigger favour?

You referring to that bunch of middle aged white guys who appear to be
totally clueless?

Lew

On Dec 6, 1:01 pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
Hillary.... could the Democrats do the GOP a bigger favour?

You referring to that bunch of middle aged white guys who appear to be
totally clueless?

Lew

Given the last seven or so years, I'd suggest Berni. Berni is an 11
year old female mutt--part dachshund and part some kind of terrier--
who basically likes to be overfed and overpetted, thus shows more
wisdom than is apparent in the entire Republican Party and a large
segment of the Democratic Party.

One thing has baffled me about Clinton's critics: most are
conservatives (small and capital C) who staunchly defend family values
(with the occasional exception such Giuliani, Gingrich, Craig and a
few thousand others), standing by one's man and so forth, yet for
years, they've criticized her as a bitch for not divorcing her husband
when he drops trou in the wrong places.

Tammy Wynette where are you now that we need you?

"Charlie Self" wrote:

One thing has baffled me about Clinton's critics: most are
conservatives (small and capital C) who staunchly defend family
values
(with the occasional exception such Giuliani, Gingrich, Craig and a
few thousand others), standing by one's man and so forth, yet for
years, they've criticized her as a bitch for not divorcing her
husband
when he drops trou in the wrong places.

I get the impression that as a group they are scared s__tless of her
and what, as a woman, she represents.

As a result are running around like Chicken Little announcing the sky
is falling.

Lew

On Dec 6, 2:55 pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"Charlie Self" wrote:
One thing has baffled me about Clinton's critics: most are
conservatives (small and capital C) who staunchly defend family
values
(with the occasional exception such Giuliani, Gingrich, Craig and a
few thousand others), standing by one's man and so forth, yet for
years, they've criticized her as a bitch for not divorcing her
husband
when he drops trou in the wrong places.

I get the impression that as a group they are scared s__tless of her
and what, as a woman, she represents.

As a result are running around like Chicken Little announcing the sky
is falling.


That, too.

Thu, Dec 6, 2007, 11:33am (EST-3) (Charlie*Self)
doth sayeth:
snip One thing has baffled me about Clinton's critics: most are
conservatives (small and capital C) who staunchly defend family values
(with the occasional exception such Giuliani, Gingrich, Craig and a few
thousand others), standing by one's man and so forth, yet for years,
they've criticized her as a bitch for not divorcing her husband when he
drops trou in the wrong places. snip

I consider myself a conservative. However, a llot of people
consider me a extreme liveral - possibly because I believe in the death
penalty, and that it ought to be used more often. I also believe we
should be putting more politicians in jaim. Anyway...

I've been a critic of the Clintons long before Slick Willy was
president the first time. I don't think Hillary is a bitch for sticking
by him, stupid comes to mine, but more likely it's only for her
political advantage. Personally I sincerely hope she doesn't get
elected, I think she hasn't the moral character, and certainly not the
experience, to do an acceptable job - and then there's the horrible
thought of Slick Willy having the run of the White House. She does seem
to be a capable liar tho. I have nothing against a woman president,
just not her - I consider her totally unqualified for the position. I
don't consider her opponents all that much better, but some at least.
Arrrggghhh. Don't get me started on politicians. Arrrrggggghhhhhh!!!



JOAT
Even Popeye didn't eat his spinach until he had to.

Well... I see it has started. Political season is coming! Cartoons,
clever retorts, sound bites, witty reparte, and every one thinks they
are right.

What sufferer of self induced profound retardation ACTUALLY thinks any
of those nitwits running for office give one crap about them?

How have our politicians (speaking of our American politicians only, I
know it isn't polite or politically correct to criticize other
countries....) done such a good selling job that any sane individual
anywhere in this country actually thinks one of those self serving,
petty empire builders cares about them?

The differences in the candidates are fun to enjoy when you see them
ripping each other to shreds as it is like a good catfight (but no
loss of clothes - lucky us!) but in reality there just isn't much
difference anymore.

Just make sure boys, that when the hate threads start and you start
**** blasting each other over political differences that you mark them
"OT".
Thanks for that one, JT.

Robert

Did Dubya actually call the Prime Minister of Isreal, Ehud Olmert,
- Elmo?

Thu, Dec 6, 2007, 3:58pm (EST-3) doth posteth:
snip How have our politicians (speaking of our American politicians
only, I know it isn't polite or politically correct to criticize other
countries....) snip
Just make sure boys, that when the hate threads start and you start ****
blasting each other over political differences that you mark them "OT".
Thanks for that one, JT.

I think that when you've criticized one politician you've pretty
much critized them all, they're all basically the same, just the
language is different - and I do NOT consider that criticizing another
country - politicians are fair game, period.

You're welcome, I considered it the politically correct thing to
do.



JOAT
Even Popeye didn't eat his spinach until he had to.

Lew Hodgett wrote:


"Charlie Self" wrote:

One thing has baffled me about Clinton's critics: most are
conservatives (small and capital C) who staunchly defend family
values
(with the occasional exception such Giuliani, Gingrich, Craig and a
few thousand others), standing by one's man and so forth, yet for
years, they've criticized her as a bitch for not divorcing her
husband
when he drops trou in the wrong places.

I get the impression that as a group they are scared s__tless of her
and what, as a woman, she represents.


What, exactly, as a woman do you think she represents?

Rugged individualism and rising to status on her own? The only reason we
even know who she is comes as a result of her association with her husband.

Great achievements? What exactly has she done? Rose Law firm? First
Lady? Moving to one of the most liberal states in the US in order to get
elected Senator? -- a donkey could have been elected as long as it had a
(D) by its name.

... and the second great hope is a guy who just got elected to the Senate
and has done, what, exactly?



As a result are running around like Chicken Little announcing the sky
is falling.

Well, we certainly know that describing her as a Stalinist is not exactly
hyperbole. "I'm going to take those oil company profits and use them
for ..." If she wants those, what make you think that someday your
profits shouldn't be used to help those she thinks needs help.

/I'm done. This is way too early for presidential election politics anyway.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Dec 6, 6:41 pm, (J T) wrote:
[snipped for brevity]
to be a capable liar tho.I have nothing against a woman president,
just not her -

Who then? Janet Reno?

"Mark & Juanita" wrote:

What, exactly, as a woman do you think she represents?

Someone who has a serious chance to break thru the glass ceiling of
American politics as practiced by the good Old Boys Club".

Gotta be scary as the devil for them.

Lew

Thu, Dec 6, 2007, 8:14pm (EST-3) (Robatoy) doth
postech:
On Dec 6, 6:41 pm, (J T) wrote:
[snipped for brevity]
to be a capable liar tho.I have nothing against a woman president, just
not her -
Who then? Janet Reno?

OK, what I should have said then was "but not her". Janet Reno is
a woman? In any event, not her either. I believe Wassername Rice might
well be qualified tho, if she chose to run. I don't vot "for" any of
'em anymore, just vote against who I figure is least qualified. Which
certainly does not mean I think the other candicate is that much more
qualified, or that much less corrupt. But, if you don't vote, you've
got no right to bitch about whoever does sneak into office.



JOAT
Even Popeye didn't eat his spinach until he had to.

Lew Hodgett wrote:


"Mark & Juanita" wrote:

What, exactly, as a woman do you think she represents?

Someone who has a serious chance to break thru the glass ceiling of
American politics as practiced by the good Old Boys Club".

Gotta be scary as the devil for them.


What a condescending thought. So just because she's a woman you think
conservatives are afraid of her?

That is the equivalent of saying that libs are scared of Ann Coulter just
because she is a woman who is doing well in what was formerly a man's world
of political discourse.

Or for that matter that all libs would be for Kay Bailey Hutchison because
she is a woman breaking through the glass ceiling of American politics.

i.e, conservatives aren't concerned about Hillary because she is a woman,
they are concerned about Hillary because she has shown herself to be
strongly socialist with stalinist tendencies


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Thu, Dec 6, 2007, 8:26pm (EST-3)
(Lew*Hodgett) doth sayeth:
Someone who has a serious chance to break thru the glass ceiling of
American politics as practiced by the good Old Boys Club".
Gotta be scary as the devil for them.

Hah! Scary for the rest of uf too. If she gets in I think we're
all gonna be in deep doo doo. May the Gods have mercy on us all.



JOAT
Even Popeye didn't eat his spinach until he had to.

Robatoy wrote:
On Dec 6, 6:41 pm, (J T) wrote:
[snipped for brevity]

to be a capable liar tho.I have nothing against a woman president,
just not her -


Who then? Janet Reno?

Elizabeth Dole.

(J T) wrote in news:13586-4758D56F-408@storefull-
3335.bay.webtv.net:

Hah! Scary for the rest of uf too. If she gets in I think we're
all gonna be in deep doo doo. May the Gods have mercy on us all.


That presumes there is an entity like that grin.
Whowould you really like as President of this wonderful country?
Someone who rises to the occasion, appoints his cronies, and chases skirts,
with his whole entourage being paid for by the state?

I wouldn't mind a fiscally responsible person, who can keep the rich in
check, does respect individual liberties, AND responsibilities. I even
don't mind if I would get taxed higher if we get a little more responsible
for our environment (here is the wood reference).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Dec 6, 11:41 pm, (J T) wrote:
Thu, Dec 6, 2007, 11:33am (EST-3) (Charlie Self)
doth sayeth:
snip One thing has baffled me about Clinton's critics: most are
conservatives (small and capital C) who staunchly defend family values
(with the occasional exception such Giuliani, Gingrich, Craig and a few
thousand others), standing by one's man and so forth, yet for years,
they've criticized her as a bitch for not divorcing her husband when he
drops trou in the wrong places. snip

I consider myself a conservative. However, a llot of people
consider me a extreme liveral - possibly because I believe in the death
penalty, and that it ought to be used more often. I also believe we
should be putting more politicians in jaim. Anyway...

I've been a critic of the Clintons long before Slick Willy was
president the first time. I don't think Hillary is a bitch for sticking
by him, stupid comes to mine, but more likely it's only for her
political advantage. Personally I sincerely hope she doesn't get
elected, I think she hasn't the moral character, and certainly not the
experience, to do an acceptable job - and then there's the horrible
thought of Slick Willy having the run of the White House. She does seem
to be a capable liar tho. I have nothing against a woman president,
just not her - I consider her totally unqualified for the position. I
don't consider her opponents all that much better, but some at least.
Arrrggghhh. Don't get me started on politicians. Arrrrggggghhhhhh!!!


ISTM that you got your self started.

Note followups.

--

FF

On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:08:42 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Lew Hodgett wrote:


"Mark & Juanita" wrote:

What, exactly, as a woman do you think she represents?

Someone who has a serious chance to break thru the glass ceiling of
American politics as practiced by the good Old Boys Club".

Gotta be scary as the devil for them.


What a condescending thought. So just because she's a woman you think
conservatives are afraid of her?

That is the equivalent of saying that libs are scared of Ann Coulter just
because she is a woman who is doing well in what was formerly a man's world
of political discourse.

Being a screech owl is hardly the same as being prez.



Or for that matter that all libs would be for Kay Bailey Hutchison because
she is a woman breaking through the glass ceiling of American politics.

i.e, conservatives aren't concerned about Hillary because she is a woman,
they are concerned about Hillary because she has shown herself to be
strongly corporatist, in bed with the same folks who brought you the forthcoming economic meltdown..
(I fixed your post).

Renata

On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:44:48 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Lew Hodgett wrote:


"Charlie Self" wrote:

One thing has baffled me about Clinton's critics: most are
conservatives (small and capital C) who staunchly defend family
values
(with the occasional exception such Giuliani, Gingrich, Craig and a
few thousand others), standing by one's man and so forth, yet for
years, they've criticized her as a bitch for not divorcing her
husband
when he drops trou in the wrong places.

I get the impression that as a group they are scared s__tless of her
and what, as a woman, she represents.


What, exactly, as a woman do you think she represents?

Rugged individualism and rising to status on her own? The only reason we
even know who she is comes as a result of her association with her husband.

Great achievements? What exactly has she done? Rose Law firm? First
Lady? Moving to one of the most liberal states in the US in order to get
elected Senator? -- a donkey could have been elected as long as it had a
(D) by its name.

Look, we know past achievements aren't a prerequisite for holding the
highest office in the land, or the current occupant would've been
laughed outta town, what with his string of business "successes" and
fine "governance" of the "great" state of Texas, not to mention his
"youthful indiscretions".

Renata


... and the second great hope is a guy who just got elected to the Senate
and has done, what, exactly?



As a result are running around like Chicken Little announcing the sky
is falling.

Well, we certainly know that describing her as a Stalinist is not exactly
hyperbole. "I'm going to take those oil company profits and use them
for ..." If she wants those, what make you think that someday your
profits shouldn't be used to help those she thinks needs help.

/I'm done. This is way too early for presidential election politics anyway.

Renata wrote:

On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:08:42 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Lew Hodgett wrote:


"Mark & Juanita" wrote:

What, exactly, as a woman do you think she represents?

Someone who has a serious chance to break thru the glass ceiling of
American politics as practiced by the good Old Boys Club".

Gotta be scary as the devil for them.


What a condescending thought. So just because she's a woman you think
conservatives are afraid of her?

That is the equivalent of saying that libs are scared of Ann Coulter
just
because she is a woman who is doing well in what was formerly a man's
world of political discourse.

Being a screech owl is hardly the same as being prez.


I agree. Hillary's screech and cackle would scare just about anybody.
Certainly doesn't make her presidential.



Or for that matter that all libs would be for Kay Bailey Hutchison
because
she is a woman breaking through the glass ceiling of American politics.

i.e, conservatives aren't concerned about Hillary because she is a
woman,
they are concerned about Hillary because she has shown herself to be
strongly corporatist, in bed with the same folks who brought you the
forthcoming economic meltdown..
(I fixed your post).

DON'T do that, I don't want that kind of stuff showing up in the archives.
I did not write the above. Listening to her speeches, particularly to the
kook fringe base, she leans very heavily socialist. Period.


Renata

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Renata wrote:
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:44:48 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Lew Hodgett wrote:


"Charlie Self" wrote:

One thing has baffled me about Clinton's critics: most are
conservatives (small and capital C) who staunchly defend family
values
(with the occasional exception such Giuliani, Gingrich, Craig and
a
few thousand others), standing by one's man and so forth, yet for
years, they've criticized her as a bitch for not divorcing her
husband
when he drops trou in the wrong places.

I get the impression that as a group they are scared s__tless of
her
and what, as a woman, she represents.


What, exactly, as a woman do you think she represents?

Rugged individualism and rising to status on her own? The only
reason we even know who she is comes as a result of her association
with her husband.

Great achievements? What exactly has she done? Rose Law firm?
First Lady? Moving to one of the most liberal states in the US in
order to get elected Senator? -- a donkey could have been elected
as long as it had a (D) by its name.

Look, we know past achievements aren't a prerequisite for holding
the
highest office in the land, or the current occupant would've been
laughed outta town, what with his string of business "successes" and
fine "governance" of the "great" state of Texas, not to mention his
"youthful indiscretions".

People who think that conservatives are down on the idea of a female
President don't remember Maggie Thatcher, who most conservatives would
have voted for if she had been eligible to and chosen to run for the
office of President. The singular lack of success of female
candidates in the past has been because they came across as "woman
candidates" and not "candidates who happen to be women".

Now, that said, I'm probably going to end up voting for Hillary if she
gets the nomination (and that will be the first time going back to
Nixon that I vote for a Democratic candidate for President), unless
the Republicans pull a rabbit out of their hat. The reason is
simple--I've always thought that the wrong Clinton got elected and I
am curious as to what she would actually do. She comes across as
tough, conniving, determined, willing to do whatever's necessary to
achieve her objectives, and so likely to be very effective. And I
have every confidence that the Islamists will do something stupid that
will set her off.

Besides, it would be kind of fun to see Rush Limbaugh's head explode.


Renata


... and the second great hope is a guy who just got elected to the
Senate and has done, what, exactly?



As a result are running around like Chicken Little announcing the
sky is falling.

Well, we certainly know that describing her as a Stalinist is not
exactly hyperbole. "I'm going to take those oil company profits
and
use them
for ..." If she wants those, what make you think that someday
your
profits shouldn't be used to help those she thinks needs help.

/I'm done. This is way too early for presidential election
politics
anyway.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Fri, Dec 7, 2007, 11:40am (EST+5) (Han) doth sayeth:
That presumes there is an entity like that grin. Whowould you really
like as President of this wonderful country? Someone who rises to the
occasion, appoints his cronies, and chases skirts, with his whole
entourage being paid for by the state?
I wouldn't mind a fiscally responsible person, who can keep the rich in
check, does respect individual liberties, AND responsibilities. I even
don't mind if I would get taxed higher if we get a little more
responsible for our environment (here is the wood reference).

Hah? AN entity? what I said was, "May the Gods have mercy on us
all." Plural entities. Hope so. The Woodworking Gods will get **** if
not.

From stories I've read, Hillary chases skirts too.

So, maybe the thing to do would be to pick someone that's
actually qualified for the job, but doesn't want it, and just make them
president. And, if they do a good job they only have to serve four
years.



JOAT
Even Popeye didn't eat his spinach until he had to.

Fri, Dec 7, 2007, 12:20pm (J.*Clarke) doth
sayeth:
snip She comes across as tough, conniving, determined, willing to do
whatever's necessary to achieve her objectives, snip

Indeed, and what her objectives are is what worries me..



JOAT
Even Popeye didn't eat his spinach until he had to.

"Mark & Juanita" wrote:

What a condescending thought. So just because she's a woman you
think
conservatives are afraid of her?

Conservatives?

Where did that come from?

Didn't know that "Good Old Boys" were necessarily "Conservatives".

Sounds like a personal problem to me.

Lew

J T wrote:
Fri, Dec 7, 2007, 12:20pm (J. Clarke) doth
sayeth:
snip She comes across as tough, conniving, determined, willing to
do
whatever's necessary to achieve her objectives, snip

Indeed, and what her objectives are is what worries me..

The only thing that she really seems to be pushing for is further
fouling up the medical system, but it's such a cluster**** now that
the amount of harm that she can do in that regard would appear to be
limited.

And really, when has your life changed in a major way due to the
election of one candidate or another?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Dec 6, 9:14 pm, (J T) wrote:
Thu, Dec 6, 2007, 3:58pm (EST-3) doth posteth:
snip How have our politicians (speaking of our American politicians
only, I know it isn't polite or politically correct to criticize other
countries....) snip
Just make sure boys, that when the hate threads start and you start ****
blasting each other over political differences that you mark them "OT".
Thanks for that one, JT.

I think that when you've criticized one politician you've pretty
much critized them all, they're all basically the same, just the
language is different - and I do NOT consider that criticizing another
country - politicians are fair game, period.

You're welcome, I considered it the politically correct thing to
do.

Well, we can always try my recommendation: anyone who wins local
office must spend six months in jail before taking office, hard
labor; state leve, depending on importance (supposed) of the office,
one to three years; federal level, congressman(woman), four years;
senator, five years, president, ten years.

There's little doubt any and all of them deserve at least that, so get
it out of the way and watch 'em smoke (if you can find anyone to run,
though I think in most cases, the money is big enough...).

On Dec 7, 12:08 am, Mark & Juanita wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:

"Mark & Juanita" wrote:

What, exactly, as a woman do you think she represents?

Someone who has a serious chance to break thru the glass ceiling of
American politics as practiced by the good Old Boys Club".

Gotta be scary as the devil for them.

What a condescending thought. So just because she's a woman you think
conservatives are afraid of her?

That is the equivalent of saying that libs are scared of Ann Coulter just
because she is a woman who is doing well in what was formerly a man's world
of political discourse.

Or for that matter that all libs would be for Kay Bailey Hutchison because
she is a woman breaking through the glass ceiling of American politics.

i.e, conservatives aren't concerned about Hillary because she is a woman,
they are concerned about Hillary because she has shown herself to be
strongly socialist with stalinist tendencies

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Scared of Annie Babe? Get real. She's nothing but a buck hungry
publicity hound with no power, and a penchant for the gross
statement--"I think it would be fun to A-bomb Iran." The only time a
bitch like that is scary is when she's near the kitchen knives, had a
couple and is behind you.

On Dec 7, 12:19 am, Just Wondering wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Dec 6, 6:41 pm, (J T) wrote:
[snipped for brevity]

to be a capable liar tho.I have nothing against a woman president,
just not her -

Who then? Janet Reno?

Elizabeth Dole.

I was hoping for that some years ago. Look what we got.

On Dec 7, 10:41 am, Renata wrote:
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:08:42 -0700, Mark & Juanita



wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:

"Mark & Juanita" wrote:

What, exactly, as a woman do you think she represents?

Someone who has a serious chance to break thru the glass ceiling of
American politics as practiced by the good Old Boys Club".

Gotta be scary as the devil for them.

What a condescending thought. So just because she's a woman you think
conservatives are afraid of her?

That is the equivalent of saying that libs are scared of Ann Coulter just
because she is a woman who is doing well in what was formerly a man's world
of political discourse.

Being a screech owl is hardly the same as being prez.



Or for that matter that all libs would be for Kay Bailey Hutchison because
she is a woman breaking through the glass ceiling of American politics.

i.e, conservatives aren't concerned about Hillary because she is a woman,
they are concerned about Hillary because she has shown herself to be
strongly corporatist, in bed with the same folks who brought you the forthcoming economic meltdown..

(I fixed your post).

Renata

I'll have to look her up. Never heard of her.

On Dec 7, 12:20 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Renata wrote:
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:44:48 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Lew Hodgett wrote:

"Charlie Self" wrote:

One thing has baffled me about Clinton's critics: most are
conservatives (small and capital C) who staunchly defend family
values
(with the occasional exception such Giuliani, Gingrich, Craig and
a
few thousand others), standing by one's man and so forth, yet for
years, they've criticized her as a bitch for not divorcing her
husband
when he drops trou in the wrong places.

I get the impression that as a group they are scared s__tless of
her
and what, as a woman, she represents.

What, exactly, as a woman do you think she represents?

Rugged individualism and rising to status on her own? The only
reason we even know who she is comes as a result of her association
with her husband.

Great achievements? What exactly has she done? Rose Law firm?
First Lady? Moving to one of the most liberal states in the US in
order to get elected Senator? -- a donkey could have been elected
as long as it had a (D) by its name.

Look, we know past achievements aren't a prerequisite for holding
the
highest office in the land, or the current occupant would've been
laughed outta town, what with his string of business "successes" and
fine "governance" of the "great" state of Texas, not to mention his
"youthful indiscretions".

People who think that conservatives are down on the idea of a female
President don't remember Maggie Thatcher, who most conservatives would
have voted for if she had been eligible to and chosen to run for the
office of President. The singular lack of success of female
candidates in the past has been because they came across as "woman
candidates" and not "candidates who happen to be women".

Now, that said, I'm probably going to end up voting for Hillary if she
gets the nomination (and that will be the first time going back to
Nixon that I vote for a Democratic candidate for President), unless
the Republicans pull a rabbit out of their hat. The reason is
simple--I've always thought that the wrong Clinton got elected and I
am curious as to what she would actually do. She comes across as
tough, conniving, determined, willing to do whatever's necessary to
achieve her objectives, and so likely to be very effective. And I
have every confidence that the Islamists will do something stupid that
will set her off.

Besides, it would be kind of fun to see Rush Limbaugh's head explode.



Oh, man! I'd pay to see that. A blast and a whiff of pent up hot air.

I tend to agree with you about Clinton: I have always said that Jimmy
Carter failed as President because he's a nice guy, thinks other
people are nice, and, basically, doesn't have enough soon-of-a-bitch
in him to do the job. I believe Mrs. Clinton qualifies, except for the
'son' part. And I think she'll do a good job. Of course, anything
short of a total collapse of the Republic is going to look good with
the mess goofball is leaving behind.

J. Clarke wrote:

J T wrote:
Fri, Dec 7, 2007, 12:20pm (J. Clarke) doth
sayeth:
snip She comes across as tough, conniving, determined, willing to
do
whatever's necessary to achieve her objectives, snip

Indeed, and what her objectives are is what worries me..

The only thing that she really seems to be pushing for is further
fouling up the medical system, but it's such a cluster**** now that
the amount of harm that she can do in that regard would appear to be
limited.

Oh yeah, our system is so screwed up that people who can, come to use it
instead of relying upon *their* own country's socialized health care
system.


And really, when has your life changed in a major way due to the
election of one candidate or another?


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"And really, when has your life changed in a major way due to the
election of one candidate or another? "

How much was gas when the busher came in?

henry wrote:
"And really, when has your life changed in a major way due to the
election of one candidate or another? "

How much was gas when the busher came in?

Adjusted for inflation, less than under Jimmy Carter - in fact it still is:


http://www.randomuseless.info/gasprice/adjusted.txt

henry wrote:
"And really, when has your life changed in a major way due to the
election of one candidate or another? "

How much was gas when the busher came in?

What did he do to increase them that Clinton and Bush I and Reagan and
Carter and Ford and Nixon and Johnson and Kennedy didn't do?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Dec 7, 11:24 am, Mark & Juanita wrote:
Renata wrote:
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:08:42 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Lew Hodgett wrote:

"Mark & Juanita" wrote:

What, exactly, as a woman do you think she represents?

Someone who has a serious chance to break thru the glass ceiling of
American politics as practiced by the good Old Boys Club".

Gotta be scary as the devil for them.

What a condescending thought. So just because she's a woman you think
conservatives are afraid of her?

That is the equivalent of saying that libs are scared of Ann Coulter
just
because she is a woman who is doing well in what was formerly a man's
world of political discourse.

Being a screech owl is hardly the same as being prez.

I agree. Hillary's screech and cackle would scare just about anybody.
Certainly doesn't make her presidential.



Or for that matter that all libs would be for Kay Bailey Hutchison
because
she is a woman breaking through the glass ceiling of American politics.

i.e, conservatives aren't concerned about Hillary because she is a
woman,
they are concerned about Hillary because she has shown herself to be
strongly corporatist, in bed with the same folks who brought you the
forthcoming economic meltdown..
(I fixed your post).

DON'T do that, I don't want that kind of stuff showing up in the archives.
I did not write the above. Listening to her speeches, particularly to the
kook fringe base, she leans very heavily socialist. Period.



Renata

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Look, somehow that bitch has been given the taste of blood in her
fangs. Some schmuck has convinced her that she can be a big as Bill.
She's running with the hope she can show up her husband.
That is what gives her life. Other than that she's dead.

We'll run the risk of nuclear war every 28 days?

(J T) wrote in news:3892-47598E19-457@storefull-
3337.bay.webtv.net:

So, maybe the thing to do would be to pick someone that's
actually qualified for the job, but doesn't want it, and just make them
president. And, if they do a good job they only have to serve four
years.

Can't be done anymore. Who would accept that nomination? But while we're
on the subject, who would you propose? That is a serious question, for a
change.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Mark & Juanita wrote in
:

Oh yeah, our system is so screwed up that people who can, come to
use it
instead of relying upon *their* own country's socialized health care
system.

That is only if they can afford to spend the bucks (pun intended). From my
experience, the current system is completely fouled up, with mutiple
billings for the same thing both to the actual patient and his/her
insurance company.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid