Palin Goes Rogue on Repubs
Cliff
http://www.therightperspective.org/2009/10/28/palin-endorses-conservative-over-republican/
[
Former Alaska governor and GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin has
broken party ranks and endorsed a third-party candidate over his Republican
competitor in an upstate New York congressional race.
]
" .. the heavily-Republican district voted for Obama last year, .. "
LOL .. Bull in the china shop ....
--
Cliff
Bret Cahill
> Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
> other contributors snipped by Cliff. In a fit of peak no doubt.
>
> >http://www.therightperspective.org/2009/10/28/palin-endorses-conserva...
> >[
> >Former Alaska governor and GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin has
> >broken party ranks and endorsed a third-party candidate over his Republican
> >competitor in an upstate New York congressional race.
> >]
> > " .. the heavily-Republican district voted for Obama last year, .. "
>
> > LOL .. Bull in the china shop ....
>
> stuck with it. In the wake of the 2008 election they decided a
> conservative didn't have a chance and their only choice was to run a
> woman that was so liberal she could out-liberal the Democrats.
>
> Fast forward ten months and the electorate has turned sharply
> conservative. One of the conservative Republicans that didn't get the
> nod decided to run on the Conservative Party Line. The official
> Republican is diving for the bottom and the race is between the Dem
> and the Conservative. It's rated too close to call at the moment but
> the Conservative is moving up and the Dem is fighting to hold his
> percentage. Could go either way.
>
> Virginia was touted by the Dems as officially moving from R to D in
> 2008 and this coming gubernatorial election was heralded as when the
> that would be sealed forever and ever. Now it's pretty much conceded
> the R is going to win.
>
> The NY governor race is generally conceded to the D at the moment and
> has been since the beginning.
>
> The moral of this story is that the Republican leadership is
> completely out of touch with the Republican rank and file. The party
> has to crash and rebuild from its grass roots. This may be a small
> start in that direction. Time to dump the RINO's and run on real
> principles instead of just running for power with whatever looks like
> it may work at the moment.
Which brings us to the question:
What _are_ "real" GOP principles?
Bret Cahill
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
> other contributors snipped by Cliff. In a fit of peak no doubt.
>
>>http://www.therightperspective.org/2009/10/28/palin-endorses-
conservative-over-republican/
>>[
>>Former Alaska governor and GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin
>>has broken party ranks and endorsed a third-party candidate over his
>>Republican competitor in an upstate New York congressional race. ]
>> " .. the heavily-Republican district voted for Obama last year, .. "
>>
>> LOL .. Bull in the china shop ....
>
> The Republicans made a very bad choice some time back and they are stuck
> with it. In the wake of the 2008 election they decided a conservative
> didn't have a chance and their only choice was to run a woman that was
> so liberal she could out-liberal the Democrats.
>
> Fast forward ten months and the electorate has turned sharply
> conservative. One of the conservative Republicans that didn't get the
> nod decided to run on the Conservative Party Line. The official
> Republican is diving for the bottom and the race is between the Dem and
> the Conservative. It's rated too close to call at the moment but the
> Conservative is moving up and the Dem is fighting to hold his
> percentage. Could go either way.
>
> Virginia was touted by the Dems as officially moving from R to D in 2008
> and this coming gubernatorial election was heralded as when the that
> would be sealed forever and ever. Now it's pretty much conceded the R
> is going to win.
>
> The NY governor race is generally conceded to the D at the moment and
> has been since the beginning.
>
> The moral of this story is that the Republican leadership is completely
> out of touch with the Republican rank and file. The party has to crash
> and rebuild from its grass roots. This may be a small start in that
> direction. Time to dump the RINO's and run on real principles instead
> of just running for power with whatever looks like it may work at the
> moment.
The name "Republican" will probably survive the crash. Most likely as a
theocratic wing. While true conservatives may break off into an anti-
federalist party and suck true conservatives from the Democrats.
At least a 3-party system would give us a bit more representation. It
will also be interesting to see them forced to disassemble the existing
framework which prevents minor parties from participating.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://tinyurl.com/yhnwuja
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lookout
Once the immoral majority died they were without what they consider
principals. That's why they lost so badly.
Jerry Okamura
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:24f9b76a-c826-4064...@m3g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
The same as what are "real" Democratic principles. Those "principals" are
defined by their party platform. Anything other than that is simply a
persons opinion of what their principals are.
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:30:36 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>
>>> The moral of this story is that the Republican leadership is
>>> completely out of touch with the Republican rank and file. The party
>>> has to crash and rebuild from its grass roots. This may be a small
>>> start in that direction. Time to dump the RINO's and run on real
>>> principles instead of just running for power with whatever looks like
>>> it may work at the moment.
>>
>>The name "Republican" will probably survive the crash. Most likely as a
>>theocratic wing. While true conservatives may break off into an anti-
>>federalist party and suck true conservatives from the Democrats.
>>
>>At least a 3-party system would give us a bit more representation. It
>>will also be interesting to see them forced to disassemble the existing
>>framework which prevents minor parties from participating.
>
> "Disassemble". That means to not tell the truth.
>
> Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
Sorry, but my use and spelling were correct. You're thinking of
"dissemble" not "disassemble".
> The way the law in Arizona is written, even if Ron Paul had found a way
> to win, he would not have won because he wasn't approved by the official
> party powers. Voting is not what it used to be.
Ain't that the truth.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible: Slavery Good, Gays Bad, Snakes Talk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gunner Asch
wrote:
>Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:30:36 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>
>>> The moral of this story is that the Republican leadership is completely
>>> out of touch with the Republican rank and file. The party has to crash
>>> and rebuild from its grass roots. This may be a small start in that
>>> direction. Time to dump the RINO's and run on real principles instead
>>> of just running for power with whatever looks like it may work at the
>>> moment.
>>
>>The name "Republican" will probably survive the crash. Most likely as a
>>theocratic wing. While true conservatives may break off into an anti-
>>federalist party and suck true conservatives from the Democrats.
>>
>>At least a 3-party system would give us a bit more representation. It
>>will also be interesting to see them forced to disassemble the existing
>>framework which prevents minor parties from participating.
>
>"Disassemble". That means to not tell the truth.
>
>Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
>
>The way the law in Arizona is written, even if Ron Paul had found a
>way to win, he would not have won because he wasn't approved by the
>official party powers. Voting is not what it used to be.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-trippi/roves-misread-of-tuesdays_b_340290.html
pyotr filipivich
<gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> reported Elvis on Sun, 01 Nov 2009
00:58:52 -0700 in misc.survivalism:
Interesting ...
>
-
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:05:03 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>
>>>>At least a 3-party system would give us a bit more representation. It
>>>>will also be interesting to see them forced to disassemble the
>>>>existing framework which prevents minor parties from participating.
>>>
>>> "Disassemble". That means to not tell the truth.
>>>
>>> Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
>>
>>Sorry, but my use and spelling were correct. You're thinking of
>>"dissemble" not "disassemble".
>
> Bush quote.
Ah, now it makes sense. Now I'm going to go dissemble the power steering
booster on the old Peugot...
Curly Surmudgeon
Uhm, didn't Gummer kill file Winston? Multiple times?
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> Gunner Asch <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
>>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:05:03 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>
>>>The way the law in Arizona is written, even if Ron Paul had found a way
>>>to win, he would not have won because he wasn't approved by the
>>>official party powers. Voting is not what it used to be.
>>
>>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-trippi/roves-misread-of-
tuesdays_b_340290.html
>
>>>|| To Rove "us" is the Republican party and "them" is the Democratic
>>>|| party. This isn't just Rove's problem - most in both party
>>>establishments || view the political world this way - with just as
>>>many seeing "us" as || Democrats and "them" as Republicans. But this
>>>view masks what || is truly happening - and makes the establishments
>>>of both parties || blind to what is coming in 2010.
>>>||
>>>|| Voters are increasingly seeing themselves as "us" and both parties
>>>|| in Washington as "them." They are not going to discriminate between
>>>|| the two parties in 2010. The results next Tuesday will likely
>>>demonstrate || the voter's frustration with those in power, regardless
>>>of party. Far from || signaling a backlash against Democratic rule and
>>>hope for the || Republican Party, the results on Tuesday will signal
>>>that in 2010 || incumbents in both parties, of all ideological stripes
>>>should be || frightened.
>
> Bingo. We have a winner. Give the man a cigar.
But Gummer kill filed you. Multiple times.
Strabo
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 12:19:08 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:05:03 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>> At least a 3-party system would give us a bit more representation. It
>>>>> will also be interesting to see them forced to disassemble the
>>>>> existing framework which prevents minor parties from participating.
>>>> "Disassemble". That means to not tell the truth.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
>>> Sorry, but my use and spelling were correct. You're thinking of
>>> "dissemble" not "disassemble".
>> Bush quote.
>
> Ah, now it makes sense. Now I'm going to go dissemble the power steering
> booster on the old Peugot...
>
4-speed column shift.
Curly Surmudgeon
> Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 12:19:08 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:05:03 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>>> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>>> At least a 3-party system would give us a bit more representation.
>>>>>> It will also be interesting to see them forced to disassemble the
>>>>>> existing framework which prevents minor parties from participating.
>>>>> "Disassemble". That means to not tell the truth.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
>>>> Sorry, but my use and spelling were correct. You're thinking of
>>>> "dissemble" not "disassemble".
>>> Bush quote.
>>
>> Ah, now it makes sense. Now I'm going to go dissemble the power
>> steering booster on the old Peugot...
>>
>>
> 4-speed column shift.
I misspoke above. It was not the power steering booster but the power
brake booster that needed repair. Simple fix, the check valve was
sticky. Bit of WD-40 (yeah we have it in Argentina too) and a fine wire
to push it back with finally blowing the scrud backwards through the
valve. Only needed to resemble...
Cliff
>"Disassemble". That means to not tell the truth.
>
>Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
What a relief.
Disassemble means "to take apart".
Have you ever considered getting anything right or
not lying?
Wingers .... <sheesh> ....
--
Cliff
Cliff
>
>The way the law in Arizona is written, even if Ron Paul had found a
>way to win, he would not have won because he wasn't approved by the
>official party powers. Voting is not what it used to be.
Saw Ron Paul on the TV news today.
Per him gummer should be dead & happy to be dead.
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0910/29/lkl.01.html
[
REP. RON PAUL, (R) TEXAS: Well, I think it's a fallacy to say that someone has a
right to somebody else's services. You have a right to your life and you have a
right to your liberty and you have a right to earn a living. You ought to have a
right to keep it. But you have a responsibility to take care of yourself.
]
[
PAUL: Allow free markets to work. There's an example of free markets, and I
might have even heard it on CNN today, of the example of somebody that was going
to be charge 100,000 dollars for surgery, and they went to Singapore and got it
for 25,000 dollars. And the main reason they gave what they could afford to do
it was that they didn't have horrendous malpractice payments to make, and there
was a market. There was a market.
]
Next stroke or heart attack just take your cash US$ 25,000++ & go to
India or China, gummer.
You ARE off the no-fly list & have valid passport & visas, right?
And they will let you take all that cash on the plane ....
--
Cliff
Curly Surmudgeon
Yeah, I caught and replied to that one too but if you read on Winston
explained how it was a repeat of Bush's misuse of English.
lorad
wrote:
> http://www.therightperspective.org/2009/10/28/palin-endorses-conserva...
> [
> Former Alaska governor and GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin has
> broken party ranks and endorsed a third-party candidate over his Republican
> competitor in an upstate New York congressional race.
> ]
>
> " .. the heavily-Republican district voted for Obama last year, .. "
>
> LOL .. Bull in the china shop ....
> --
> Cliff
Palin this... Palin that... Palin up your patootey..
All this wasted hot air on a looney ditz like Palin whose only
accomplishment to date has been to mis-appropriate $50k of taxpayer
money in order to remodel her (former) mayorial office with bordello-
red velveteen wallpaper...
And to make McCain cringe at his mistake in picking her .. for the
rest of his life.
Palin is walking poison for what still passes as the 'republican
party'.
Cliff
<CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 03:46:21 -0500, Cliff
><Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:05:03 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Disassemble". That means to not tell the truth.
>>>
>>>Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
>>
>> What a relief.
>> Disassemble means "to take apart".
>> Have you ever considered getting anything right or
>> not lying?
>> Wingers .... <sheesh> ....
>
>Yeah, I caught and replied to that one too but if you read on Winston
>explained how it was a repeat of Bush's misuse of English.
I saw that later.
Hero worship?
--
Cliff
Curly Surmudgeon
<Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 16:50:18 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon
> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 03:46:21 -0500, Cliff
>><Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:05:03 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Disassemble". That means to not tell the truth.
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
>>>
>>> What a relief.
>>> Disassemble means "to take apart".
>>> Have you ever considered getting anything right or
>>> not lying?
>>> Wingers .... <sheesh> ....
>>
>>Yeah, I caught and replied to that one too but if you read on Winston
>>explained how it was a repeat of Bush's misuse of English.
>
> I saw that later.
> Hero worship?
Hardly, back off, Cliff. Winston has been pretty consistent and has
never been a bushbot. He extends the same revulsion to both parties
rather than to just one.
Even if you don't agree with him you have to respect his consistency.
Cliff
<CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:26:40 -0500, Cliff
><Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 16:50:18 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon
>> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 03:46:21 -0500, Cliff
>>><Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:05:03 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Disassemble". That means to not tell the truth.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
>>>>
>>>> What a relief.
>>>> Disassemble means "to take apart".
>>>> Have you ever considered getting anything right or
>>>> not lying?
>>>> Wingers .... <sheesh> ....
>>>
>>>Yeah, I caught and replied to that one too but if you read on Winston
>>>explained how it was a repeat of Bush's misuse of English.
>>
>> I saw that later.
>> Hero worship?
>
>Hardly, back off, Cliff. Winston has been pretty consistent and has
>never been a bushbot. He extends the same revulsion to both parties
>rather than to just one.
>
>Even if you don't agree with him you have to respect his consistency.
True but I don't see blaming the new guy for what the old guys did just yet.
Much is in the intentions & the old guys clearly did not have our best
interests in mind.
--
Cliff
Curly Surmudgeon
<Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
Same here but I'm having an increasingly difficult time resisting an
outpouring of rejection on other issues myself. The economy is, and must
be, primary. The economy is coming along but as a mortal its
excruciatingly slow.
Remember, I didn't vote for Obama either.
> Much is in the intentions & the old guys clearly did not have our best
> interests in mind.
No shit, sherlock. And I say that in a non-insulting, sarcastic, sense.
Also consider Palin as one of the "old guys" in platform and goals.
raamman
> Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
> >>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:26:40 -0500, Cliff wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 16:50:18 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
> >>>>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 03:46:21 -0500, Cliff wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:05:03 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
> >>>>>>"Disassemble". That means to not tell the truth.
>
> >>>>>>Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
>
> >>>>> What a relief.
> >>>>> Disassemble means "to take apart".
> >>>>> Have you ever considered getting anything right or
> >>>>> not lying?
> >>>>> Wingers .... <sheesh> ....
>
> >>>>Yeah, I caught and replied to that one too but if you read on Winston
> >>>>explained how it was a repeat of Bush's misuse of English.
>
> >>> I saw that later.
> >>> Hero worship?
>
> on earth can you say I worship Bush as a hero when I spent six years
> bitching about him. And you were right there agreeing with what I
> posted so you can't plead ignorance.
>
> >>Hardly, back off, Cliff. Winston has been pretty consistent and has
> >>never been a bushbot. He extends the same revulsion to both parties
> >>rather than to just one.
>
> >>Even if you don't agree with him you have to respect his consistency.
>
> > True but I don't see blaming the new guy for what the old guys did just yet.
> > Much is in the intentions & the old guys clearly did not have our best
> >interests in mind.
>
> them? Agreed.
>
> But that said, Obama's policies to deal with those disasters has been
> mostly a carbon copy of what Bush did - with escalation.
>
> The exception is this in my book. Bush was a massive spender. A
> "borrow and spend" liberal of the R variety as opposed to "tax and
> spend" liberals if you are of the D persuasion. But Obama has pushed
> the spending to vastly higher limits and found a whole bunch of new
> things to spend on. Perhaps some of them would be worth working on in
> a vibrant, producing country that had it's financial house in order.
> In the existing economic climate, it's pouring gasoline on the fire.
>
> So, no I don't blame Obama for the disasters given to him by Bush, but
> I do hold him accountable for his choices of how to go forward. I
> think he has taken to heart the old advice to never waste a good
> crisis and is using it to push through a string of programs that
> border on socialist - programs that would not have been give a moments
> hearing by the public if they were not up against the wall.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
As fair a comment as ever appeared here. Is Obama getting bogged down
in dialogue and trying to gain a consensus, or is he lost in knowing
what to do and becoming indecisive ?
Strabo
> On Nov 3, 11:39 pm, Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote:
>> Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>
>> But that said, Obama's policies to deal with those disasters has been
>> mostly a carbon copy of what Bush did - with escalation.
>>
>> The exception is this in my book. Bush was a massive spender. A
>> "borrow and spend" liberal of the R variety as opposed to "tax and
>> spend" liberals if you are of the D persuasion. But Obama has pushed
>> the spending to vastly higher limits and found a whole bunch of new
>> things to spend on. Perhaps some of them would be worth working on in
>> a vibrant, producing country that had it's financial house in order.
>> In the existing economic climate, it's pouring gasoline on the fire.
>>
>> So, no I don't blame Obama for the disasters given to him by Bush, but
>> I do hold him accountable for his choices of how to go forward. I
>> think he has taken to heart the old advice to never waste a good
>> crisis and is using it to push through a string of programs that
>> border on socialist - programs that would not have been give a moments
>> hearing by the public if they were not up against the wall.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> As fair a comment as ever appeared here. Is Obama getting bogged down
> in dialogue and trying to gain a consensus, or is he lost in knowing
> what to do and becoming indecisive ?
>
Neither. Watch both of the magician's hands or you'll miss the trick.
Cliff
<CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
Seemingly so but the other risk is massive debt & hyper-inflation
followed by a bad crash.
After the rethug debts of 11 trillion how much more current debt
is affordable?
Obama's folks seem to be keeping it down, all things considered
(such as huge losses to write down & less tax collected).
>
>Remember, I didn't vote for Obama either.
>
>> Much is in the intentions & the old guys clearly did not have our best
>> interests in mind.
>
>No shit, sherlock. And I say that in a non-insulting, sarcastic, sense.
>Also consider Palin as one of the "old guys" in platform and goals.
She was too stupid other than as a sock puppet which is clearly
what they had in mind for her.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Given your penchant for misunderstanding and misquoting I'll pass
>commenting on that.
I quoted exactly & provided a link IIRC.
Why is gummer still living?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>As a winger of the left variety, you should have recognized a Bush
>quote. I'm bitterly disappointed in your limited memory of the
>political scene you liked to comment on so much.
>
>http://humor.beecy.net/politics/bushisms/disassemble/
>"It seemed like to me they based some of their decisions on the word
>of - and the allegations - by people who were held in detention,
>people who hate America, people that had been trained
>in some instances to disassemble - that means not tell the truth."
>
>-President George W. Bush, on an Amnesty International report on
>prisoner abuse at Guantanamo Bay, Washington, D.C., May 31, 2005
>
>http://humor.beecy.net/politics/bushisms/disassemble/bush-disassemble.mp3
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4598109.stm
>Mr Bush said its accusations therefore stemmed from "people who hate
>America, people that have been trained in some instances to
>disassemble, that means not tell the truth".
Wingers learn big words from bushco speachwriters.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 06:28:22 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>>>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:26:40 -0500, Cliff wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 16:50:18 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>>>>>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 03:46:21 -0500, Cliff wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:05:03 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>
>>>>>>>"Disassemble". That means to not tell the truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What a relief.
>>>>>> Disassemble means "to take apart".
>>>>>> Have you ever considered getting anything right or
>>>>>> not lying?
>>>>>> Wingers .... <sheesh> ....
>>>>>
>>>>>Yeah, I caught and replied to that one too but if you read on Winston
>>>>>explained how it was a repeat of Bush's misuse of English.
>>>>
>>>> I saw that later.
>>>> Hero worship?
>
>Can't get off a post without some political cheap shot can you? How
>on earth can you say I worship Bush as a hero when I spent six years
>bitching about him. And you were right there agreeing with what I
>posted so you can't plead ignorance.
>
>>>Hardly, back off, Cliff. Winston has been pretty consistent and has
>>>never been a bushbot. He extends the same revulsion to both parties
>>>rather than to just one.
>>>
>>>Even if you don't agree with him you have to respect his consistency.
>>
>> True but I don't see blaming the new guy for what the old guys did just yet.
>> Much is in the intentions & the old guys clearly did not have our best
>>interests in mind.
>
>That Bush created a dozen disasters? Agreed. That Obama inherited
>them? Agreed.
>
>But that said, Obama's policies to deal with those disasters has been
>mostly a carbon copy of what Bush did - with escalation.
Creating disasters is one thing.
Trying to salvage something from them is another.
>The exception is this in my book. Bush was a massive spender. A
>"borrow and spend" liberal of the R variety as opposed to "tax and
>spend" liberals if you are of the D persuasion. But Obama has pushed
>the spending to vastly higher limits and found a whole bunch of new
>things to spend on. Perhaps some of them would be worth working on in
>a vibrant, producing country that had it's financial house in order.
>In the existing economic climate, it's pouring gasoline on the fire.
The economy is a current thing.
Only so many goods & services are produced & distributed in
any period of time.
You would have the sum of these reduced even more and
the reduction is hardly fairly apportioned.
$$ are just an accounting trick & show ownership & control to a certain
extent.
Though I agree that at present the rich are getting richer & the poor
poorer, same as before.
Ownership is still shifting from one class to a much smaller one.
>So, no I don't blame Obama for the disasters given to him by Bush, but
>I do hold him accountable for his choices of how to go forward. I
>think he has taken to heart the old advice to never waste a good
>crisis and is using it to push through a string of programs that
>border on socialist - programs that would not have been give a moments
>hearing by the public if they were not up against the wall.
There is nothing wrong with some "socialist" programs.
Any government that works in the long run is a mix
and has the purpose of serving it's people.
Roads & parks, just for starters, are socialist. So are
rules & regulations. About anything that no private party
can do at a quick profit but yields long-term benefits exceeding
their amortized cost .....
We even used to regulate utilities ...
The question of what interest rate to assume remains open.
--
Cliff
Sid9
"Winston_Smith" <not_...@bogus.net> wrote in message
news:ane4f5t4c57fbd9h0...@4ax.com...
>
> Wow, the guy is famous. He can raise his rates now. TMT tells us
> Gunner is why the Ds lost so badly on Tuesday, so I think Gunner can
> probably double his rates.
.
.
The divide in the Republican party is as big as ever.....Democrats
thank Rush and Sarah for the NY 23d CD seat!
Rush,Sarah, please come to Florida and campaign for Marco Rubio...get
rid of that "moderate" Charlie Crist
Curly Surmudgeon
<Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
That's the only thing keeping me from raising disagreements on other
issues. The economy is by far and away the most important issue facing
not only the USA but the world.
>>Remember, I didn't vote for Obama either.
>>
>>> Much is in the intentions & the old guys clearly did not have our best
>>> interests in mind.
>>
>>No shit, sherlock. And I say that in a non-insulting, sarcastic, sense.
>>Also consider Palin as one of the "old guys" in platform and goals.
>
> She was too stupid other than as a sock puppet which is clearly
> what they had in mind for her.
--
Cliff
>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:44:51 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net> wrote:
>>>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:05:03 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>"Disassemble". That means to not tell the truth.
>
>>>> Disassemble means "to take apart".
>>>> Have you ever considered getting anything right or not lying?
>>>> Wingers .... <sheesh> ....
>
>>>As a winger of the left variety, you should have recognized a Bush
>>>quote. I'm bitterly disappointed in your limited memory of the
>>>political scene you liked to comment on so much.
>>>
>>>http://humor.beecy.net/politics/bushisms/disassemble/
>>>http://humor.beecy.net/politics/bushisms/disassemble/bush-disassemble.mp3
>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4598109.stm
>
>> Wingers learn big words from bushco speachwriters.
>
>Apparently left wingers don't learn to spell "speech writers". I'm
>guessing you are a public school graduate.
I do make typos now & then.
What did the nuns do to you?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Ron Paul actually mentioned Gunner by name?
>
>Wow, the guy is famous. He can raise his rates now. TMT tells us
>Gunner is why the Ds lost so badly on Tuesday, so I think Gunner can
>probably double his rates.
He's from Mexico, right?
BTW, The wingers are claiming that their loss in NY was a huge win.
Pretty funny.
District had voted republican siince the civil war. Now they voted in a dem.
And the dems have one more vote in congress .....
--
Cliff
Cliff
<CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
As I mentioned before Obama may have a larger picture in mind.
IF the courts rule things forbidden then the next guys may not ever
try them again. IF things are just left to executiive orders who knows?
Obama is bright AND a constitutional specialist AND a lawyer.
Perhaps he has noticed this?
My hope, anyway. Such as bushco had best never happen again.
>The economy is by far and away the most important issue facing
>not only the USA but the world.
>
>>>Remember, I didn't vote for Obama either.
>>>
>>>> Much is in the intentions & the old guys clearly did not have our best
>>>> interests in mind.
>>>
>>>No shit, sherlock. And I say that in a non-insulting, sarcastic, sense.
>>>Also consider Palin as one of the "old guys" in platform and goals.
>>
>> She was too stupid other than as a sock puppet which is clearly
>> what they had in mind for her.
Palin+Cheney in 2016 !!
--
Cliff
Curly Surmudgeon
<Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
Rendition and the infrastructure created to torture can be eliminated by
a simple Executive Order. Obama hasn't issued one and maintains the
policies that permit War Crimes. That is intolerable.
But the economy is an over riding priority.
>>The economy is by far and away the most important issue facing not only
>>the USA but the world.
>>
>>>>Remember, I didn't vote for Obama either.
>>>>
>>>>> Much is in the intentions & the old guys clearly did not have our
>>>>> best interests in mind.
>>>>
>>>>No shit, sherlock. And I say that in a non-insulting, sarcastic,
>>>>sense. Also consider Palin as one of the "old guys" in platform and
>>>>goals.
>>>
>>> She was too stupid other than as a sock puppet which is clearly
>>> what they had in mind for her.
>
> Palin+Cheney in 2016 !!
--
Sid9
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:41:16 -0700, Winston_Smith
>><not_...@bogus.net> wrote:
>>>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>>>Ron Paul actually mentioned Gunner by name?
>>>
>>>Wow, the guy is famous. He can raise his rates now. TMT tells us
>>>Gunner is why the Ds lost so badly on Tuesday, so I think Gunner
>>>can
>>>probably double his rates.
>>
>> He's from Mexico, right?
>>
>> BTW, The wingers are claiming that their loss in NY was a huge
>> win.
>
> combining forces with the other left-wingers (Democrats) they kept a
> true conservative out. Two libs beat one conservative.
>
>> Pretty funny.
>> District had voted republican siince the civil war. Now they voted
>> in a dem.
>> And the dems have one more vote in congress .....
>
> come back. The point you miss is that the Rs got skunked because
> they
> ran a candidate that was an extreme liberal. The plan was to out
> liberal the Dem. That actually made the Dem the more moderate of
> the
> two. Obama's sort of liberalism is fading fast. The electorate is
> fast getting afraid of him and moving right.
>
> To complicate things, a conservative ran as a third party. He was
> ready to take so many votes he was the spoiler at a minimum. He may
> very well have won. The uber-liberal winger (Republican) group
> could
> not stomach that, so the Republican party endorsed the Democrat.
>
> THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ENDORSED THE DEMOCRAT. Got that?
>
> You seem to miss all that and tell us how the D beat the R. That
> would be the R that had already withdrawn from the race and
> supported
> the D in a desperate attempt to save liberalism.
>
> That makes the Dem "victory" pretty much of a farce. But hey, it's
> the only one you got all night.
.
.
.
Lets hope they keep up the good work!
.
Encourage them to come to Florida and purge Crist in favor of Rubio.
Cliff
<CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>Rendition and the infrastructure created to torture can be eliminated by
>a simple Executive Order. Obama hasn't issued one and maintains the
>policies that permit War Crimes. That is intolerable.
Cliff
>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:41:16 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net> wrote:
>>>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>>>Ron Paul actually mentioned Gunner by name?
>>>
>>>Wow, the guy is famous. He can raise his rates now. TMT tells us
>>>Gunner is why the Ds lost so badly on Tuesday, so I think Gunner can
>>>probably double his rates.
>>
>> He's from Mexico, right?
>>
>> BTW, The wingers are claiming that their loss in NY was a huge win.
T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
>To them is was because they are an ultra liberal faction.
T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
> By
>combining forces with the other left-wingers (Democrats) they kept a
>true conservative out.
T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
>Two libs beat one conservative.
T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
>
>> Pretty funny.
>> District had voted republican siince the civil war. Now they voted in a dem.
>> And the dems have one more vote in congress .....
>
>But Obama took it in 2008 so any sort of a conservative showing is a
>come back.
T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
>The point you miss is that the Rs got skunked because they
>ran a candidate that was an extreme liberal.
T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
>The plan was to out
>liberal the Dem. That actually made the Dem the more moderate of the
>two. Obama's sort of liberalism is fading fast. The electorate is
>fast getting afraid of him and moving right.
T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
>To complicate things, a conservative ran as a third party.
T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
>He was
>ready to take so many votes he was the spoiler at a minimum. He may
>very well have won.
T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
>The uber-liberal winger (Republican) group could
>not stomach that, so the Republican party endorsed the Democrat.
>
>THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ENDORSED THE DEMOCRAT. Got that?
T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
>You seem to miss all that and tell us how the D beat the R.
T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
>That
>would be the R that had already withdrawn from the race and supported
>the D in a desperate attempt to save liberalism.
T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
>That makes the Dem "victory" pretty much of a farce. But hey, it's
>the only one you got all night.
T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
Do you understand yet?
Who financed Doug Hoffman?
HTH
--
Cliff
Cliff
>> That makes the Dem "victory" pretty much of a farce. But hey, it's
>> the only one you got all night.
>.
>.
>.
>Lets hope they keep up the good work!
>.
>Encourage them to come to Florida and purge Crist in favor of Rubio.
Palin seems to be the hand of death ...
--
Cliff
Gunner Asch
wrote:
>Ron Paul actually mentioned Gunner by name?
>
>Wow, the guy is famous. He can raise his rates now. TMT tells us
>Gunner is why the Ds lost so badly on Tuesday, so I think Gunner can
>probably double his rates.
Cool!!!!
Now if so many of my clients had not already gone out of busines thanks
to the Leftards and the Obamassiah....
Gunner
Cliff
>Boy are you in denial !!
Put up your proof that Doug Hoffman won then.
<Snicker>
> If you shout it often enough maybe some poor
>soul will believe it.
Put up your proof that Doug Hoffman won then.
<Snicker>
>The WINGER is the left wing Democrat. He was
>saved from defeat by the other WINGER, a left wing Republican.
Put up your proof that Doug Hoffman won then.
<Snicker>
>You really are better suited to rooting for a football team than
>commenting on politics. You see everything as our team (the Dems) and
>the other team (whoever it is this week).
I smell silly, stupid & lying wingers.
>The issue is not R vs D. They both span far left to conservative.
>
>The issue is liberal vs. conservative.
T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
>It took two liberals - far
>left wingers - to defeat one conservative.
T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
>The two left wingers had
>all the money and resources of a national party behind them and it
>took two of them working together to squeak past a guy running as an
>independent.
T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
>And no, the ultra left Republican winger did not lose; she withdrew
>and SUPPORTED the ultra left Democrat winger.
T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
>If you don't understand that you are a shill or a fool.
T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
Is that any clearer yet?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:50:49 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>
>>>If you don't understand that you are a shill or a fool.
>>
>> T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
>>
>> Is that any clearer yet?
>
>No. Your mindless rooting for your football team makes no sense and
>never will.
>
>Denial is not a river in Egypt. It's the left WINGERS state of mind.
Nobody asked you to try Newspeak.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Whatever that has to do with the topic of this thread.
Why do you want to change it?
--
Cliff
Curly Surmudgeon
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:26:41 -0800, Gunner Asch
> <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
>
>>Now if so many of my clients had not already gone out of busines thanks
>>to the Leftards and the Obamassiah...
Hmmm, where were you when the economy was disintegrating? Oh yeah, you
told us that the economy was just peachy a year ago, had a multiple
bypass on the public dole, and spent the spring doped up on vicodin.
Now you're simply insane.
> "Clients"?
>
> Didn't know gradeschoolers went into business.
>
> Sure you aint hanging around playgrounds illegally?
No, Gummer is a creep but I doubt that he molests children. Try to keep
your insults reality based so as not to become another HH&C/Libby Loo/
Jerry/EskWIRED/Compact Adolescent/etc.
HH&C
> Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
> > T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
> > T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
> > T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
> > T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
> > T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
> > T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
> > T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
> > T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
> > T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
> > T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
> > T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
> > T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
> > T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
>
Thank God! Imagine if the little spammer made 13 individual postings.
> Well yes. The wingers did lose. They lost BOTH gubernatorial races.
> They lost the ALL of highest offices up for election.
>
> That's the LEFT WINGERS that lost, of course.
Be nice. And don't play with your food.
HH&C
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 06:54:18 -0700, smor...@board.com wrote:
> > On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:26:41 -0800, Gunner Asch
> > <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
>
> >>Now if so many of my clients had not already gone out of busines thanks
> >>to the Leftards and the Obamassiah...
>
> Hmmm, where were you when the economy was disintegrating? Oh yeah, you
> told us that the economy was just peachy a year ago, had a multiple
> bypass on the public dole, and spent the spring doped up on vicodin.
>
> Now you're simply insane.
>
> > "Clients"?
>
> > Didn't know gradeschoolers went into business.
>
> > Sure you aint hanging around playgrounds illegally?
>
> No, Gummer is a creep but I doubt that he molests children. Try to keep
> your insults reality based so as not to become another HH&C/Libby Loo/
> Jerry/EskWIRED/Compact Adolescent/etc.
You left out Observer, and of course, yourself.
> --
> Regards, Curly
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The Bible: Slavery Good, Gays Bad, Snakes Talk
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gunner Asch
ROFLMAO!! Indeed! Indeed!!
Cliff
wrote:
>On Nov 7, 2:33�pm, Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote:
Sucker.
--
Cliff