President Palin
$Zero
it's certainly not an impossibility, by any stretch of the
imagination.
i mean, just look at America's history.
makes you shudder just thinking about it, no?
President Palin
many otherwise intelligent people would vote for her just to watch the
fricken' show!
they'd leave the ballot box and immediately head over to Sam's Club to
buy a huge supply of popcorn.
President Palin
the first hundred days.
whoa.
but it just wouldn't be worth the unbelievable damage she'd cause.
still, beyond that minor detail of cold hard reality, it sure would be
some kinda entertainment, no?
-$Zero...
craziest you've ever gone.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/d9d95e380f37fd58
Ray Haddad
wrote:
>President Palin
Ah, bliss.
--
Ray
Grand Mal
"$Zero" <zero...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:838c2534-7179-4039...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> President Palin
>
> it's certainly not an impossibility, by any stretch of the
> imagination.
Jesus. Canada Customs would just open the gates at the border and stand
back.
Robert McClelland
> President Palin
>
> it's certainly not an impossibility, by any stretch of the
> imagination.
>
America deserves to have Palin as president.
$Zero
> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:838c2534-7179-4039...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
> > President Palin
>
> > it's certainly not an impossibility, by any stretch of the
> > imagination.
>
> Jesus. Canada Customs would just open the gates
> at the border and stand back.
no doubt.
although that might instead choose to build a 3,000 mile wall before
she got sworn in.
because they wouldn't want to have to deal w/ the America that would
be left behind if everyone w/ even an smidgen of intelligence was
allowed to escape.
i think i'd better pitch this idea to Tina Fey and NBC.
that way, we'd get the best of both worlds.
> > i mean, just look at America's history.
>
> > makes you shudder just thinking about it, no?
>
> > President Palin
>
> > many otherwise intelligent people would vote for her just to watch the
> > fricken' show!
>
> > they'd leave the ballot box and immediately head over to Sam's Club to
> > buy a huge supply of popcorn.
>
> > President Palin
>
> > the first hundred days.
>
> > whoa.
>
> > but it just wouldn't be worth the unbelievable damage she'd cause.
>
> > still, beyond that minor detail of cold hard reality, it sure would be
> > some kinda entertainment, no?
>
> > -$Zero...
>
> > craziest you've ever gone.
> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/d9d95e380f37fd58
-$Zero...
translation:
"Questions. Too. Hard. Hurt. Head. Make. Feel. Dumb."
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/0db5c4b6d6519055
$Zero
wrote:
be fair, Robert.
only about half of America truly deserves a Commander in Chief Palin.
but even _they_ wouldn't properly suffer under such a presidency,
because the very nature of their thinking "processes" would click
their brains into infinite denial mode.
they'd always be basking in the glow of her idiocy and greed and hate-
mongering.
and no matter how bad things got for them personally due to her
destructive policies and actions, they'd still be experiencing a
heroin-like high.
well, at least half of them would be.
the other half would be busy trying to climb over Canada's newly
erected wall.
although they might instead choose to build a 3,000 mile wall
before she got sworn in. because they wouldn't want to have to
deal w/ the America that would be left behind if everyone w/
even a smidgen of intelligence was allowed to escape.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/06fa7b1cbb5744d2
nope.
don't wish a Palin presidency on America, Robert.
that's not in anyone's best interests.
not even Sarah Palin's.
-$Zero...
"Sometimes I don't respond to posts." ~ by Mark
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/0db5c4b6d6519055
Mark
> On Nov 19, 5:47 pm, Robert McClelland <mcclelland.rob...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 19, 5:31 pm, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > President Palin
>
> > > it's certainly not an impossibility, by any stretch of the
> > > imagination.
>
> > America deserves to have Palin as president.
>
> be fair, Robert.
Leave Robert alone. He's already gone public in
this group about having to wear diaper's for
grown-ups. Really, check the archives. Anyhoo,
ironically just knowing that about him, I cannot
allow you all to pick on him.
---
Mark
Robert McClelland
> On Nov 19, 5:47 pm, Robert McClelland <mcclelland.rob...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 19, 5:31 pm, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > President Palin
>
> > > it's certainly not an impossibility, by any stretch of the
> > > imagination.
>
> > America deserves to have Palin as president.
>
> be fair, Robert.
>
> only about half of America truly deserves a Commander in Chief Palin.
>
Considering Obama has continued the rogue nation policy of murdering
foreign nationals I disagree. All of America deserves to have Palin as
president. The faster America drives itself into an inescapable hole
the better it will be for the rest of the world.
$Zero
wrote:
> On Nov 19, 6:18 pm, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 5:47 pm, Robert McClelland <mcclelland.rob...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Nov 19, 5:31 pm, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > President Palin
>
> > > > it's certainly not an impossibility, by any stretch of the
> > > > imagination.
>
> > > America deserves to have Palin as president.
>
> > be fair, Robert.
>
> > only about half of America truly deserves a Commander in Chief Palin.
>
> Considering Obama has continued the rogue nation policy of murdering
> foreign nationals I disagree.
but that's not what we voted for, nor do most of us approve.
anyway, the outrageous mess that Bush and Cheney created is not an
easy one to mop up.
although, one does sometimes wonder whether Barry is even trying that
hard.
i still think it's possible he might just be an elaborate Rovian
operation.
but i try to remain optimistic that such is not the case.
> All of America deserves to have Palin as president.
by that logic, so does Canada, etc.
> The faster America drives itself into an inescapable hole
> the better it will be for the rest of the world.
methinks you underestimate the potential size of that hole.
it's of a black hole magnitude, w/ "you-betchya" Sarah manning the
joystick.
yikes.
-$Zero...
the question Ray couldn't answer if there were a gun to his head
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/aad38632c4e88059
Ejucaided Redneck
> President Palin
Never happen.
Caribou Barbie is the 21st century's first analogue to Dan Quayle.
--
"America is conservative in fundamental
principles. . . but the principles conserved
are liberal, and some, indeed, are radical."
Gunnar Myrdal, _An American Dilemma_
--
http://bobsloansampler.com/
Now available: "Nobody Knows, Nobody Sees"
MISSING MOUNTAINS: http://www.windpub.com/books/missing.htm
$Zero
> $Zero wrote:
>
> > President Palin
>
> Never happen.
oh, c'mon now, Bob.
you know how frighteningly likely it is.
> Caribou Barbie is the 21st century's first analogue to Dan Quayle.
my, how quickly one forgets the era of Compassionate Conservatism.
or are you claiming that was really the Cheney era?
let's not quibble over a few storefronts, k?
> --
> "America is conservative in fundamental
> principles. . . but the principles conserved
> are liberal, and some, indeed, are radical."
> Gunnar Myrdal, _An American Dilemma_
> --http://bobsloansampler.com/
> Now available: "Nobody Knows, Nobody Sees"
> MISSING MOUNTAINS:http://www.windpub.com/books/missing.htm
-$Zero...
but that's not what we voted for, nor do most of us approve.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/62aacd4ecba0673a
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
NO WAY!
We don't want any political refugees.
Just pack up and go to Israel, your best friend.
Robert McClelland
>
> > President Palin
>
> Never happen.
>
I wouldn't bet on that, Bob. Most of the time people vote to get rid
of the person currently holding the office and pay little attention to
what they'd be getting in return. Palin in 2012 is extremely unlikely,
but Palin in 2016 is a real possibility if enough people have become
soured on Obama and the Democrats by then.
Bill Penrose
> President Palin
>
> it's certainly not an impossibility, by any stretch of the
> imagination.
You've got to admit, though. She has killer legs.
Better quals than GWB had.
And she rote a bouk, to. You can now get it FREE from
http://w3.newsmax.com/a/sarahbook/?PROMO_CODE=90EF-1&gclid=CI_07-65mJ4CFQEhDQod-mSZmQ
or http://tinyurl.com/yzqteum
(yes, there's a gimmick, but look what you get!)
DB
Skipper
Redneck <bobsl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> $Zero wrote:
> > President Palin
>
> Never happen.
>
> Caribou Barbie is the 21st century's first analogue to Dan Quayle.
Never happen in the ramshackle looniness of your mind. Fortunately, the
majority of America remains sane, after a temporary bout of insanity in
November 2008.
$Zero
> In article <cb16a$4b05f263$6213483a$21...@ALLTEL.NET>, Ejucaided
> > $Zero wrote:
> > > President Palin
>
> > Never happen.
>
> > Caribou Barbie is the 21st century's first analogue to Dan Quayle.
>
> Never happen in the ramshackle looniness of your mind. Fortunately, the
> majority of America remains sane, after a temporary bout of insanity in
> November 2008.
Obama was probably by far the most sane and qualified candidate who
has ever campaigned for, and attained the office of, president of the
USA.
he's a thoughtful man w/ far-seeing insights.
so it's no surprise at all that you think Sarah Palin is even remotely
fit to run a nation, let alone be mayor of a remote village in Alaska.
the only thing she's qualified to run, is to run away from her simple,
yet overly difficult, duties as governor.
she's a quitter, and a hatemonger, and an idiot.
but i'll bet she gives decent head.
though she couldn't hold a candle to Monica Lewinsky in that
department.
and she certainly couldn't compete w/ Hilary in the brains or wisdom
departments.
-$Zero...
my, how quickly one forgets the era of Compassionate Conservatism
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/2de3c7a9f13b6f10
Skipper
<0ae6d81a-e252-42c2...@e20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
$Zero <zero...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 12:18�pm, Skipper <skipSPAMpr...@yahoo.not> wrote:
> > In article <cb16a$4b05f263$6213483a$21...@ALLTEL.NET>, Ejucaided
> > Redneck <bobsloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > $Zero wrote:
> > > �> President Palin
> >
> > > Never happen.
> >
> > > Caribou Barbie is the 21st century's first analogue to Dan Quayle.
> >
> > Never happen in the ramshackle looniness of your mind. Fortunately, the
> > majority of America remains sane, after a temporary bout of insanity in
> > November 2008.
>
> Obama was probably by far the most sane and qualified candidate who
> has ever campaigned for, and attained the office of, president of the
> USA.
>
> he's a thoughtful man w/ far-seeing insights.
And he's failed with everything he's tried. Shows how utterly insane
and blind you are. Thanks for conforming.
$Zero
> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 20, 12:18 pm, Skipper <skipSPAMpr...@yahoo.not> wrote:
> > > Ejucaided Redneck <bobsloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > $Zero wrote:
>
> > > > > President Palin
>
> > > > Never happen.
>
> > > > Caribou Barbie is the 21st century's first analogue to Dan Quayle.
>
> > > Never happen in the ramshackle looniness of your mind. Fortunately, the
> > > majority of America remains sane, after a temporary bout of insanity in
> > > November 2008.
>
> > Obama was probably by far the most sane and qualified candidate who
> > has ever campaigned for, and attained the office of, president of the
> > USA.
>
> > he's a thoughtful man w/ far-seeing insights.
>
> And he's failed with everything he's tried.
failed?
hm, now where have i heard that word used in relation to Obama?
oh,yeah, Rush Limbaugh was hoping he'd fail even before he got into
office so it's not very difficult to figure out how difficult Obama's
job is given the amount of well-funded hateful destructive greedy
sabotage that has been in play ever since election day.
failed with everything he's tried?
not quite yet.
but do keep hoping!
you're quite the loyal American, aren'tchya.
the answer is no, BTW.
you're not.
> Shows how utterly insane and blind you are.
so says another of Limbaugh's idiotic parrots.
> Thanks for conforming.
as if.
yikes.
> > so it's no surprise at all that you think Sarah Palin is even remotely
> > fit to run a nation, let alone be mayor of a remote village in Alaska.
> > the only thing she's qualified to run, is to run away from her simple,
> > yet overly difficult, duties as governor.
>
> > she's a quitter, and a hatemonger, and an idiot.
yet Skipper thinks that that dumb-assed hate-spreading hick from
Wassila is more qualified to be the Leader of the Free World than a
community-organizing Constitutional Scholar nigger who was able to
become the President of the most stupidly racist country on planet
earth.
-$Zero...
that, sir, is your brainwash in action.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/0d60e92104bda391
$Zero
> On Nov 20, 1:46 pm, Skipper <skipSPAMpr...@yahoo.not> wrote:
> > $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 20, 12:18 pm, Skipper <skipSPAMpr...@yahoo.not> wrote:
> > > > Ejucaided Redneck <bobsloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > $Zero wrote:
>
> > > > > > President Palin
>
> > > > > Never happen.
>
> > > > > Caribou Barbie is the 21st century's first analogue to Dan Quayle.
>
> > > > Never happen in the ramshackle looniness of your mind. Fortunately, the
> > > > majority of America remains sane, after a temporary bout of insanity in
> > > > November 2008.
>
> > > Obama was probably by far the most sane and qualified candidate who
> > > has ever campaigned for, and attained the office of, president of the
> > > USA.
>
> > > he's a thoughtful man w/ far-seeing insights.
>
> > And he's failed with everything he's tried.
[...]
speaking of failures, here's an accurate description of Palin:
> > > she's a quitter, and a hatemonger, and an idiot.
and she failed to become VP, and she failed as Governer.
but back to Skipper:
> > And he's failed with everything he's tried.
[...]
> yet Skipper thinks that that dumb-assed hate-spreading hick from
> Wassila is more qualified to be the Leader of the Free World than a
> community-organizing Constitutional Scholar nigger who was able to
> become the President of the most stupidly racist country on planet
> earth.
failed with everything he's tried?
not quite yet. but do keep hoping!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/0c44a225f7380dac
ba'dum, chsh!
> -$Zero...
>
> that, sir, is your brainwash in action.
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/0d60e92104bda391
-$Zero...
no big deal. but it's true.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/fbca4e5120cde073
Skipper
crazy liberal.
In article
<63965bf5-3d67-4b2d...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
$Zero
> So uncertain of your position you had to blather on twice.
i moved up the salient paragraph so that you wouldn't miss the point.
you probably still did, hence your idiotic response, which is, btw,
totally devoid of any wit, as usual.
but i did so want you to fully realize and experience how utterly
stupid, empty-headed, and delusional your assessment of Obama was.
"And he's failed with everything he's tried."
bwah!
> Typical crazy liberal.
um, none of those three words accurately describe me.
but two of them describe you quite well.
from now on, i'll try my best to keep it simple like that for you.
though, i'd bet that even three-word challenges are probably pushing
it quite a bit.
oh well.
being as you're a big fan of Palin, i shouldn't expect you to grasp
too much.
but i do what i can do.
-$Zero...
failed?
hm, now where have i heard that word used in relation to Obama?
oh yeah, it comes right from brainwash central. day in. day out.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/0c44a225f7380dac
Skipper
<eb6e72c5-f474-49ce...@1g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
$Zero <zero...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 3:33�pm, Skipper <skipSPAMpr...@yahoo.not> wrote:
>
> > So uncertain of your position you had to blather on twice.
>
> i moved up the salient paragraph so that you wouldn't miss the point.
The point's on your head, Zippy. Keep blathering, it's mildly
entertaining.
$Zero
> In article
>
> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 20, 3:33 pm, Skipper <skipSPAMpr...@yahoo.not> wrote:
>
> > > So uncertain of your position you had to blather on twice.
>
> > i moved up the salient paragraph so that you wouldn't miss the point.
>
> The point's on your head, Zippy.
in.
> Keep blathering, it's mildly entertaining.
no shit, Sherlock.
...
it's called talent.
and it's not for sale.
-$Zero...
but i did SO want you to fully realize and experience how utterly
stupid, empty-headed, and delusional your assessment of Obama was
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/555f2e387d7eeb7e
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
Skipper
<6668eca6-519a-4ce5...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
$Zero <zero...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 8:20�pm, Skipper <skipSPAMpr...@yahoo.not> wrote:
> > In article
> > <eb6e72c5-f474-49ce-a473-d76efaafc...@1g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 20, 3:33�pm, Skipper <skipSPAMpr...@yahoo.not> wrote:
> >
> > > > So uncertain of your position you had to blather on twice.
> >
> > > i moved up the salient paragraph so that you wouldn't miss the point.
> >
> > The point's on your head, Zippy.
>
> in.
>
>
> > Keep blathering, it's mildly entertaining.
>
> no shit, Sherlock.
>
> ...
>
> it's called talent.
>
> and it's not for sale.
Well, that's one way you justify no one buying your writing, I'm sure.
$Zero
> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 20, 8:20 pm, Skipper <skipSPAMpr...@yahoo.not> wrote:
> > > $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 20, 3:33 pm, Skipper <skipSPAMpr...@yahoo.not> wrote:
>
> > > > > So uncertain of your position you had to blather on twice.
>
> > > > i moved up the salient paragraph so that you wouldn't miss the point.
>
> > > The point's on your head, Zippy.
>
> > in.
>
> > > Keep blathering, it's mildly entertaining.
>
> > no shit, Sherlock.
>
> > ...
>
> > it's called talent.
>
> > and it's not for sale.
>
> Well, that's one way you justify no one buying your writing, I'm sure.
i've never tried to sell any.
the talent speaks for itself.
being as you're a big fan of Palin,
i shouldn't expect you to grasp too much.
but i do what i can do.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/555f2e387d7eeb7e
> > -$Zero...
>
> > but i did SO want you to fully realize and experience how utterly
> > stupid, empty-headed, and delusional your assessment of Obama was
> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/555f2e387d7eeb7e
-$Zero...
Skipper critiques the unknown black dude who became
President of the most racist country on planet earth:
"And he's failed with everything he's tried."
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/555f2e387d7eeb7e
Skipper
<4022f4a7-3f41-4a3d...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
$Zero <zero...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 12:13�pm, Skipper <skipSPAMpr...@yahoo.not> wrote:
> > $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 20, 8:20�pm, Skipper <skipSPAMpr...@yahoo.not> wrote:
> > > > $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 20, 3:33�pm, Skipper <skipSPAMpr...@yahoo.not> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > So uncertain of your position you had to blather on twice.
> >
> > > > > i moved up the salient paragraph so that you wouldn't miss the point.
> >
> > > > The point's on your head, Zippy.
> >
> > > in.
> >
> > > > Keep blathering, it's mildly entertaining.
> >
> > > no shit, Sherlock.
> >
> > > ...
> >
> > > it's called talent.
> >
> > > and it's not for sale.
> >
> > Well, that's one way you justify no one buying your writing, I'm sure.
>
> i've never tried to sell any.
>
> the talent speaks for itself.
Then in your case, it would be "dumb", as in cannot speak. Too bad it
can type.
Just Me
> In article
> > Skipper critiques the unknown black dude who became
> > President of the most racist country on planet earth:
> > "And he's failed with everything he's tried."
> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/555f2e387d7eeb7e
What the HELL (or which is to say) "what has" any of this got to do
with President Palin? Will you two please get your wounded egos (or
which is to say "pissed off pride") out of this and get down to this
total BABE who is GOING to get MY vote in the next election? Watch
this and answer the burning question, "Is this way too hot to trot
DAME ready to run this county or not--and never mind the Bill O'Reilly
part . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzqyh9DiCQ8
--
JM http://doo-dads.blogspot.com
Skipper
<09c0b754-0edd-4dfe...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Just Me <jpd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 8:10�pm, Skipper <skipSPAMpr...@yahoo.not> wrote:
> > In article
> > <4022f4a7-3f41-4a3d-afdd-a53870c17...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > � Skipper critiques the unknown black dude who became
> > > � President of the most racist country on planet earth:
> > > � "And he's failed with everything he's tried."
> > > �http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/555f2e387d7eeb7e\\\
>
Yeah, 40 published books later, among many other things. The loser
liberals here are a real hoot.
Alan Hope
<skipSP...@yahoo.not> wrote:
>40 published books
"My Life," by Tori Spelling.
Philip Roth is scared shitless you might make it to the Nobel before
he does, Lloyd.
$Zero
> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 21, 12:13 pm, Skipper <skipSPAMpr...@yahoo.not> wrote:
> > > $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 20, 8:20 pm, Skipper <skipSPAMpr...@yahoo.not> wrote:
> > > > > $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 20, 3:33 pm, Skipper <skipSPAMpr...@yahoo.not> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > So uncertain of your position you had to blather on twice.
>
> > > > > > i moved up the salient paragraph so that you wouldn't miss the point.
>
> > > > > The point's on your head, Zippy.
>
> > > > in.
>
> > > > > Keep blathering, it's mildly entertaining.
>
> > > > no shit, Sherlock.
>
> > > > ...
>
> > > > it's called talent.
>
> > > > and it's not for sale.
>
> > > Well, that's one way you justify no one buying your writing, I'm sure.
>
> > i've never tried to sell any.
>
> > the talent speaks for itself.
>
> Then in your case, it would be "dumb", as in cannot speak.
> Too bad it can type.
it's not at all surprising that you did not grasp everything i meant
to convey when i wrote:
"the talent speaks for itself."
anyway, thanks again for stopping by.
please forgive me for composing a multiple-meaning five-word sentence
which obviously exceeded the three-word limit i previously promised
you.
though, i'd bet that even three-word challenges
are probably pushing it quite a bit. oh well.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/555f2e387d7eeb7e
> > being as you're a big fan of Palin,
> > i shouldn't expect you to grasp too much.
> > but i do what i can do.
> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/555f2e387d7eeb7e
>
> > > > -$Zero...
>
> > > > but i did SO want you to fully realize and experience how utterly
> > > > stupid, empty-headed, and delusional your assessment of Obama was
> > > > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/555f2e387d7eeb7e
>
> > -$Zero...
>
> > Skipper critiques the unknown black dude who became
> > President of the most racist country on planet earth:
> > "And he's failed with everything he's tried."
> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/555f2e387d7eeb7e
-$Zero...
i moved up the salient paragraph so that you wouldn't miss
the point. you probably still did, hence your idiotic response,
which is, btw, totally devoid of any wit, as usual.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/555f2e387d7eeb7e
Skipper
<usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:59:41 -0800, in misc.writing Skipper
> <skipSP...@yahoo.not> wrote:
>
> >40 published books
>
> "My Life," by Tori Spelling.
>
> Philip Roth is scared shitless you might make it to the Nobel before
> he does, Lloyd.
Please post one of your Ned Flanders Today columns, Hopeless. I've
waited years to be blinded by your brilliance but it never shows, not
even in a newsgroup attack. You DO do something other than that, don't
you? Surely you do.
$Zero
> Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:59:41 -0800, Skipper <skipSPAMpr...@yahoo.not> wrote:
>
> > >40 published books
>
> > "My Life," by Tori Spelling.
>
> > Philip Roth is scared shitless you might make it to the Nobel before
> > he does, Lloyd.
>
> Please post one of your Ned Flanders Today columns, Hopeless. I've
> waited years to be blinded by your brilliance but it never shows, not
> even in a newsgroup attack. You DO do something other than that, don't
> you? Surely you do.
i'd wager that you _still_ don't fully realize everything i meant to
convey when i wrote:
"talent speaks for itself."
let alone what immediately preceded it:
"i've never tried to sell any."
one wonders if you'll ever catch on.
it's highly doubtful.
it's not at all surprising that you did not grasp everything
i meant to convey when i wrote: "the talent speaks for itself."
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/b13b272fb3139f79
-$Zero...
that's exactly what it was.
just another game of hide the pea.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/fcede17ea6ed0729
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
> President Palin
>
> it's certainly not an impossibility, by any stretch of the
> imagination.
>
> i mean, just look at America's history.
>
> makes you shudder just thinking about it, no?
>
> President Palin
>
> many otherwise intelligent people would vote for her just to watch the
> fricken' show!
>
> they'd leave the ballot box and immediately head over to Sam's Club to
> buy a huge supply of popcorn.
>
> President Palin
>
> the first hundred days.
>
> whoa.
>
> but it just wouldn't be worth the unbelievable damage she'd cause.
>
> still, beyond that minor detail of cold hard reality, it sure would be
> some kinda entertainment, no?
>
> -$Zero...
>
> craziest you've ever gone.
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/d9d95e380f37fd58
I don't know but those years of her office could end up being called
the "President Pain-ass years".
Grand Mal
"Just Me" <jpd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:09c0b754-0edd-4dfe...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
*********************************************************
Hey, for enough of a flash of bare skin I might vote for her too but first
she'd have to explain to me (without my actually reading her book) why
'rogue' is a good thing.
If she has time she might explain what a 'team of mavericks' is, too.
Skipper
<iron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I betcha she's not real keen on talking to the brain dead, which means
in your case, don't expect any phone calls.
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
> In article <ViuOm.54739$PH1.1247@edtnps82>, Grand Mal
>
>
>
> <ironw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "Just Me" <jpd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:09c0b754-0edd-4dfe...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> > On Nov 21, 8:10 pm, Skipper <skipSPAMpr...@yahoo.not> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <4022f4a7-3f41-4a3d-afdd-a53870c17...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > Skipper critiques the unknown black dude who became
> > > > President of the most racist country on planet earth:
> > > > "And he's failed with everything he's tried."
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/555f2e387d7eeb7e
>
> > What the HELL (or which is to say) "what has" any of this got to do
> > with President Palin? Will you two please get your wounded egos (or
> > which is to say "pissed off pride") out of this and get down to this
> > total BABE who is GOING to get MY vote in the next election? Watch
> > this and answer the burning question, "Is this way too hot to trot
> > DAME ready to run this county or not--and never mind the Bill O'Reilly
> > part . . .
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzqyh9DiCQ8
> > --
> > *********************************************************
>
> > Hey, for enough of a flash of bare skin I might vote for her too but first
> > she'd have to explain to me (without my actually reading her book) why
> > 'rogue' is a good thing.
> > If she has time she might explain what a 'team of mavericks' is, too.
>
> I betcha she's not real keen on talking to the brain dead, which means
> in your case, don't expect any phone calls.
And you last spoke with her when?
Grand Mal
"Skipper" <skipSP...@yahoo.not> wrote in message
news:231120090816150700%skipSP...@yahoo.not...
You kiddin'? Look at her family! Look at Alaska! Look at the whole damned
Republican Party, fercrissakes!
>which means
> in your case, don't expect any phone calls.
I'll give you this much- if it's a choice between the two I'll take Palin
over that anorexic she-male, Ann Coulter, any day.
Alan Hope
<skipSP...@yahoo.not> wrote:
>In article <s1gig597h2tt3boiv...@4ax.com>, Alan Hope
><usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:59:41 -0800, in misc.writing Skipper
>> <skipSP...@yahoo.not> wrote:
>>
>> >40 published books
>>
>> "My Life," by Tori Spelling.
>>
>> Philip Roth is scared shitless you might make it to the Nobel before
>> he does, Lloyd.
>
>Please post one of your Ned Flanders Today columns, Hopeless. I've
>waited years to be blinded by your brilliance but it never shows, not
>even in a newsgroup attack. You DO do something other than that, don't
>you? Surely you do.
I'm not a book writer, Lloyd. Is the thread about books? Let's talk
about your books, shall we?
Ejucaided Redneck
> On Nov 19, 8:35 pm, Ejucaided Redneck <bobsloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> $Zero wrote:
>>
>> > President Palin
>>
>> Never happen.
>>
>
I would.
No American candidate who's been a universal joke in the national news
media --Quayle (after demonstrating his inability to spell "potato"), Ed
Muskie (after either crying or not crying in front of cameras after his
wife was ridiculed), Romney the 1st (after claiming he'd been
brainwashed by generals in Vietnam) etc etc etc-- has ever come back to
be a viable candidate.
> Palin in 2016 is a real possibility if enough people have become
> soured on Obama and the Democrats by then.
Palin in 2016 will have the approximate effect on the election that Dan
Quayle did in 2000: that of a fart in a tornado.
No man ever believes that the Bible means
what it says; he is always convinced that it
says what he means.
George Bernard Shaw
--
http://bobsloansampler.com/
Now available: "Nobody Knows, Nobody Sees"
MISSING MOUNTAINS: http://www.windpub.com/books/missing.htm
Ejucaided Redneck
>
> Never happen in the ramshackle looniness of your mind. Fortunately, the
> majority of America remains sane, after a temporary bout of insanity in
> November 2008.
CB is a near-exact analogue to Quayle.
In �96, I bet you figured he'd be a viable candidate in 2000.
But then, you thought Barbie and McCaned were viable candidates. . .
--
One of the revelations in the 9/11 commission report
was the casualness of the resort to war. On the afternoon
of Sept. 11, Donald Rumsfeld spoke of attacking Saddam
Hussein, and President Bush began asking about Iraq the
next day. Older men blithely found a war for younger men
and women to die in.
-- Nicholas D. Kristof, NY Times 07/28/04)
Skipper
<bobsl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> No American candidate who's been a universal joke in the national news
> media --Quayle (after demonstrating his inability to spell "potato"), Ed
> Muskie (after either crying or not crying in front of cameras after his
> wife was ridiculed), Romney the 1st (after claiming he'd been
> brainwashed by generals in Vietnam) etc etc etc-- has ever come back to
> be a viable candidate.
***BZZZZT***
Nice try, flunko.
In all those instances, the American people still had some respect for
journalists, and in those days there were journalists.
Now, trash mags like Newsweak buy a two-year old picture taken for
Runner's World magazine to put on the cover, hoping to sell some copies
because they're just about gone out of business.
Like the New York Times.
Like CNN.
Like NBC.
While Fox News roundly thrashes all cable networks nightly and the most
popular news website is Drudge, who is a conservative.
The universal joke is people like you, who don't realize your delusion.
Ejucaided Redneck
> In article <cb1b2$4b0c652f$438cb46d$74...@ALLTEL.NET>, Ejucaided Redneck
> <bobsl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> No American candidate who's been a universal joke in the national news
>> media --Quayle (after demonstrating his inability to spell
"potato"), Ed
>> Muskie (after either crying or not crying in front of cameras after his
>> wife was ridiculed), Romney the 1st (after claiming he'd been
>> brainwashed by generals in Vietnam) etc etc etc-- has ever come back to
>> be a viable candidate.
>
> ***BZZZZT***
>
> Nice try, flunko.
Gee Skippy, to have the slightest bit of credibility all you gotta do is
show where a candidate misspelled "potato," or oh I dunno. . . couldn't
come up with the name of even a single newspaper or magazine she read on
a regular basis, and they got _elected_.
Can't do it, can you?
So much for credibility.
> Now, trash mags like Newsweak buy a two-year old picture taken for
> Runner's World magazine to put on the cover, hoping to sell some copies
> because they're just about gone out of business.
The least of Caribou Barbie's problems is the Runner's World photo.
> The universal joke is people like you, who don't realize your delusion.
Wanna try for some credibility?
L. Ron Hubbard references don't count.
--
Nobody can help it if Ronald Reagan
was a pretty boy with a crinkly grin
and the brains of a boot.
-- Archer, in his blog
Skipper
Redneck <bobsl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Skipper wrote:
> > In article <cb1b2$4b0c652f$438cb46d$74...@ALLTEL.NET>, Ejucaided Redneck
> > <bobsl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> No American candidate who's been a universal joke in the national news
> >> media --Quayle (after demonstrating his inability to spell
> "potato"), Ed
> >> Muskie (after either crying or not crying in front of cameras after his
> >> wife was ridiculed), Romney the 1st (after claiming he'd been
> >> brainwashed by generals in Vietnam) etc etc etc-- has ever come back to
> >> be a viable candidate.
> >
> > ***BZZZZT***
> >
> > Nice try, flunko.
>
> Gee Skippy,
And there you go. Dumbass that you are, psychotically insecure as you
are, you have to start off your retort with "Skippy" to convince
yourself that you have some superiority, yet you know you have none.
And you, complete ignoramus that you are, drooling shitbag old failure,
base your entire assessment of a governor of a state based on a
"gotcha" moment conjured up by Katie Couric, who has KILLED the CBS
Evening News and only saved her job by attacking Palin.
Surely there's a link to you under "pathetic" in Wikipedia.
Mrs. Palin took up your "gotcha" in recent interviews very well. Not
that you'd care to pay attention or do any research - that's what
thinking researchers and writers do, after all.
Towse
> Skipper wrote:
> > In article <cb1b2$4b0c652f$438cb46d$74...@ALLTEL.NET>, Ejucaided Redneck
> > <bobsl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> No American candidate who's been a universal joke in the national news
> >> media --Quayle (after demonstrating his inability to spell
> "potato"), Ed
> >> Muskie (after either crying or not crying in front of cameras after his
> >> wife was ridiculed), Romney the 1st (after claiming he'd been
> >> brainwashed by generals in Vietnam) etc etc etc-- has ever come back to
> >> be a viable candidate.
> >
> > ***BZZZZT***
> >
> > Nice try, flunko.
>
> Gee Skippy, to have the slightest bit of credibility all you gotta do is
> show where a candidate misspelled "potato," or oh I dunno. . . couldn't
> come up with the name of even a single newspaper or magazine she read on
> a regular basis, and they got _elected_.
>
> Can't do it, can you?
>
> So much for credibility.
>
> > Now, trash mags like Newsweak buy a two-year old picture taken for
> > Runner's World magazine to put on the cover, hoping to sell some copies
> > because they're just about gone out of business.
<http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-243-410--13221-1-1X2X3X4-5,00.html>
August 2009.
So much for credibility.
--
Sal
Ye olde swarm of links: thousands of links for writers, researchers and
the terminally curious <http://writers.internet-resources.com>
Skipper
<se...@towse.com> wrote:
What would you know about credibility, Rosie? You wouldn't get it if it
kicked you in your big fat ass.
Grand Mal
"Towse" <se...@towse.com> wrote in message
news:heijv8$521$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Thought she resigned on 4 July week-end? That article calls her 'Governor of
Alaska'.
Ejucaided Redneck
> In article <67355$4b0ca8f8$438cb46d$16...@ALLTEL.NET>, Ejucaided
> Redneck <bobsl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Gee Skippy,
>
> And there you go. Dumbass that you are, psychotically insecure as you
> are, you have to start off your retort with "Skippy" to convince
> yourself that you have some superiority, yet you know you have none.
Why don'tcha just address the point at issue, Hubbardite, namely: what
politician who's become a standing joke has ever succeeded in winning an
election?
> And you, complete ignoramus that you are, drooling shitbag old failure,
> base your entire assessment of a governor of a state based on a
> "gotcha" moment conjured up by Katie Couric, who has KILLED the CBS
> Evening News and only saved her job by attacking Palin.
"What do you read?" is surely the most subtle "attack" in the history of
journalism.
> Mrs. Palin took up your "gotcha" in recent interviews very well. Not
> that you'd care to pay attention or do any research - that's what
> thinking researchers and writers do, after all.
Barbie shucked and jived but altogether failed to answer the question
"Why didn't you just name some newspapers or magazines?"
--
Brains aren't everything.
In fact in your case
they're nothing
-- Anon.
Alan Hope
Oh boy. Lloyd's counting on Fox News and Drudge to haul his ass out of
the fire of Obama 2012.
Thanks, Lloyd. You never let us down.
Alan Hope
<skipSP...@yahoo.not> wrote:
>Mrs. Palin took up your "gotcha" in recent interviews very well. Not
>that you'd care to pay attention or do any research - that's what
>thinking researchers and writers do, after all.
Reminder: the gotcha moment was during the 2008 campaign. She was
asked which newspapers or magazines she read.
In recent interviews, Lloyd claims, she's "took up" the point very
well.
So months later. She took months to say which newspapers or magazines
she reads.
I'm sure most people relate to that. Most people who don't read
anything, perhaps.
Not most people here, Lloyd. We read everything.
Alan Hope
Lloyd is sinking ... sinking ... sinkin ... sinki ... ok enough
already
Just Me
> Skipper wrote:
> > And you, complete ignoramus that you are, drooling shitbag old failure,
> > base your entire assessment of a governor of a state based on a
> > "gotcha" moment conjured up by Katie Couric, who has KILLED the CBS
> > Evening News and only saved her job by attacking Palin.
>
> "What do you read?" is surely the most subtle "attack" in the history of
> journalism.
There's your answer, Skip, right off the old LibProg media bog crib-
sheet. You'd think they 'd be ashamed of continually croaking that
same worn out riposte over and over and over. But ain't it funny how
these Dumbocrats always so comically "think" what they parrot is
indeed what *they* themselves "think"? It's like, all they got to do
is open their mouths so their ventriloquist, Keith Olberman can once
again have his say. And then they can claim it for what they "think".
It's strictly from the boiler-plate . . .
> "What do you read?" is surely the most subtle "attack" in the history of
> journalism.
But what does Katie Couric "have to say"? Anyone know? Or more to the
point, what does Couric read, eh? Or, how can these people simply
take it at face value that an absolute air-head of a "perky" little
package like that is anyone to ask THAT question of somebody else?
THAT is what's so magnificently obtuse about this whole thing, how
these Lib-Prog froggies can actually sit there on that damn Dimocrat
log holding up this--for cryin' out loud-- "Katie Couic" as some kind
of paragon of literacy?
God! That is rich. Katie schtupping Couric, for crissake? C'mon!
Jesus. That silly little dingbat didn't write that question! She'd
never dream to ask it. It would not pertain to her list of the really
important stuff she'd read in Globe and the National Enquirer. Yeah,
you KNOW what Katie Couric reads and it sure isn't the Atlantic
Monthly, Nation and the National Review. I mean, have you ever
listened to the kind of strictly from *Clueless*, Alicia Silverstone
style banter she used to blather on the Today Show?
Give us a break! What the hell did they think this was--Charles Van
Dorn on *Twenty-One* for godsakes? Yeah! That's what it was alright,
for Katie and that crib-sheet she had in her sweaty little mitt.
Couric did NOT write that question. It was handed to her by a team of
NBC News LibProg apparatchiks, like Al Qaeda comes up with a stick of
dynamite to plant on their brain-dead suicide bomber of choice. Too
bad the McCain campaign didn't have sense enough to see that coming,
and have Sarah prepped with the perfect, pre-packaged come-back, fused
go off in Couric's lap: "Good question, Katie! I'll be happy to answer
it, soon as you tell me what you read, aside from Cosmo, Danielle
Steel and the Quick Start-Up sheet that comes out the box with a pair
of Gucci loafers."
Think of the really rockin' interview we could've had then, all about
like, "Is Britney Spears getting out the limo without panties
presenting a good, workable role model for the women of Alaska?"
Palin: Well . . .
Couric: Midnight Sun or no Midnight Sun?
--
JM http://whosenose.blogspot.com
http://bobbisoxsnatchers.blogspot.com
Just Me
> Give us a break! What the hell did they think this was--Charles Van
> Dorn on *Twenty-One* for godsakes?
Van Doren. Shoot. I'm just lucky I remembered the "Van" part.
> --
> JMhttp://whosenose.blogspot.comhttp://bobbisoxsnatchers.blogspot.com
Ejucaided Redneck
> On Nov 25, 1:12 pm, Ejucaided Redneck <bobsloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "What do you read?" is surely the most subtle "attack" in the history of
>> journalism.
> But what does Katie Couric "have to say"? Anyone know? Or more to the
> point, what does Couric read, eh?
Who cares? She wasn't running for anything.
More to the point, Jerkis, can you name an American politician who has
been the butt of as many jokes as Palin, who has survived to win a major
election? I don't think there are any, which is why I compared her to
Dan Quayle. Skippy can't think of any either.
Can you?
I doubt it. . .
--
Tell me, when you let your logic run
away from you like that, do you use
a whistle to call it back?
-- A. Hope
Just Me
> Just Me wrote:
>
> > On Nov 25, 1:12 pm, Ejucaided Redneck <bobsloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> "What do you read?" is surely the most subtle "attack" in the history of
> >> journalism.
>
> > But what does Katie Couric "have to say"? Anyone know? Or more to the
> > point, what does Couric read, eh?
>
> Who cares? She wasn't running for anything.
>
> More to the point, Jerkis
Shut up, Redbutt. Had I been addressing your fat ass, I would have
called, "Soooooooo-eee!"
--
JM
, can you name an American politician who has
> been the butt of as many jokes as Palin, who has survived to win a major
> election? I don't think there are any, which is why I compared her to
> Dan Quayle. Skippy can't think of any either.
>
> Can you?
>
> I doubt it. . .
>
> --
> Tell me, when you let your logic run
> away from you like that, do you use
> a whistle to call it back?
> -- A. Hope
> --http://bobsloansampler.com/
Ejucaided Redneck
> Shut up, Redbutt. Had I been addressing your fat ass, I would have
> called, "Soooooooo-eee!"
You're running on empty, Jerkis, just like your new bestest friend Skippy.
Caribou Barbie is dead meat as a political candidate. She's become a
standing joke, and that's dead as you get in politics.
Unless you can think of an exception. . .
Betcha can't.
--
A dog will look up on you;
a cat will look down on you;
however, a pig will see you
eye to eye and know it has
found an equal.
-- Churchill
--
Just Me
> Just Me wrote:
>
> > Shut up, Redbutt. Had I been addressing your fat ass, I would have
> > called, "Soooooooo-eee!"
>
Will anyone mind if I just let a FART right here?
--
JM http://doo-dads.blogspot.com
Skipper
Redneck <bobsl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Just Me wrote:
>
> > Shut up, Redbutt. Had I been addressing your fat ass, I would have
> > called, "Soooooooo-eee!"
>
> You're running on empty, Jerkis, just like your new bestest friend Skippy.
>
> Caribou Barbie is dead meat as a political candidate. She's become a
> standing joke, and that's dead as you get in politics.
>
> Unless you can think of an exception. . .
>
> Betcha can't.
Here you go, you truly ignorant jackass. Read a point by point
comparison of the dipshit you voted for, but take your laptop to the
toilet when you do, so you don't crap in your pants.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_competing_narratives_of_ba.ht
ml
The only standing joke around here is your imaginary hard-on.
Ejucaided Redneck
> On Nov 27, 11:12 pm, Ejucaided Redneck <bobsloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Just Me wrote:
>>
>> > Shut up, Redbutt. Had I been addressing your fat ass, I would have
>> > called, "Soooooooo-eee!"
>>
>> You're running on empty, Jerkis . . .
>
> Will anyone mind if I just let a FART right here?
As good a definition of your blather as I've read.
--
The same old sausage,
fizzing and sputtering
in its own grease.
-- Henry James
Ejucaided Redneck
> Here you go, you truly ignorant jackass. Read a point by point
> comparison of the dipshit you voted for, but take your laptop to the
> toilet when you do, so you don't crap in your pants.
You keep straying from the point, Skippy.
A right wing screed comparing Obama and Caribou Barbie is irrelevant.
The only way you can salvage yourself here is to give an example of a
politician who has been as widely ridiculed as CB, and went on to win a
national election. You objected to a characterization of Barbie as a
21st century analogue to Dan Quayle, yet you're incapable of mounting an
argument against that concept.
Perhaps an auditing session would help.
--
Calling him an empty suit
is an insult to clothing
everywhere.
-- Some blogger
Skipper
<bobsl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Skipper wrote:
>
> > Here you go, you truly ignorant jackass. Read a point by point
> > comparison of the dipshit you voted for, but take your laptop to the
> > toilet when you do, so you don't crap in your pants.
>
> You keep straying from the point, Skippy.
>
> A right wing screed comparing Obama and Caribou Barbie is irrelevant.
Nice try, dogboy. Figures you would cut out the URL I cited in your
reply. Typical liberal coward who can't handle truth. You probably
didn't even read it because it would scare the hell out of you, since
it's replete with FACTS, not the idiot emotional insanity that fills
your life on a moment by moment basis. Here's the whole thing; try
reading it.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_competing_narratives_of_ba.ht
ml
The Competing Narratives of Barry and Sarah
By Jack Cashill
In the spring of 1964, Sarah Heath, then just three months old, flew
into backwater Skagway, Alaska (population 650) aboard a 1930s-era
Grumman Goose to start a new life with her parents, brother, and
sister.
At that same time, in America's other new outlier state, Hawaii,
two-year-old Barry Obama was just getting used to a fatherless
existence in the otherwise-comfortable world his white grandparents and
occasionally his mother would make for him.
At the time, not even Nostradamus could have foretold that the paths of
Barry and Sarah would intersect in the "historic" 2008 election, Barry
as the first major party presidential nominee of African descent and
Sarah as the first woman with a real shot at the vice-presidency.
Each would change names before reaching the national stage. Barry Obama
would become Barry Soetero, and then Barack Obama. Sarah Heath would
become Sarah Palin after eloping with the formidable Todd Palin. Obama
would chronicle his journey in the 1995 memoir, Dreams From My Father
and the 2006 sequel, The Audacity of Hope. Palin would chronicle hers
in the 2009 memoir, Going Rogue: An American Life.
How the literary/media establishment would respond to the respective
memoirs of these two political figures would reveal far less about the
authenticity, honesty, and literary quality of the tales the authors
told than it would about the collective mindset of that establishment.
From a classical perspective, Palin's is the more compelling narrative.
The obstacles that she must overcome to fulfill her destiny are many,
varied, and real. Raised in the frozen outback by a schoolteacher
father and a school secretary mom, Palin accomplishes nothing without a
good deal of work, often under difficult physical circumstances.
Palin takes a semester or two off to pay for college. She works at a
diner over the summer. She enters the Miss Alaska contest to help pay
tuition and is awarded second runner-up and "Miss Congeniality." She
interns during other summers to become a sports reporter.
After college, Palin joins fianc� Todd on his Bristol Bay salmon boat.
During slow salmon runs, she works "messy, obscure seafood jobs" until
she can find a job as sports reporter, and even then she keeps
returning to Bristol Bay when the salmon are in season.
Throughout this period, despite the hard work and harsh environment,
Palin never loses her sense of wonder about the spectacular natural
theater in which she is so very much at home. When asked about the
state's best attributes during a Miss Alaska pageant, Palin responds,
"its beauty and everything that the great Alaska outdoors has to
offer." Prophetically, she also plugs the state's "potential in
drilling for oil," which, even then, "Outsiders don't understand."
Back in Hawaii, either through his grandparents' connections or by dint
of affirmative action, Obama spends grades five through twelve at
Hawaii's poshest prep school. Like Palin, he plays basketball, but
while she is leading her school to the state championship, he is a
second stringer on a team whose wins and losses go unremarked. The only
scores Obama shares are the imagined racial ones that need to be
settled, a working out of his "pervasive sense of grievance and
animosity against [his] mother's race."
In his recent book Barack and Michelle, Christopher Andersen quotes a
black friend who rejected Obama's claimed reason for being benched in a
particular game.
No, Barry, it's not because you're black. It's because you missed
two shots in a row.
Obama admits to "marginal report cards" in prep school, but his
underperformance does not diminish his dreams. He hits the mainland in
the late 1970s with the "diversity" movement in full flower.
Diversity's rationale is that people of varied cultures enrich the
educational experience. Obama's upbringing, however, has been
thoroughly white and elitist. The diversity bean-counters couldn't care
less. His skin color improves their "metrics." Obama will ride this
pony far.
After two druggy, uninspired years at Occidental College, Obama
transfers to the Ivy League -- Columbia, to be precise. In Dreams,
Obama dedicates one half of a sentence to a summer job on a
construction site. Otherwise, he is silent on how his tuition might
have been paid for. As to his grades and SAT scores, it would be easier
to pry North Korea's nuclear secrets out of Kim Jong-Il.
After several years as a low-paid community organizer in Chicago, Obama
decides to return to law school. Despite a lack of resources and a
mediocre performance at Columbia -- he does not graduate with honors --
Obama limits his choices to "Harvard, Yale, Stanford." He had absorbed
the diversity zeitgeist deeply enough to see success as an entitlement.
In the spring of 1989, during Obama's first year at Harvard Law,
Palin's "life truly began" with the birth of her oldest son, Track.
That summer, with Todd working a blue-collar job on the North Slope oil
fields, Palin, her father, and their Eskimo partner work Todd's
commercial fishing boat in Bristol Bay. Palin's mother, meanwhile,
baby-sits the ten-week-old Track.
In 1992, while an anxious Obama dithers in an office that the
University of Chicago has given him to write Dreams, half of his
$150,000 advance already cashed, Palin is pulling her babies, Track and
Bristol, along on a sled as she goes door-to-door seeking votes in her
run for Wasilla city council.
Not yet thirty, Palin settles upon the philosophy that will guide her
political career: reducing taxes "and redefining government's proper
role." Like few Republicans this side of Ronald Reagan, Palin will
adhere to these principles throughout her political ascent.
Not surprisingly, Palin's tenacity makes enemies among those who have
cashed in their Republican heritage for the perks and power of office.
Palin's perseverance in the face of this resistance makes for
compelling political drama. That she is a woman challenging the good
old boys of backroom Alaska heightens that drama.
Yet despite pushing the boundaries of female accomplishment throughout
her career -- as sports reporter, as commercial fisherman, as
councilwoman, as mayor, as oil and gas commissioner, as governor, as
vice-presidential candidate -- Palin never loses her sense of the
feminine. Having five children surely helps. So does living in an
environment where manly virtues still matter.
An exchange with the larger-than-life Todd helps clarify Alaskan
reality. Todd is a four-time winner of the Iron Dog competition, a
2,200 mile snowmobiling marathon. One night, Sarah expresses interest
in competing. Says Todd:
Can you get the back end of a six-hundred-pound machine unstuck by
yourself with open water up to your thighs, then change out an engine
at forty below in the pitch black on a frozen river and replace
thrashed shocks and jury rig a suspension using tree limbs along the
trail?
When Sarah answers "Nope," Todd replies, "Then go back to sleep,
Sarah." Todd lives his Eskimo heritage. He does not just dream about
it, let alone exploit it.
While Palin is slugging through Alaska's political morass like a
determined Iditarod musher, Obama is cruising through Illinois politics
on skids greased by his Chicago cronies. In his 2004 run for U.S.
Senate, both his chief primary opponent and his expected general
election opponent are undone by damaging personal information leaked to
the media. Obama wins both elections easily.
The combination of his black genes and white upbringing makes the
famously "articulate and bright and clean" Obama an irresistible choice
to keynote the race-conscious 2004 Democratic convention. "I mean,
that's a storybook, man," alleges the inimitable Joe Biden.
The story told in Dreams will become a huge bestseller in the wake of
the 2004 convention. The lofty, lyrical style of the book will seal
the Ivy-educated Obama's reputation as a genius, and its
much-celebrated narrative would serve as a foundational myth for
Obama's ascent to the White House.
Said NEA chairman Rocco Landesman just last month, reiterating the
accepted wisdom of the chattering classes, "This is the first president
that actually writes his own books since Teddy Roosevelt and arguably
the first to write them really well since Lincoln."
The establishment will not be so kind to Palin. In the week of Going
Rogue's release, the New York Times house conservative David Brooks
will call her "a joke." Dick Cavett, the Norma Desmond of TV talk, will
dismiss her as a "know-nothing." Ex-con Dem fundraiser Martha Stewart
will brand Palin "a dangerous person." And literally thousands of
lesser liberal lights will deride her as "stupid," an "idiot," or a
"moron" (8.5 million Google hits and counting for "Palin" "moron").
In that same week, Chris Matthews was worrying out loud that Obama was
"too darned intellectual," and author Michael Eric Dyson was
celebrating Obama's "sexy brilliance." But while the Associated Press
was sending a platoon of reporters to fact-check Palin's book, neither
the AP nor any other media outlet dared check either Dreams or Audacity
of Hope.
They likely feared what they would find -- namely that Obama's genius
depends solely on his willingness to lie about it. "I've written two
books," Obama told a crowd of teachers in Virginia last year. "I
actually wrote them myself." He did no such thing. He had massive help
with both books.
Although the prose of Dreams is often lyrical, it is not Obama's. As I
have argued in these pages, and as Christopher Andersen has confirmed,
Obama's gifted friend Bill Ayers gussied up the rough outlines of
Obama's life and imposed upon them the mythic dimensions of Homer's
Odyssey. To accomplish this, the authors invented any number of
incidents, many of which are easily disproved. For a serious seeker of
facts, Dreams is Sutter Creek in 1848.
In Going Rogue, by contrast, Palin does not shy from crediting Lynn
Vincent for "her indispensable help in getting the words on paper." And
yet the story is told honestly and sincerely in Palin's voice. There is
no artifice, no postmodern mumbo-jumbo, and not a sentence in the book
that Palin could not have written herself. My personal favorite, "I
love meat." I suspect that, unaided, journalism major and former
reporter Palin is a better writer than Obama.
Left to their own devices, Palin is clearly the better speaker. In
Going Rogue's climactic moment, the unknown Palin serves up the most
dazzling convention speech in modern political history, and she does so
in spite of a malfunctioning teleprompter. "I knew the speech well
enough that I didn't need it," writes Palin.
Had Obama's teleprompter malfunctioned at the 2004 convention, he would
not be president. He has always depended on the eloquence of others. So
thoroughly hooked on the teleprompter is Obama that the irrepressible
Biden jokes about it. "What am I going to tell the president?" Biden
asked the crowd at the Air Force Academy after a teleprompter blew
over. "Tell him his teleprompter is broken? What will he do then?"
In the final analysis, Going Rogue is a better book than Dreams. No
Republican has ever held Palin up as a genius, literary or otherwise,
but her narrative is as shrewd, sensitive, and straightforward as its
author.
Dreams, on the other hand, is merely a well-crafted fraud.
>
> The only way you can salvage yourself here is to give an example of a
> politician who has been as widely ridiculed as CB, and went on to win a
> national election.
Sure. Harry Truman. Look it up, if you're capable. And then, of course,
Ronald Reagan. Shit your pants yet? (By that I mean, other than
normal.)
Ejucaided Redneck
> In article <3400$4b117431$438cb754$12...@ALLTEL.NET>, Ejucaided Redneck
> <bobsl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Skipper wrote:
>> You keep straying from the point, Skippy.
>>
>> A right wing screed comparing Obama and Caribou Barbie is irrelevant.
>
> Nice try, dogboy. Figures you would cut out the URL I cited in your
> reply.
>> The only way you can salvage yourself here is to give an example of a
>> politician who has been as widely ridiculed as CB, and went on to win a
>> national election.
> Sure. Harry Truman. Look it up, if you're capable. And then, of course,
> Ronald Reagan. Shit your pants yet? (By that I mean, other than
> normal.)
Harry Truman was _way_ down in polls, but he wasn't a perceived buffoon
like Quayle or Caribou Barbie.
And his standing in the polls didn't have to do with perceived
imbecility, but rather with the unforgivable offenses --to some-- like
racially integrating the armed forces. The southern wing of the
Democratic Party walked out of the convention --and the election-- after
the party included a civil rights plank in its platform. Again, nothing
to do with a goofiness on the part of Truman.
Then the left wing of the Democratic Party went marching off to follow
Wallace. . . But that wasn't because anyone thought Truman was a clown.
What no one noticed in the �48 election was when Truman went
campaigning, he attracted huge crowds, who voted for him.
That Thing From Alaska is dead as a political candidate for national
office. History proves it.
--
Genius may have its limitations,
but stupidity is not thus handicapped."
-- Elbert Hubbard {note to Skippy: this guy was _not_ a Scientologist}
Skipper
actual facts and comment on them, have to delete the article on
American Thinker. What a pathetic waste of protoplasm you are. You
lose, I win, get ready for 2010, I look forward to your coronary.
In article <3e472$4b11a6e6$438cb754$28...@ALLTEL.NET>, Ejucaided
Redneck <bobsl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What no one noticed in the �48 election was when Truman went
Ejucaided Redneck
> You got nothing. You're just a squealing pig. You can't even read the
> actual facts and comment on them, have to delete the article on
> American Thinker.
I wasn't interested in your wingnut article, Slippy. I wanted to hear
you admit your caribou girl is dead as a candidate, or offer something
--no matter how weak-- in the way of an argument to the contrary.
> You lose, I win. . .
���� Bwaaaahhhh !!!!
> get ready for 2010
Sure thing.
But Caribou Barbie won't be a candidate any longer than Quayle was in 2000.
--
This, as I say, is Usenet. Nobody dies,
but everybody hears you scream.
-- Robert J. Maughan
$Zero
> Skipper wrote:
>
> > You got nothing. You're just a squealing pig. You can't even read the
> > actual facts and comment on them, have to delete the article on
> > American Thinker.
>
> I wasn't interested in your wingnut article, Slippy. I wanted to hear
> you admit your caribou girl is dead as a candidate, or offer something
> --no matter how weak-- in the way of an argument to the contrary.
>
> > You lose, I win. . .
>
> ¡¡¡¡ Bwaaaahhhh !!!!
>
> > get ready for 2010
>
> Sure thing.
>
> But Caribou Barbie won't be a candidate any longer than Quayle was in 2000.
Bob, given the gullible adoring stupidity of most people out there,
AND the gullible adoring stupidity of pathetically opportunistic
people like Skip (ready to repeatedly suck in whatever Tom-Cruise
endorsed religion that comes along, repeatedly), AND the relatively
intelligent (somewhat independent) Libertarian-thinking people like
Jervis, can't you see how possible it is that Palin could become
president? let alone, a candidate?
she's the hottest thing going on that side of the political spectrum.
they have her cramming for exams like there's no tomorrow.
plus, despite the fact that's she's an idiotioc asshole liar and
twister of the truth, she has much talent for being an idiotic asshole
liar and twister of the truth in such a way that excites the people
who adore her "folksy" way of contempt mongering.
people consume her false prophesy just as much as they consumed W's
lies.
Sarah Palin will be marketed as Compassionate Conservativism on
steroids, FFS.
pretending she's a business-friendly genius of some sort, she takes
the basic fears and dreads (like big government, terrorism,
foreigners, and taxes) and sells her totally bogus solutions like
soap.
like soap which makes you dirtier.
she peddles her lies just like a snake-oil salesman peddles oil.
petro oil.
can she be defeated?
easily.
but can she win?
just as easily.
it all depends on what the corporately controlled "mainstream media"
decides they want to happen.
nothing more. nothing less.
you think it really matters that Sarah Palin has made to look like
more of a joke than Dan Quayle?
have you never read 1984?
history is for sale to the highest bidder, Dude.
-$Zero...
excellent way to pick a president?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/719145a665db60f9
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/410b42a55221b31b
Skipper
you, although light years more entertaining.
That's slick - don't read something because it's a "wingnut article."
Doesn't matter that the FACTS in it are indisputable.
But what do you care about facts, Bob? You have your delusions to keep
you heated up.
In article <65266$4b12228a$438cb754$75...@ALLTEL.NET>, Ejucaided Redneck
Ejucaided Redneck
> On Nov 29, 2:28 am, Ejucaided Redneck <bobsloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> But Caribou Barbie won't be a candidate any longer than Quayle was
in 2000.
> Bob, given the gullible adoring stupidity of most people out there,
The American electorate has _always_ been misinformed, uninformed, or both.
Nevertheless, no political figure who has been turned into a figure of
near-universal ridicule has ever been elected to national office.
A number of politicians who were serious candidates --from Stassen to
Hart to Romney to Quayle to Bryan to the terminus of a near endless
list-- found their political careers over when they became a standing joke.
Can you think of an exception?
Thought not. . .
--
To see what is in front of one's nose
needs a constant struggle.
-- George Orwell
Ejucaided Redneck
> That's slick - don't read something because it's a "wingnut article."
> Doesn't matter that the FACTS in it are indisputable.
The winger propaganda was irrelevant, Skippy, like your sidestepping the
real issue at hand: name someone who's been a widespread political joke
who later successfully ran for national office.
Offhand I can't even think of anyone who snagged a nomination after that
experience.
Neither can you.
Neither can anyone else.
Caribou Barbie is dead as a candidate for office.
Period.
--
Boy's about as sharp
as a bowling ball
-- Foghorn Leghorn
$Zero
> $Zero wrote:
> > On Nov 29, 2:28 am, Ejucaided Redneck <bobsloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> But Caribou Barbie won't be a candidate any longer than Quayle was
> >> in 2000.
>
> > Bob, given the gullible adoring stupidity of most people out there,
>
> The American electorate has _always_ been misinformed, uninformed, or both.
>
> Nevertheless, no political figure who has been turned into a figure of
> near-universal ridicule has ever been elected to national office.
>
> A number of politicians who were serious candidates --from Stassen to
> Hart to Romney to Quayle to Bryan to the terminus of a near endless
> list-- found their political careers over when they became a standing joke.
>
> Can you think of an exception?
>
> Thought not. . .
before Obama, there was never a black president elected.
and before W, there was never a known dry-drunk president elected.
my point is, two-fold:
1. shit happens -- even though it has no precedent.
2. Palin is adept at diversion, and she'll have plenty of time and
cash behind her.
and corporate approval.
and oodles of support from the religious nutcases.
and way too much support from otherwise intelligent women.
and men.
> --
> To see what is in front of one's nose
> needs a constant struggle.
> -- George Orwell
"In some editions it is retitled 1984."
-- The Thoughtless Police
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four
-$Zero...
Sarah Palin will be marketed as
Compassionate Conservativism on steroids, FFS.
pretending she's a business-friendly genius of some sort,
she takes the basic fears and dreads (like big government,
terrorism, foreigners, and taxes) and sells her totally
bogus solutions like soap.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/c43acf5001e11f60
Skipper
You're my bitch, and I'm kicking your ignorant ass to the curb.
You didn't read the article, quit trying to keep up your bullshit and
trying to get other people to like the taste you love so much.
End of discussion - you lost a long time ago.
If you have any friends, please have them send me your post November 4,
2010 obituary notice, if you live that long.
In article <c093a$4b12cf00$438cb754$84...@ALLTEL.NET>, Ejucaided Redneck
Ejucaided Redneck
> On Nov 29, 2:41 pm, Ejucaided Redneck <bobsloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Can you think of an exception?
>> Thought not. . .
So you can't think of a time in American electoral politics when a
candidate ridiculed as much as Caribou Barbie was later elected to a
national office.
Thought not.
> before Obama, there was never a black president elected.
I know lots of libs are immensely proud they elected a "black"
President, but does anybody seriously believe that if Obama were a
"real" African American --i.e. if he had an accent like Martin Luther
King, Jesse Jackson, Harold Washington, Shirley Chisholm et al-- he
would have been a viable candidate?
> and before W, there was never a known dry-drunk president elected.
Shrub's mental state aside, he's comparable to Raygun and more than a
few other Presidents, and not an anomaly at all: he was an empty suit
whose "advisors" drove him like a truck, a figurehead for those who
really ran things.
> and oodles of support from the religious nutcases.
The religious right has never been able to elect anyone by itself, and
that's the only constituency CB can count on. If Huckabee's a
candidate, she'll even have to compete for the thumper vote.
> pretending she's a business-friendly genius of some sort,
She couldn't effectively portray a genius if she didn't have any lines
to speak, and in an election she'd have _lots_ of lines.
She's dead as a candidate for national office.
--
That Imperial bastard will never
set foot in Louisiana, and when
I call him a sonofabitch I am not
using profanity, but am referring
to the circumstances of his birth.
-- Huey Long, on the KKK's Imperial Wizard
Ejucaided Redneck
> You're my bitch, and I'm kicking your ignorant ass to the curb.
Are you too stupid to address a specific argument?
Or just unwilling to admit its accuracy.
> You didn't read the article,
Because it was irrelevant to the question at hand, as all your responses
have been. Except the one about Truman. That was just plain wrong.
> End of discussion - you lost a long time ago.
Sez you.
But then, you write so many goofy things.
> If you have any friends, please have them send me your post November 4,
> 2010 obituary notice, if you live that long.
Whatever that means.
The Dems will lose some House and Senate seats.
But apart from winger fantasies, there's no reason to believe they'll
lose their majority.
Especially if Caribou Barbie is active in the campaign.
The endorsement of wingnuts like her --and Limbahhumbug, and the rest--
as pretty consistently been the kiss of death.
--
He's an imbecile. And you gotta see the charges.
Malicious mopery. Possession of brains with intent
to use.
-- John Gotti
$Zero
> $Zero wrote:
> > On Nov 29, 2:41 pm, Ejucaided Redneck <bobsloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Can you think of an exception?
>
> >> Thought not. . .
>
> So you can't think of a time in American electoral politics when a
> candidate ridiculed as much as Caribou Barbie was later elected to a
> national office.
Senator Hillary Clinton.
> Thought not.
>
> > before Obama, there was never a black president elected.
>
> I know lots of libs are immensely proud they elected a "black"
> President, but does anybody seriously believe that if Obama were a
> "real" African American --i.e. if he had an accent like Martin Luther
> King, Jesse Jackson, Harold Washington, Shirley Chisholm et al-- he
> would have been a viable candidate?
it's not the accent that the racists object to.
> > and before W, there was never a known dry-drunk president elected.
>
> Shrub's mental state aside, he's comparable to Raygun and more than a
> few other Presidents, and not an anomaly at all: he was an empty suit
> whose "advisors" drove him like a truck, a figurehead for those who
> really ran things.
point mine.
> > and oodles of support from the religious nutcases.
>
> The religious right has never been able to elect anyone by itself,
Raygun & W.
> and that's the only constituency CB can count on.
wrong.
did you miss how she suckered women w/ that Letterman fiasco?
plus, she can count on a whole shitload of drill-baby-drill guys.
that amounts to enough support to drag in the Republican moderates who
you seem to think would rather have a Liberal than a Conservative
puppet.
> If Huckabee's a
> candidate, she'll even have to compete for the thumper vote.
she's got a lock on the thumpers.
> > pretending she's a business-friendly genius of some sort,
>
> She couldn't effectively portray a genius if she didn't have any lines
> to speak, and in an election she'd have _lots_ of lines.
yes. and she'll use her style to her advantage.
she's got plenty of time to fabricate "plausible" rebuttals to the
mockery she's already accumulated and those kind of answers will be
such that they will neutralize any and all future mockery.
i'm surprised you can't envision what's coming down the pike in that
regard.
> She's dead as a candidate for national office.
not by a long shot.
Sarah will claim that she was ridiculed just because she was a "strong
woman" w/ "traditional vales" and the base will eat it up as though it
were gospel, and so will a much larger tent of saps.
she's a skilled manipulator who is also quite adept at suckering all
of the "support-the-troops" peeps.
Sarah Palin has a better chance of becoming president than any other
Republican who has ever run for that office.
sad, but true.
-$Zero...
my point is, two-fold:
1. shit happens -- even though it has no precedent.
2. Palin is adept at diversion, and she'll
have plenty of time and cash behind her.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/02a408db01b67a81
Just Me
> On Nov 29, 9:53 pm, Ejucaided Redneck <bobsloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > $Zero wrote:
> > > On Nov 29, 2:41 pm, Ejucaided Redneck <bobsloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Can you think of an exception?
>
> > >> Thought not. . .
>
> > So you can't think of a time in American electoral politics when a
> > candidate ridiculed as much as Caribou Barbie was later elected to a
> > national office.
>
> Senator Hillary Clinton.
Right on the $, Zero Dude. And did you dig how the Hillary laughter
just got a big shot in the funny bone from that new book just lately
come to the stores, "It Takes a Pillage"?
And the example of Dan Quayle is no good either. All the howling in
the world didn't hurt the Bush/Quayle ticket, not even after that huge
gaffe n' laugh that came of the campaign debate with Lloyd
Bentsen . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-7gpgXNWYI
Of course, he'll come back to argue that it was not the presidential
candidate who was the butt of all the jokes--as if the stupidity of
Quayle did not reflect on the intelligence of Bush, that he should be
too stupid in his choices to recognize stupidity when he sees it.
All this goes very clearly to show that intelligence has nothing to do
with it when it comes to the American people's choice for our leaders.
It doesn't matter how stupid they are (just as we see, time and time
again), nor how much their detractors may be laughing at them (as we
see time, and time again). Look at Bill Clinton and all the Late Night
fun that was being had at his expense with that Gennifer Flowers pre-
election "bimbo explosion" effect. All those horse laughs didn't hurt
him at the polls in the least.
So it all depends on which side is laughing, and whether they got the
power of the popular vote--or not. That's all. Funniest thing is to
see how these grinning, gap-toothed. Alfred E. Newman types who think
it's so funny to talk about "Caribou Barbie" actually suppose they are
smarter than she is! That's what's been keeping me in stitches. They
don't see how ridiculous all their laughter is making them.
Sarah Palin has a self-effacing sense of humor that is completely lost
on these so very self-serious Lefties, whose narcissism just won't let
them get it, that she is laughing first when she says, "I can see
Russia from my house," nor do they get it, that she is laughing last,
and best to see how far they still are from getting it. It's that
subtle, mock serious deadpan humor that they just aren't hip enough to
appreciate in its homespun, unabashed simplicity. Amazing that Sloan
can be a country boy and not get it. Why, he's a disgrace to the very
name (or position, or career) of "redneck"!
So when it comes to city folks, the humor of Sarah Palin just goes
right over the heads of their urbanized sophistication, which in the
end proves to be NO sophistication at all. They only hear their own
laughter and are fool enough to think it universal.
They haven't heard the last, best laugh yet.
Ejucaided Redneck
> On Nov 29, 9:53 pm, Ejucaided Redneck <bobsloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> So you can't think of a time in American electoral politics when a
>> candidate ridiculed as much as Caribou Barbie was later elected to a
>> national office.
> Senator Hillary Clinton.
Not even close.
And that's a stupid response, even for you.
> it's not the accent that the racists object to.
But it made him a safe black guy to vote for.
No way to prove it, but I'm confident that if he were three or four
shades darker, and had an accent like Martin Luther King, Obama'd still
be the junior senator from Illinois.
>> > and before W, there was never a known dry-drunk president elected.
>>
>> Shrub's mental state aside, he's comparable to Raygun and more than a
>> few other Presidents, and not an anomaly at all: he was an empty suit
>> whose "advisors" drove him like a truck, a figurehead for those who
>> really ran things.
> point mine.
You and Skippy seem to have the same internal scorekeeper.
Shrub wasn't the craziest guy ever elected President, nor the first one
with a history of drinking problems that were --at least marginally--
under control.
>> The religious right has never been able to elect anyone by itself,
> Raygun & W.
The religious right is a distinct minority, and always has been. By
themselves they cannot elect a President.
They helped elect Raygun, but they didn't do it by themselves.
I've written a novel, set in Minneapolis during the Raygun/Carter
election. While doing some research I was surprised to see how close
that election was, according to pollsters, until fairly near the actual
election. Raygun's lead widened most significantly after he made a
promise during one of the debates to repeal the fifty five mile an hour
speed limit on interstate highways. More than a few political
scientists believed at the time that turned the race more than any other
single event.
Raygun already had the thumpers in his pocket.
But by themselves, they couldn't have elected him.
>> and that's the only constituency CB can count on.
>
> wrong.
>
> did you miss how she suckered women w/ that Letterman fiasco?
Did you notice how little effect that had on the way she'd perceived by
the great mass of the American people? Polling suggests 60% of the
electorate doesn't think she's fit for the Presidency.
> plus, she can count on a whole shitload of drill-baby-drill guys.
And there aren't enough of them to elect her, or to offset the fact
she's perceived as a buffoon, a lying clown.
>> If Huckabee's a
>> candidate, she'll even have to compete for the thumper vote.
>
> she's got a lock on the thumpers.
She doesn't, and she didn't.
>> > pretending she's a business-friendly genius of some sort,
>> She couldn't effectively portray a genius if she didn't have any lines
>> to speak, and in an election she'd have _lots_ of lines.
> yes. and she'll use her style to her advantage.
She wasn't able to do that when she was with McCain. And there's no
reason to believe she'll ever pull such a thing off.
> she's got plenty of time to fabricate "plausible" rebuttals to the
> mockery she's already accumulated and those kind of answers will be
> such that they will neutralize any and all future mockery.
Quayle had the same opportunity and time, and couldn't do it.
> Sarah will claim that she was ridiculed just because she was a "strong
> woman" w/ "traditional vales" and the base will eat it up as though it
> were gospel, and so will a much larger tent of saps.
"The base" can't elect a President.
> she's a skilled manipulator who is also quite adept at suckering all
> of the "support-the-troops" peeps.
Who are "the base," and who are not numerous enough to elect anyone in a
national election.
> Sarah Palin has a better chance of becoming president than any other
> Republican who has ever run for that office.
That is stupid statement.
--
Mind like a steel trap
-- full of mice
-- Foghorn Leghorn
Ejucaided Redneck
> On Nov 30, 12:50 am, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 29, 9:53 pm, Ejucaided Redneck <bobsloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> $Zero wrote:
>>> > On Nov 29, 2:41 pm, Ejucaided Redneck <bobsloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> >> Can you think of an exception?
>>> >> Thought not. . .
>>> So you can't think of a time in American electoral politics when a
>>> candidate ridiculed as much as Caribou Barbie was later elected to a
>>> national office.
>> Senator Hillary Clinton.
> Right on the $, Zero Dude. And did you dig how the Hillary laughter
> just got a big shot in the funny bone from that new book just lately
> come to the stores, "It Takes a Pillage"?
Nonsense. Hillary Clinton provided a lot of material for stand-up
comics, editorial cartoons and the like, but they did not portray her as
an uninformed liar. Nor was there ever a time when any poll suggested
sixty percent of the electorate believed she wasn't qualified to be
President.
> And the example of Dan Quayle is no good either. All the howling in
> the world didn't hurt the Bush/Quayle ticket, not even after that huge
> gaffe n' laugh that came of the campaign debate with Lloyd
> Bentsen . . .
Killed him in 2000 though, when DQ tried to be _the_ candidate.
> Look at Bill Clinton and all the Late Night fun that was being had at
his
> expense with that Gennifer Flowers pre-election "bimbo explosion"
effect.
Look at them yourself, Jerkis, and note they did not portray him as a
mindless uninformed boob, which is the problem both Quayle and Caribou
Barbie had/have to deal with.
> Sarah Palin has a self-effacing sense of humor that is completely lost
> on these so very self-serious Lefties,
Any self-effacing sense of humor That Thing From Wasilla has certainly
_is_ lost on me. Excerpts from her book suggest she is instead
possessed of a victim mentality that blames everyone but herself for her
gaffes, misstatements and missteps.
> . . .when she says, "I can see Russia from my house,"
Actually, Jerkis, Caribou Barbie never said that, Tina Fey did. What
she said was, "They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see
Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."
--
He's a modest little person,
with much to be modest about.
-- Winston Churchill
$Zero
> $Zero wrote:
> > On Nov 29, 9:53 pm, Ejucaided Redneck <bobsloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> So you can't think of a time in American electoral politics when a
> >> candidate ridiculed as much as Caribou Barbie was later elected to a
> >> national office.
>
> > Senator Hillary Clinton.
>
> Not even close.
on the contrary, that was a bulls-eye.
> And that's a stupid response, even for you.
through the tools of mockery, Hillary was _widely_ perceived to be:
1. an incompetent boob for not knowing her husband was cheating on her
and lying to her (vast right-wing conspiracy, duped).
2. a psychotically angry bitch who threw lamps and such around during
petty temper tantrums.
3. a gullible idealist who wrote "it takes a village", and believed
it.
4. a feminazi out to cut the balls off every man in the world.
5. a coattails-riding never-do-well who relied solely on her husband's
fame and power to advance her own political career.
6. a cold, hard, manipulate Nixonian whacko who would sell her
grandmother out to get what she wanted while roaming the halls of the
White House talking to paintings as she contemplated her over-the-top
ambitions.
etc..
fairly or not, she was successfully made a total mockery of.
yet she became Senator from NY, and she could have easily become
President of the USA.
she was this close: ><
> >> So you can't think of a time in American electoral politics when a
> >> candidate ridiculed as much as Caribou Barbie was later elected to a
> >> national office.
>
> > Senator Hillary Clinton.
>
> Not even close.
yeah, right.
> And that's a stupid response, even for you.
sorry, but you'll have to do much better than that to dismiss this
example which fits your criteria perfectly.
> > it's not the accent that the racists object to.
>
> But it made him a safe black guy to vote for.
safe black guy?
i guess you know some different kind of racists.
i mean, they're STILL out there in HUGE numbers trying to undermine
the Obama presidency.
Rush Limbaugh comes immediately to mind.
> No way to prove it, but I'm confident that if he were three or four
> shades darker, and had an accent like Martin Luther King,
> Obama'd still be the junior senator from Illinois.
the Repubs _wanted_ to run against Obama _because_ he was a black
man* -- they figured he'd be the easiest one to slaughter -- they
sure as hell did not want to run against Hillary -- even though they
had invested quite a bit into successfully making her a national
mockery.
* BONUS: a _Liberal_ black man
> >> > and before W, there was never a known dry-drunk president elected.
> >>
> >> Shrub's mental state aside, he's comparable to Raygun and more than a
> >> few other Presidents, and not an anomaly at all: he was an empty suit
> >> whose "advisors" drove him like a truck, a figurehead for those who
> >> really ran things.
>
> > point mine.
>
> You and Skippy seem to have the same internal scorekeeper.
Gawd.
please don't compare me to Skippy.
the point stands on its own merits, not by some delusional rocket-ship
religion of some sort.
> Shrub wasn't the craziest guy ever elected President,
i take issue w/ that assessment.
name a crazier fuck.
> nor the first one with a history of drinking problems that
> were --at least marginally-- under control.
we're not comparing presidents from the dark ages of the 1800's, are
we?
i mean, c'mon now, there was no mass communication back then.
anyway, in the pre-cold-war era, being a drinker was considered macho
and not much of a problem.
but Bush was worse than just a heavy drinker, he was a dry-drunk who,
long before he ever "gave up drinking" had lost his license to drive,
FFS, and yet he still did not quit drinking even after several years
of being unable to get behind the wheel.
this was known and he still stole the election thanks to his brother
and whatnot.
> >> The religious right has never been able to elect anyone by itself,
>
> > Raygun & W.
>
> The religious right is a distinct minority, and always has been.
and they have long been controlling the religious middle.
> By themselves they cannot elect a President.
Repubs can no longer get elected without them, so it's semantics, at
best.
> They helped elect Raygun, but they didn't do it by themselves.
if it weren't for the bogus abortion issue which the right-wing handed
Ronnie on a silver platter, Raygun would have never gotten near the
Oval Office except as entertainment-provider of jugglers and singers
and whatnot for state dinners, or as booking agent for same.
> I've written a novel, set in Minneapolis during the Raygun/Carter
> election. While doing some research I was surprised to see how close
> that election was, according to pollsters, until fairly near the actual
> election. Raygun's lead widened most significantly after he made a
> promise during one of the debates to repeal the fifty five mile an hour
> speed limit on interstate highways. More than a few political
> scientists believed at the time that turned the race more than any other
> single event.
abortion.
i know many long-voting Democrat catholics who could not have voted
for anyone other than Raygun.
they were on strict orders from the dudes giving out approved ballot
contenders from God.
> Raygun already had the thumpers in his pocket.
yep.
> But by themselves, they couldn't have elected him.
controlling factor.
semantics.
> >> and that's the only constituency CB can count on.
> >
> > wrong.
> >
> > did you miss how she suckered women w/ that Letterman fiasco?
>
> Did you notice how little effect that had on the way she'd perceived by
> the great mass of the American people? Polling suggests 60% of the
> electorate doesn't think she's fit for the Presidency.
give it time.
she easily fooled all those Liberal women into believing that
Letterman had "raped" her under-aged daughter.
yikes.
Palin knew perfectly well which daughter Dave was referring to w/ his
harmless joke, and Sarah skillfully threw her younger daughter under
the bus for political advantage. successfully, no less.
she's a master manipulator.
> > plus, she can count on a whole shitload of drill-baby-drill guys.
>
> And there aren't enough of them to elect her, or to offset the fact
> she's perceived as a buffoon, a lying clown.
give it time.
she's got Rush Limbaugh backing her bid.
where he leads, Dittoheads follow unquestioningly.
> >> If Huckabee's a
> >> candidate, she'll even have to compete for the thumper vote.
> >
> > she's got a lock on the thumpers.
>
> She doesn't, and she didn't.
wrong.
i've seen women-hating preachers make tortured exceptions for her
possible role as leader.
she is the absolute darling of the don't-read-newspapers or textbooks
crowd.
> >> > pretending she's a business-friendly genius of some sort,
>
> >> She couldn't effectively portray a genius if she didn't have any lines
> >> to speak, and in an election she'd have _lots_ of lines.
>
> > yes. and she'll use her style to her advantage.
>
> She wasn't able to do that when she was with McCain.
McCain was dead in the water until Sarah popped up.
> And there's no reason to believe she'll ever pull such a thing off.
she already has.
she gets more coverage today than McCain and all the other Repubs put
together.
in fact, she probably gets more coverage right now from the "serious
press" than President Obama does.
> > she's got plenty of time to fabricate "plausible" rebuttals to the
> > mockery she's already accumulated and those kind of answers will be
> > such that they will neutralize any and all future mockery.
>
> Quayle had the same opportunity and time, and couldn't do it.
"I watched Dan Quayle in action. Dan Quayle is no Sarah Palin."
> > Sarah will claim that she was ridiculed just because she was a "strong
> > woman" w/ "traditional vales" and the base will eat it up as though it
> > were gospel, and so will a much larger tent of saps.
>
> "The base" can't elect a President.
yes they can.
they hold the parties hostage.
> > she's a skilled manipulator who is also quite adept at suckering all
> > of the "support-the-troops" peeps.
>
> Who are "the base," and who are not numerous enough to elect
> anyone in a national election.
you seriously underestimate their influence.
> > Sarah Palin has a better chance of becoming president
> > than any other Republican who has ever run for that office.
>
> That is stupid statement.
but true.
-$Zero...
i'm surprised you can't envision what's
coming down the pike in that regard.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/f1afbbf1fe1bf84b
$Zero
> Just Me wrote:
> > On Nov 30, 12:50 am, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 29, 9:53 pm, Ejucaided Redneck <bobsloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >>> $Zero wrote:
> >>> > On Nov 29, 2:41 pm, Ejucaided Redneck <bobsloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> >> Can you think of an exception?
> >>
> >>> >> Thought not. . .
> >>
> >>> So you can't think of a time in American electoral politics when a
> >>> candidate ridiculed as much as Caribou Barbie was later elected to a
> >>> national office.
> >>
> >> Senator Hillary Clinton.
>
> > Right on the $, Zero Dude. And did you dig how the Hillary laughter
> > just got a big shot in the funny bone from that new book just lately
> > come to the stores, "It Takes a Pillage"?
>
> Nonsense.
on the contrary, that was a bulls-eye.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/8965287dcc58fd7c
> Hillary Clinton provided a lot of material for stand-up
> comics, editorial cartoons and the like, but they did not portray
> her as an uninformed liar.
uninformed liar:
"vast right-wing conspiracy"
that's two, that's two mints in one as far as functional mockery goes.
either she was uniformed or she was a liar. perfect.
or both.
plain old liar:
"Whitewater"
"Vince Foster"
uninformed:
"1990's Health Care Czar"
etc..
anyway, the point is, polls change.
and you're dismissing her "talent" for making that happen.
she easily fooled all those Liberal women into believing
that Letterman had "raped" her under-aged daughter.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/8965287dcc58fd7c
-$Zero...
fairly or not, she was successfully made a total mockery of.
yet she became Senator from NY, and she could have easily
become President of the USA. she was this close: ><
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/8965287dcc58fd7c
$Zero
below, "she" changes to "she" = Palin:
> she easily fooled all those Liberal women into believing
> that Letterman had "raped" her under-aged daughter.
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/8965287dcc58fd7c
>
> -$Zero...
back to "she" = Hillary:
> fairly or not, she was successfully made a total mockery of.
> yet she became Senator from NY, and she could have easily
> become President of the USA. she was this close: ><
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/8965287dcc58fd7c
-$Zero...
Sarah Palin has a better chance of becoming president than
any other Republican who has ever run for that office.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/f1afbbf1fe1bf84b
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/8965287dcc58fd7c
Just Me
> Just Me wrote:
> > Look at Bill Clinton and all the Late Night fun that was being had at
> his
> > expense with that Gennifer Flowers pre-election "bimbo explosion"
> effect.
>
> Look at them yourself, Jerkis . . .
Shut up, Redbutt. Had I been looking for any sight of you, I would
have opened the outhouse seat cover.
Ejucaided Redneck
> On Nov 30, 2:19 pm, Ejucaided Redneck <bobsloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> $Zero wrote:
>> > On Nov 29, 9:53 pm, Ejucaided Redneck <bobsloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> So you can't think of a time in American electoral politics when a
>> >> candidate ridiculed as much as Caribou Barbie was later elected to a
>> >> national office.
>>
>> > Senator Hillary Clinton.
>>
>> Not even close.
>
> on the contrary, that was a bulls-eye.
>> And that's a stupid response, even for you.
> through the tools of mockery, Hillary was _widely_ perceived to be:
You're citing how Hillary was depicted in winger media, not the mainstream.
And most tellingly, at no time did sixty percent of the electorate
perceive her to be unfit for the office of President.
> sorry, but you'll have to do much better than that to dismiss this
> example which fits your criteria perfectly.
Doesn't come close.
>> No way to prove it, but I'm confident that if he were three or four
>> shades darker, and had an accent like Martin Luther King,
>> Obama'd still be the junior senator from Illinois.
> the Repubs _wanted_ to run against Obama _because_ he was a black
> man* -- they figured he'd be the easiest one to slaughter -- they
> sure as hell did not want to run against Hillary -- even though they
> had invested quite a bit into successfully making her a national
> mockery.
Whomever the Repugs ran was bound to lose, given they had to stand
behind, on some level or other, Shrub's disastrous eight years. To
Obama's credit, once he had the nomination, he ran a masterful campaign,
but I still maintain he was an "acceptable" black candidate because he
is so manifestly the product of white culture, not American black culture.
I can't prove it --and for that matter you can't prove the contrary--
but I believe it.
>> You and Skippy seem to have the same internal scorekeeper.
> Gawd.
> please don't compare me to Skippy.
Why not? The comparisons are obvious.
Neither of you can answer the challenge of showing a single person who's
been turned into an object of ridicule --like Quayle or Barbie-- and
who's gone on to win a national election.
Skippy offers Truman, which is stupid. You offer Hillary Clinton, which
is also manifestly a wrong answer.
>> Shrub wasn't the craziest guy ever elected President,
> I take issue w/ that assessment.
>
> name a crazier fuck.
Nixon was crazier, clearly a full-tilt sociopath.
Not to mention a roaring drunk.
>> nor the first one with a history of drinking problems that
>> were --at least marginally-- under control.
> we're not comparing presidents from the dark ages of the 1800's, are
> we?
Grant's the obvious one. Pierce was an alcoholic.
> I mean, c'mon now, there was no mass communication back then.
After the invention of the telegraph there was.
>> The religious right is a distinct minority, and always has been.
> Repubs can no longer get elected without them, so it's semantics, at
> best.
A more interesting question is whether or not Repugs can get elected
_with_ their help. McCain might be an object lesson in the futility of
kowtowing to the thumpers.
>> Polling suggests 60% of the electorate doesn't think she's fit for
the Presidency.
> give it time.
Hide and watch: politically Palin's dead meat. I suspect she knows it,
and in future campaigns will play a role comparable to that of Patrick
Buchanan.
>> > yes. and she'll use her style to her advantage.
>>
>> She wasn't able to do that when she was with McCain.
>
> McCain was dead in the water until Sarah popped up.
And he was dead in the water afterward.
--
"I'm all in favor of keeping
dangerous weapons out of
the hands of fools. Let's start
with typewriters."
----- Solomon Short
Ejucaided Redneck
> On Nov 30, 5:38 pm, Ejucaided Redneck <bobsloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Just Me wrote:
>
>> > Look at Bill Clinton and all the Late Night fun that was being had at
>> his
>> > expense with that Gennifer Flowers pre-election "bimbo explosion"
>> effect.
>>
>> Look at them yourself, Jerkis . . .
>
> Shut up, Redbutt.
You're laboring under the misapprension you have some sort of authority
here, Jerkis.
--
"Son's problem is his mama rocked him too
much when he was a little boy. She used
BIG rocks too." -- Sammy Allred, one half
of the Geezinslaw Brothers, speaking of his partner
http://www.geezinslaws.com
Just Me
> Just Me wrote:
>
> > On Nov 30, 5:38 pm, Ejucaided Redneck <bobsloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Just Me wrote:
> >
> >> > Look at Bill Clinton and all the Late Night fun that was being had at
> >> his
> >> > expense with that Gennifer Flowers pre-election "bimbo explosion"
> >> effect.
> >>
> >> Look at them yourself, Jerkis . . .
> >
> > Shut up, Redbutt.
>
> You're laboring under the misapprension you have some sort of authority
> here, Jerkis.
Shut up, Redbutt. If I wanted to see anything of your pretty pink
ass, I would have shaken a tree in Tanzania.
--
JM http://bobbisoxsnatchers.blogspot.com
$Zero
> $Zero wrote:
> > On Nov 30, 2:19 pm, Ejucaided Redneck <bobsloa...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> $Zero wrote:
> >> > On Nov 29, 9:53 pm, Ejucaided Redneck <bobsloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> So you can't think of a time in American electoral politics when a
> >> >> candidate ridiculed as much as Caribou Barbie was later elected to a
> >> >> national office.
> >>
> >> > Senator Hillary Clinton.
> >>
> >> Not even close.
> >
> > on the contrary, that was a bulls-eye.
>
> >> And that's a stupid response, even for you.
>
> > through the tools of mockery, Hillary was _widely_ perceived to be:
>
> You're citing how Hillary was depicted in winger media, not the mainstream.
i've seen all of those characterizations you snipped leak over into
the mainstream mindset.
eventually, Hollywood even made a movie:
Primary Colors
based on a book by a mainstreamer journalist, if i'm not mistaken.
so you're wrong to try to limit it to its original partisian source.
smears have legs.
and staying power.
> And most tellingly, at no time did sixty percent of the electorate
> perceive her to be unfit for the office of President.
well, first off, they weren't polling for that back then.
and i'll bet when she was running for the Senate that she came close
in such polls when a future presidency was put on the question block.
it wasn't until after her stint in the Senate that she gained
significant credibility.
> > sorry, but you'll have to do much better than that to dismiss this
> > example which fits your criteria perfectly.
>
> Doesn't come close.
yikes.
i've never seen a more direct hit.
> >> No way to prove it, but I'm confident that if he were three or four
> >> shades darker, and had an accent like Martin Luther King,
> >> Obama'd still be the junior senator from Illinois.
>
> > the Repubs _wanted_ to run against Obama _because_ he was a black
> > man* -- they figured he'd be the easiest one to slaughter -- they
> > sure as hell did not want to run against Hillary -- even though they
> > had invested quite a bit into successfully making her a national
> > mockery.
>
> Whomever the Repugs ran was bound to lose, given they had to stand
> behind, on some level or other, Shrub's disastrous eight years.
then why did they work so hard to bury Hillary's chances of becoming
the Democratic nominee?
doesn't add up.
> To Obama's credit, once he had the nomination,
> he ran a masterful campaign,
prior to nomination, as well.
> but I still maintain he was an "acceptable" black candidate because he
> is so manifestly the product of white culture, not American black culture.
was he not shooting hoops?
and maybe you're forgetting about his pastor and whatnot.
> I can't prove it --and for that matter you can't prove the contrary--
> but I believe it.
believe what you want, but if that were the case, they would've ran
Colin Powell or Connie Rice.
in the GOP's estimation, a black (especially a Liberal black) had NO
chance of winning.
even the Hillary camp desperately tried playing the race card, and
somewhat successfully, FFS.
race was never NOT an issue.
mind you, you must also be forgetting all of the Martin Lutheresque
speeches Obama gave.
very black.
and quite frightening to your average racist, no doubt.
> >> You and Skippy seem to have the same internal scorekeeper.
>
> > Gawd.
>
> > please don't compare me to Skippy.
>
> Why not? The comparisons are obvious.
snorefest.
> Neither of you can answer the challenge
bwah!
> of showing a single person who's
> been turned into an object of ridicule --like Quayle or Barbie--
Senator Hillary Clinton, bulls-eye!
> and who's gone on to win a national election.
fine. keep living in denial on that one.
i'm sure it took you by surprise to realize how flimsy your argument
was.
> Skippy offers Truman, which is stupid. You offer Hillary Clinton,
> which is also manifestly a wrong answer.
you must seriously be blinded to how Hillary was widely perceived.
even among the mainstream press.
> >> Shrub wasn't the craziest guy ever elected President,
>
> > I take issue w/ that assessment.
> >
> > name a crazier fuck.
>
> Nixon was crazier, clearly a full-tilt sociopath.
different kind of crazy.
but see, Nixon was sane enough to resign.
which makes him far less nuts than Bush.
> Not to mention a roaring drunk.
was that widely known before his election?
i was too young in 1968 (seven) to be able to answer that one.
had other things on my mind than politics.
> >> nor the first one with a history of drinking problems that
> >> were --at least marginally-- under control.
>
> > we're not comparing presidents from the dark ages of the 1800's, are
> > we?
>
> Grant's the obvious one. Pierce was an alcoholic.
1800's.
> > I mean, c'mon now, there was no mass communication back then.
>
> After the invention of the telegraph there was.
bwah!
Bush's dry-drunkery was covered on CNN daily.
not to mention other 24-hour news channels and whatnot.
compare that to the way news came off the telegraph, FFS.
you're funny, Bob.
hell, before CNN, it took decades for the general public to find out
who JFK was fucking w/ his back problems, not to mention FDR's
wheelchair.
> >> The religious right is a distinct minority, and always has been.
>
> > Repubs can no longer get elected without them, so it's semantics, at
> > best.
>
> A more interesting question is whether or not Repugs can get elected
> _with_ their help.
the answer is: yes.
> McCain might be an object lesson in the futility of
> kowtowing to the thumpers.
what a misread.
> >> Polling suggests 60% of the electorate doesn't think she's fit for
> >> the Presidency.
>
> > give it time.
>
> Hide and watch: politically Palin's dead meat.
you'll see.
> I suspect she knows it,
WHOT?
why do you think she quit as Governor?
for the cash?
bwah!
she's got her eyes on the prize.
> and in future campaigns will play a role comparable to that of
> Patrick Buchanan.
if only.
> >> > yes. and she'll use her style to her advantage.
> >>
> >> She wasn't able to do that when she was with McCain.
> >
> > McCain was dead in the water until Sarah popped up.
>
> And he was dead in the water afterward.
just barely squeaked by.
Tina Fey saved America.
temporarily, anyway.
-$Zero...
that's two, that's two mints in one
as far as functional mockery goes.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/31557417be859246
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/9a2ad5209fff8bcf
Ejucaided Redneck
> On Nov 30, 7:26 pm, Ejucaided Redneck <bobsloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Just Me wrote:
>>
>> > On Nov 30, 5:38 pm, Ejucaided Redneck <bobsloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> Just Me wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Look at Bill Clinton and all the Late Night fun that was
being had at
>> >> his
>> >> > expense with that Gennifer Flowers pre-election "bimbo explosion"
>> >> effect.
>> >>
>> >> Look at them yourself, Jerkis . . .
>> >
>> > Shut up, Redbutt.
>>
>> You're laboring under the misapprension you have some sort of authority
>> here, Jerkis.
>
> Shut up, Redbutt. If I wanted to see anything of your pretty pink
> ass, I would have shaken a tree in Tanzania.
"Shut up," typed in a newsgroup posting is an entirely empty phrase.
Not unlike the rest of your postings.
--
The same old sausage,
fizzing and sputtering
in its own grease.
-- Henry James
Ejucaided Redneck
> On Nov 30, 8:24 pm, Ejucaided Redneck <bobsloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> You're citing how Hillary was depicted in winger media, not the
mainstream.
> i've seen all of those characterizations you snipped leak over into
> the mainstream mindset.
If you think Hillary Clinton was widely characterized as stupid,
misinformed, a liar, a clown in the fashion Barbie's been depicted, it
oughta be a piece a cake to post a few such references.
Betcha can't do it.
> eventually, Hollywood even made a movie:
> Primary Colors
> based on a book by a mainstreamer journalist, if i'm not mistaken.
In which the "Hillary" character is not stupid, misinformed, a liar, nor
a clown.
>> And most tellingly, at no time did sixty percent of the electorate
>> perceive her to be unfit for the office of President.
> well, first off, they weren't polling for that back then.
They were polling for such things when she was running for President,
and nobody suggested she was unfit for office.
> and i'll bet when she was running for the Senate that she came close
> in such polls when a future presidency was put on the question block.
Until you can cite something, that statement is as empty as the rest of
your rants about the menace ol' Caribou Barbie poses to the Republic.
> it wasn't until after her stint in the Senate that she gained
> significant credibility.
Not even a little bit true. Go read a few accounts of her campaign for
the Senate. Had she not come across as quite credible, and competent,
she'd have never been elected.
>> > sorry, but you'll have to do much better than that to dismiss this
>> > example which fits your criteria perfectly.
>>
>> Doesn't come close.
> yikes.
> i've never seen a more direct hit.
Then post some examples where it's proven.
Movies you haven't seen, books you haven't read, polls you kinda sorta
remember don't count.
> Senator Hillary Clinton, bulls-eye!
Then demonstrate it with something more concrete than your personal opinion.
> you must seriously be blinded to how Hillary was widely perceived.
Got some examples?
> hell, before CNN, it took decades for the general public to find out
> who JFK was fucking w/ his back problems, not to mention FDR's
> wheelchair.
The public knew about FDR's wheelchair while he was still in office.
The last time he addressed a joint session of Congress he remained
seated and acknowledged "ten pounds of steel" (his braces) were
necessary for him to stand up.
JFK's womanizing was being talked about less than five years after he
was in the ground.
> why do you think she quit as Governor?
> for the cash?
Precisely. And there was too much heat in the Juneau kitchen for her to
stick around.
--
His head is as empty as
a hermit's address book.
-- Rowan Atkinson
$Zero
> $Zero wrote:
> > On Nov 30, 8:24 pm, Ejucaided Redneck <bobsloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> You're citing how Hillary was depicted in winger media, not the
> >> mainstream.
>
> > i've seen all of those characterizations you snipped leak over into
> > the mainstream mindset.
>
> If you think Hillary Clinton was widely characterized as stupid,
> misinformed, a liar, a clown in the fashion Barbie's been depicted, it
> oughta be a piece a cake to post a few such references.
i did.
but you snipped them all.
> Betcha can't do it.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/8965287dcc58fd7c
and that's just half-a-dozen of virtually dozens.
> > eventually, Hollywood even made a movie:
>
> > Primary Colors
>
> > based on a book by a mainstreamer journalist, if i'm not mistaken.
>
> In which the "Hillary" character is not stupid, misinformed, a liar, nor
> a clown.
"stupid" is a relative term based mostly on ideology.
there is a huge percentage of people who consider Hillary stupid.
huge.
but anyway, technically speaking, Palin is far more ignorant than
stupid.
and most everyone considers Hillary a liar about all manner of stuff,
and that movie portrayal is no exception.
misinformed = husband, healthcare, etc.
clown = throwing pots and pans across room during temper tantrums,
etc.
> >> And most tellingly, at no time did sixty percent of the electorate
> >> perceive her to be unfit for the office of President.
>
> > well, first off, they weren't polling for that back then.
>
> They were polling for such things when she was running for President,
> and nobody suggested she was unfit for office.
polling is as polling does.
how did they word it? how did they time it?
most published polls are for suckers.
> > and i'll bet when she was running for the Senate that she came close
> > in such polls when a future presidency was put on the question block.
>
> Until you can cite something, that statement is as empty as the rest of
> your rants about the menace ol' Caribou Barbie poses to the Republic.
so you're claiming that ALL "reputable" polls suggest that Palin is
considered unfit to be president?
then cite them.
and cite their methodologies.
(how did they word it? how did they time it?)
and their percentage differences.
...
anyway, it should be frightening enough that your own belief shows 40%
think she's fit.
and that's before the make-over which is coming down the pike, day
after day, for the next several years as Sarah crams for exams and
whatnot.
> > it wasn't until after her stint in the Senate that she gained
> > significant credibility.
>
> Not even a little bit true.
um, i live in NY.
and i also watched the Clinton years unfold.
don't know what you were watching, but...
obviously our views conflict with each other.
and I was an avid Hillary supporter for president.
> Go read a few accounts of her campaign for
> the Senate. Had she not come across as quite credible,
> and competent, she'd have never been elected.
Rick Lazio "stepped into her personal space" at the Senate debates and
the media escorted Hillary from there to the swearing in ceremony.
> >> > sorry, but you'll have to do much better than that to dismiss this
> >> > example which fits your criteria perfectly.
> >>
> >> Doesn't come close.
>
> > yikes.
>
> > i've never seen a more direct hit.
>
> Then post some examples where it's proven.
Gawd.
snipping stuff doesn't make it disappear, Bob.
anyway, "proven"?
yikes. politics is hardly ever "proven".
for instance, your assertion that Palin is dead politically is
anything but "proven".
polls?
WTF.
polls prove that people can make serious money giving out polling
"data".
> Movies you haven't seen,
bzzzt.
> books you haven't read,
writing a book doesn't prove anything as far as political reality
goes.
> polls you kinda sorta remember don't count.
polls never count.
all that counts is political reality.
and in America, the political reality is that George W. Bush was
elected to a second term, FFS.
which totally shocked the fuck out of all of us intelligent people,
no?
> > Senator Hillary Clinton, bulls-eye!
>
> Then demonstrate it with something more concrete than your personal opinion.
i've given you more than enough evidence that Hillary was a national
joke who, despite being relegated to the clown factory, was eventually
re-embraced and elected to national office, and was later a serious
contender for leader of the free world.
> > you must seriously be blinded to how Hillary was widely perceived.
>
> Got some examples?
none.
> > hell, before CNN, it took decades for the general public to find out
> > who JFK was fucking w/ his back problems, not to mention FDR's
> > wheelchair.
>
> The public knew about FDR's wheelchair while he was still in office.
> The last time he addressed a joint session of Congress he remained
> seated and acknowledged "ten pounds of steel" (his braces) were
> necessary for him to stand up.
the last time? yikes.
the public was obviously well-informed through-out his four terms.
> JFK's womanizing was being talked about less than five years
> after he was in the ground.
"talked about" less than five years after he was in the ground.
so was "the public" aware of it when he was running for president four
years prior to his beheading?
i mean, w/ that telegraph machine of yours, surely it was instant
news, no?
but nine years you say?
WTF.
anyway, i guess you got me to at least strike the "s" off of the word
"decades", but that was my intent anyway, so thanks for obliging in
ridiculing your idea that the existence of the telegraph in the 1880's
was somehow comparable to a hugely competitive 24-hour cable news
environment which i characterized as: mass communications.
> > why do you think she quit as Governor?
>
> > for the cash?
>
> Precisely. And there was too much heat in the
> Juneau kitchen for her to stick around.
too much heat, yeah, and not enough presidential maneuvering brewing
in those cooking pots.
so off on the campaign trail she went.
she went Rogue.
to accentuate _exactly_ how she plans to swindle the public while
effectively excusing all of her previous mockery.
it's quite brilliant, actually.
in a completely dishonest way, unfortunately.
but it will work wonders on the electorate.
just like Compassionate Conservatism did for George W. Bush.
...
i imagine it will be something along the lines of Palin / Gingrich.
yep.
that's the ticket.
or close to it.
-$Zero...
Sarah Palin has a better chance of becoming president than
any other Republican who has ever run for that office.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/f1afbbf1fe1bf84b
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/8965287dcc58fd7c
Skipper
<ff374716-6a2f-443a...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
$Zero <zero...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 12:50�am, Ejucaided Redneck <bobsloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > $Zero wrote:
> > �> On Nov 30, 8:24 pm, Ejucaided Redneck <bobsloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > �>> You're citing how Hillary was depicted in winger media, not the
> > >> mainstream.
> >
> > �> i've seen all of those characterizations you snipped leak over into
> > �> the mainstream mindset.
> >
> > If you think Hillary Clinton was widely characterized as stupid,
> > misinformed, a liar, a clown in the fashion Barbie's been depicted, it
> > oughta be a piece a cake to post a few such references.
>
> i did.
>
> but you snipped them all.
That's because Bob can't handle the truth.
About all Bob can handle is a beer and a sandwich, educated guess.
Ejucaided Redneck
> On Dec 1, 12:50 am, Ejucaided Redneck <bobsloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> If you think Hillary Clinton was widely characterized as stupid,
>> misinformed, a liar, a clown in the fashion Barbie's been depicted, it
>> oughta be a piece a cake to post a few such references.
>
> I did.
>
> but you snipped them all.
I snipped a clot of allegations and "recollections," not references.
> "stupid" is a relative term based mostly on ideology.
> there is a huge percentage of people who consider Hillary stupid.
> huge.
Then you ought to be able to cite huge numbers of references depicting
her as a stupid woman.
Interesting that you haven't done so.
> most published polls are for suckers.
To the contrary, polling generally is remarkably accurate.
When was the last time one was wildly off the mark?
> so you're claiming that ALL "reputable" polls suggest that Palin is
> considered unfit to be president?
I don't know of any that suggest anything else.
> then cite them.
Here's one: http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/173289.asp
> and cite their methodologies.
>
> (how did they word it? how did they time it?)
> and their percentage differences.
And here's the email address for public Policy Polling. You can ask
them those questions yourself: infor...@publicpolicypolling.com
>> > it wasn't until after her stint in the Senate that she gained
>> > significant credibility.
>>
>> Not even a little bit true.
>
> um, I live in NY.
Um, cite something to support your claim.
She won her initial election with 55% of the vote, which means she had
considerable credibility before she was a Senator.
>> books you haven't read,
> writing a book doesn't prove anything as far as political reality
> goes.
You're the one who mentioned that book.
> and in America, the political reality is that George W. Bush was
> elected to a second term, FFS.
If you believe Ohio wasn't stolen.
A reasonable case can be made that it was.
>> > Senator Hillary Clinton, bulls-eye!
>> Then demonstrate it with something more concrete than your personal
opinion.
> i've given you more than enough evidence that Hillary was a national
> joke
Actually you haven't offered any evidence at all, apart from your own
beliefs.
>> > you must seriously be blinded to how Hillary was widely perceived.
>>
>> Got some examples?
>
> none.
Indeed.
>> The public knew about FDR's wheelchair while he was still in office.
>> The last time he addressed a joint session of Congress he remained
>> seated and acknowledged "ten pounds of steel" (his braces) were
>> necessary for him to stand up.
>
> the last time? yikes.
>
> the public was obviously well-informed through-out his four terms.
The public knew he had survived polio. In those days that meant you
were crippled.
Woody Guthrie wrote a song immediately after FDR's death with the lines:
"He took his office on a crippled leg, he said to one and all:
�You money changin' racket boys have sure 'nuff got to fall'"
and
"I could see he was a cripple but he learned my soul to walk"
Some secret.
> so was "the public" aware of it when he was running for president four
> years prior to his beheading?
What's your point?
> so thanks for obliging in
> ridiculing your idea that the existence of the telegraph in the 1880's
> was somehow comparable to a hugely competitive 24-hour cable news
> environment which I characterized as: mass communications.
Your characterization is way too narrow.
After 1861 what happened on the east coast was known in the west.
You underestimate the content of newspapers in the nineteenth century.
> I imagine it will be something along the lines of Palin / Gingrich.
That's just silly, to think Gingrich's ego would tolerate being #2 on a
ticket.
And silly to think Caribou Barbie has a realistic chance of being
nominated by the Republican Party.
> Sarah Palin has a better chance of becoming president than
> any other Republican who has ever run for that office.
What a goofy claim.
Eisenhower?
Hoover in his first election?
Coolidge?
Harding?
Are these names even familiar to you?
--
Time will wound all heels
And it ain't pretty.
--- Chris Smither ("Your Winsome Smile")
Ejucaided Redneck
> That's because Bob can't handle the truth.
>
> About all Bob can handle is a beer and a sandwich, educated guess.
Sez the Dianetician who believes Harry S Truman's place in American
political history compares to Caribou Barbie.
--
He may look like an idiot
and talk like an idiot but
don't let that fool you.
He really is an idiot.
-- Groucho Marx
$Zero
> $Zero wrote:
> > On Dec 1, 12:50 am, Ejucaided Redneck <bobsloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> If you think Hillary Clinton was widely characterized as stupid,
> >> misinformed, a liar, a clown in the fashion Barbie's been depicted, it
> >> oughta be a piece a cake to post a few such references.
> >
> > I did.
> >
> > but you snipped them all.
>
> I snipped a clot of allegations and "recollections," not references.
you could not make the leap to the actual references?
> > "stupid" is a relative term based mostly on ideology.
>
> > there is a huge percentage of people who consider Hillary stupid.
>
> > huge.
>
> Then you ought to be able to cite huge numbers of references
> depicting her as a stupid woman.
perhaps in some alternate bizarro world where i cared enough to
convince you of what you already know, intuitively.
> Interesting that you haven't done so.
i'll say.
> > most published polls are for suckers.
>
> To the contrary, polling generally is remarkably accurate.
according to pollsters, sure.
> When was the last time one was wildly off the mark?
yikes.
they contradict each other ALL of the time.
> > so you're claiming that ALL "reputable" polls suggest that Palin
> > is considered unfit to be president?
>
> I don't know of any that suggest anything else.
your own claim is all these polls suggest that 40% believe her to be
fit.
if it were only 5% (or less), i'd say you were on much more solid
ground, future-politically speaking.
as it is,methinks you're in for a major shock along the lines of:
WTF? George Bush got elected to a second term?!
> > then cite them.
>
> Here's one:http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/173289.asp
i'll assume that's one such poll.
any chance you can cite a handful of others?
> > and cite their methodologies.
> >
> > (how did they word it? how did they time it?)
>
> > and their percentage differences.
>
> And here's the email address for public Policy Polling. You can ask
> them those questions yourself: informat...@publicpolicypolling.com
so, you yourself don't know their methodologies and whatnot?
you're taking it all on faith?
ok.
at least you admit it.
> >> > it wasn't until after her stint in the Senate that she gained
> >> > significant credibility.
> >>
> >> Not even a little bit true.
> >
> > um, I live in NY.
>
> Um, cite something to support your claim.
i took a poll.
> She won her initial election with 55% of the vote, which means
> she had considerable credibility before she was a Senator.
you're giving voters a lot of credibility, aren'tcha?
no, i kid your poll-believing self.
like i said, Hillary was the sweetheart candidate in that election.
granted, she campaigned well, and she won, but if the media wanted to
bury her, it could have just as easily escorted Rick Lazio to the prom
without so much as few well-placed headlines based on her national
clown reputation.
that's how it works.
did you see what they did to Caroline Kennedy's Senatorial bid?
poof!
who do you think was behind that effort?
yep.
turns out it was Hillary's hubby.
just read about it a last week in the huffpo.
...
now come back down to planet earth and try to remember how this
politics thinger REALLY operates.
credibility?
bwah.
[...]
-$Zero...
polls never count. all that counts is political reality.
and in America, the political reality is that George W. Bush
was elected to a second term, FFS. which totally shocked
the fuck out of all of us intelligent people, no?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/5db78060d04f5105
$Zero
> $Zero wrote:
> > On Dec 1, 12:50 am, Ejucaided Redneck <bobsloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
> >> books you haven't read,
>
> > writing a book doesn't prove anything as far as political reality
> > goes.
>
> You're the one who mentioned that book.
yes, a book written by a mainstream journalist.
because it's something _you_ value as evidence.
and you're correct that i didn't read it.
but i did see the movie.
Hillary was mostly portrayed as a joke.
albeit, not the specific kind of country bumpkin joke that Sarah has
been.
but the two parties differ in the kinds of people they generally
support.
one goes for the 'ejucaited' variety and the other goes for the horse
sense, cowboyish numbskull type.
> > and in America, the political reality is that George W. Bush
> > was elected to a second term, FFS.
>
> If you believe Ohio wasn't stolen.
a poll is a poll is a poll, Dude.
> A reasonable case can be made that it was.
no shit, Sherlock.
> >> > Senator Hillary Clinton, bulls-eye!
>
> >> Then demonstrate it with something more concrete
> >> than your personal opinion.
>
> > i've given you more than enough evidence that Hillary
> > was a national joke
>
> Actually you haven't offered any evidence at all, apart from
> your own beliefs.
no, i offered the political reality that was "in the air".
i didn't make any of those things up.
i didn't just pull them out of thin air.
you yourself admitted that it was all what the wingnuts were
promoting.
you just refused to admit that they were successful in creating those
perceptions in anyone other than themselves.
i disagree, obviously.
as do 60 - 70% of their intended receptors, i'd imagine.
> Actually you haven't offered any evidence at all, apart from
> your own beliefs.
ditto on you.
oh wait, you offered a poll whose methodology you don't already know.
> >> > you must seriously be blinded to how Hillary was widely perceived.
> >>
> >> Got some examples?
> >
> > none.
>
> Indeed.
the ones i gave you, you just snipped away into la la land.
which was a sort of major disincentive to provide you any more.
> >> The public knew about FDR's wheelchair while he was still in office.
> >> The last time he addressed a joint session of Congress he remained
> >> seated and acknowledged "ten pounds of steel" (his braces) were
> >> necessary for him to stand up.
> >
> > the last time? yikes.
> >
> > the public was obviously well-informed through-out his four terms.
>
> The public knew he had survived polio. In those days that meant you
> were crippled.
in those days most of the public were not doctors of logic.
kind of like today, only worse.
maybe.
> Woody Guthrie wrote a song immediately after FDR's death with the lines:
>
> "He took his office on a crippled leg, he said to one and all:
> ‘You money changin' racket boys have sure 'nuff got to fall'"
>
> and
>
> "I could see he was a cripple but he learned my soul to walk"
>
> Some secret.
yeah, well, we all know how many records of Woody the public owned and
regularly listened to during and after the depression in order to
educate themselves on the secrets they didn't know about their
leaders, as the lyrics were so skillfully metaphorically calculated to
translate all that stuff off the telegraphs and such.
> > so was "the public" aware of it when he was running for president
> > four years prior to his beheading?
>
> What's your point?
that mass communication has evolved quite a bit since the Kennedy era,
let alone the Pierce and Grant telegraph era.
> > so thanks for obliging in
> > ridiculing your idea that the existence of the telegraph in the 1880's
> > was somehow comparable to a hugely competitive 24-hour cable news
> > environment which I characterized as: mass communications.
>
> Your characterization is way too narrow.
i think you have that completely backwards, mass communication-wise.
and hey, where's my hilarious 'decades' without the 's' thinger?
> After 1861 what happened on the east coast was known in the west.
as long as someone took the limited time to squeeze the 'story'
through the limited bandwidth, maybe.
> You underestimate the content of newspapers in the nineteenth century.
you overestimate it.
> > I imagine it will be something along the lines of Palin / Gingrich.
>
> That's just silly, to think Gingrich's ego would tolerate being #2
> on a ticket.
Lyndon Johnson swallowed a much bigger ego.
the potential power is quite seductive.
> And silly to think Caribou Barbie has a realistic chance of being
> nominated by the Republican Party.
no.
Pee Wee Herman has no realistic chance of being nominated by the
Repubs.
Sarah Palin has a virtual lock.
it's hers to lose.
> > Sarah Palin has a better chance of becoming president than
> > any other Republican who has ever run for that office.
>
> What a goofy claim.
Raygun got in.
so did that half-wit dry-drunk W.
> Eisenhower?
>
> Hoover in his first election?
>
> Coolidge?
>
> Harding?
>
> Are these names even familiar to you?
Edward R. Murrow, Walter Kronkite, NYTimes, Rush Limbaugh, Sean
Hannity, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, FFS?
are these names even slightly familiar to you?
-$Zero...
now come back down to planet earth and try to remember how
this politics thinger REALLY operates. credibility? bwah.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/b6bb1bbfc2b8ae6b
Ejucaided Redneck
> On Dec 1, 6:02 pm, Ejucaided Redneck <bobsloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> you could not make the leap to the actual references?
Without a URL I have no idea where you got these notions, apart from
your own belief system.
Which is enormously flawed.
>> > "stupid" is a relative term based mostly on ideology.
>>
>> > there is a huge percentage of people who consider Hillary stupid.
>>
>> > huge.
>>
>> Then you ought to be able to cite huge numbers of references
>> depicting her as a stupid woman.
>
> perhaps in some alternate bizarro world where I cared enough to
> convince you of what you already know, intuitively.
You don't have any such references because there aren't any.
>> Interesting that you haven't done so.
>
> i'll say.
You don't have any such references because there aren't any.
>> To the contrary, polling generally is remarkably accurate.
> according to pollsters, sure.
>> When was the last time one was wildly off the mark?
> yikes.
> they contradict each other ALL of the time.
Actually they don't. Reputable polls are generally within three or so
points of one another.
If you ever paid attention to polling you'd know that.
> as it is,methinks you're in for a major shock along the lines of:
> WTF? George Bush got elected to a second term?!
At the point of his re-election --and as noted elsewhere, a good case
can be made that Ohio was stolen, in which case he wasn't re-elected at
all-- Shrub had never experienced polling numbers as low as Caribou
Barbie's.
>> > then cite them.
>>
>> Here's one:http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/173289.asp
>
> i'll assume that's one such poll.
Here's another:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123698/John-Edwards-Sarah-Palin-Favorable-Ratings-Slide.aspx
Find some more yourself if you like. All you need to do is Google palin
polls.
> so, you yourself don't know their methodologies and whatnot?
I have a reasonable notion about how polls --honest ones-- are
conducted. I trust Public Policy Polling, and Gallup (the other
reference I provided).
>> Um, cite something to support your claim.
> I took a poll.
Now you're being stupid.
As usual.
And I'm not going to follow this any further, _because_ of your stupidity.
It's as pointless as arguing with Skippy, or Jerkis.
--
When I'm asked why Southern writers
particularly have a penchant for writing
about freaks, I say it's because we are
still able to recognize one.
-- Flannery O'Connor
$Zero
> $Zero wrote:
> > On Dec 1, 6:02 pm, Ejucaided Redneck <bobsloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > you could not make the leap to the actual references?
>
> Without a URL I have no idea where you got these notions,
> apart from your own belief system.
>
> Which is enormously flawed.
then so is yours. because you agreed, remember?
again...
i didn't make any of those things up.
i didn't just pull them out of thin air.
you yourself admitted that it was all what
the wingnuts were promoting. you just refused
to admit that they were successful in creating
those perceptions in anyone other than themselves.
i disagree, obviously. as do 60 - 70% of their
intended receptors, i'd imagine.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/5b05527f20ea9c4f
> >> > "stupid" is a relative term based mostly on ideology.
> >>
> >> > there is a huge percentage of people who consider Hillary stupid.
> >>
> >> > huge.
> >>
> >> Then you ought to be able to cite huge numbers of references
> >> depicting her as a stupid woman.
> >
> > perhaps in some alternate bizarro world where I cared enough to
> > convince you of what you already know, intuitively.
>
> You don't have any such references because there aren't any.
for starters, you want me to search up the gazillion political
cartoons out there depicting Hillary as a clown or whatever?
not interested.
or would you like me to search up the gazillion political articles out
there depicting Hillary as a clown or whatever?
again, not interested.
yet all you can provide for your thesis that Sarah Palin is not a
viable candidate for president in the future are irrelevant "polls"
conducted in the past. yikes.
> >> Interesting that you haven't done so.
> >
> > i'll say.
>
> You don't have any such references because there aren't any.
there aren't any?
really?
do you actually believe what you're writing any more on this topic?
impossible.
> >> To the contrary, polling generally is remarkably accurate.
>
> > according to pollsters, sure.
>
> >> When was the last time one was wildly off the mark?
>
> > yikes.
>
> > they contradict each other ALL of the time.
>
> Actually they don't. Reputable polls are generally within
> three or so points of one another.
oh. my. God.
so polls of a feather that flock together... are reputable?
yikes.
how uncharacteristically gullible of you, Bob.
...
here, let me clear this up for you.
reputable polls are those in which actual relevant facts are
represented.
which can NEVER be the case in political opinion polling.
HTH.
> If you ever paid attention to polling you'd know that.
> > as it is,methinks you're in for a major shock along the lines of:
>
> > WTF? George Bush got elected to a second term?!
>
> At the point of his re-election --and as noted elsewhere, a good case
> can be made that Ohio was stolen, in which case he wasn't re-elected
> at all--
oh, i see.
actual _voting_ "polls" can be stolen, but paid-for political polls
are accurate to the extent that they are within three points of one
another.
that about cover your logic?
> Shrub had never experienced polling numbers as low as Caribou
> Barbie's.
here, contemplate these thoughts:
have Sarah's polling numbers ever changed?
why?
have Shrub's polling numbers ever changed?
why?
have Hillary's polling numbers ever changed?
why?
have Obama's polling numbers ever changed?
why?
...
what goes up... can go down.
and vice versa.
FYI.
> >> > then cite them.
> >>
> >> Here's one:http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/173289.asp
> >
> > i'll assume that's one such poll.
>
> Here's another:
>
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/123698/John-Edwards-Sarah-Palin-Favorable-...
>
> Find some more yourself if you like. All you need to do is Google palin
> polls.
yes, i'm quite familiar w/ how Google works.
curiously enough, they would never run any of my I Hope Rush Fails tee-
shirt ads.
even though it was the #1 political story at the time.
for several months.
go figure.
> > so, you yourself don't know their methodologies and whatnot?
>
> I have a reasonable notion about how polls --honest ones-- are
> conducted.
honest polls?
yikes.
go ahead, craft me an honest poll question about Sarah Palin's fitness
for the presidency.
let's see what you consider honest.
> I trust Public Policy Polling, and Gallup (the other
> reference I provided).
>
> >> Um, cite something to support your claim.
>
> > I took a poll.
>
> Now you're being stupid.
not possible.
i was being brilliant.
> As usual.
>
> And I'm not going to follow this any further, _because_ of your stupidity.
understood.
> It's as pointless as arguing with Skippy, or Jerkis.
we all know the differences between each of the cited parties.
...
anyway, i await your honest poll question about Sarah Palin.
that should be a beaut.
-$Zero...
Pee Wee Herman has no realistic chance of being nominated by
the Repubs. Sarah Palin has a virtual lock. it's hers to lose.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/5b05527f20ea9c4f
Skipper
<9adf8e8f-a8da-40a1...@e20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
$Zero <zero...@gmail.com> wrote:
> how uncharacteristically gullible of you, Bob.
THAT is never uncharacteristic of Bob, whose brain operates like the
ball in front of a dung beetle.