BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
rdean3...@flash.net
and rich Hollywood Jews, too:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/08/sources-clinton-supporter-pressures-pelosi/
Meanwhile, Obama continues with the whining:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/08/obama-mccain-is-losing-his-bearings/
but he should cheer up...it's not just terrorists who support him:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/08/limbaugh-comes-out-for-obama/
And on the other side of the aisle:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/08/mccain-wants-office-star-for-vp/
So, what's that again, big tits and beer vs. bitchy lawyers married to
bitchy lawyers...?
Can you say President McCain...?
asadi
john
Tom Littleton
<rdean3...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:lnj624ltbdfn7i1o4...@4ax.com...
> Can you say President McCain...?
>
Tom
Ken Fortenberry
> <links snipped>
Whistling past the grave yard again ?
I'll wager one bottle of 6 yr old Sazerac Rye Whiskey, one bottle
of Jade Absinthe, a bottle of Peychaud's bitters, a box of sugar
cubes and a half dozen lemons against two bottles of Lagavulin
and a six pack of Dixie Blackened Voodoo that McCain doesn't win
in November.
--
Ken Fortenberry
Tom Littleton
"Ken Fortenberry" <kenfort...@trashameritech.net> wrote in message
news:jkLUj.15262$V14....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
> I'll wager one bottle of 6 yr old Sazerac Rye Whiskey, one bottle
> of Jade Absinthe, a bottle of Peychaud's bitters, a box of sugar
> cubes and a half dozen lemons against two bottles of Lagavulin
> and a six pack of Dixie Blackened Voodoo that McCain doesn't win
> in November.
and, let me be the first to volunteer to hold the wagered items safe for you
all until November. Please, forward the above to me c/o Hemlock Acres
Campground, Coburn, PA asap. Send it COD, insured, if at all possible.
Tom
asadi
"Ken Fortenberry" <kenfort...@trashameritech.net> wrote in message
news:jkLUj.15262$V14....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
..umm is that domestic Absynthe?
...inquiring minds want to know...
john
Ken Fortenberry
> "Ken Fortenberry" <kenfort...@trashameritech.net> wrote in message
> news:jkLUj.15262$V14....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> rdean3...@flash.net wrote:
>>> <links snipped> Can you say President McCain...?
>> Whistling past the grave yard again ?
>>
>> I'll wager one bottle of 6 yr old Sazerac Rye Whiskey, one bottle
>> of Jade Absinthe, a bottle of Peychaud's bitters, a box of sugar
>> cubes and a half dozen lemons against two bottles of Lagavulin
>> and a six pack of Dixie Blackened Voodoo that McCain doesn't win
>> in November.
>
>
> ...inquiring minds want to know...
No, Jade Liqueurs was founded by Ted Breaux and makes absinthe
in France. It's not illegal to possess absinthe in the US but
it is illegal to import it. I get mine from a little bird who
sometimes leaves a bottle or two on the back porch. ;-)
--
Ken Fortenberry
rdean3...@flash.net
wrote:
Damn, man, that's a shame! Is it canc...oh, yeah...you're gonna be
fishing with Frank...ah, well, I'll make sure the flowers are nice and
if Lisa needs anything, just have her call us...
Come on, man - you got Hillary, who gave a speech that David Duke
wouldn't have made and Obama, who, you gotta admit, sounds more and more
like a whiny-assed Goron/Kerry hypocrite with the whole holier-than-thou
"politics as usual" BS while he and surrogates act like the usual
susp...er, politicians. And here's something that a lot of folks don't
know - McCain and Jon Stewart are friends - they genuinely like each
other and, depending on the situation, I could see Stewart providing
some juice. Since I think we all agree that this isn't gonna be a
landslide for anyone, a coupla-three little shots-in-the-arm like that
for McCain, combined with some of this recent self-inflicted Dem
stupidity and/or some more Wrightseian clangers rolling around the bowl,
and again, it's President McCain.
TC,
R
> Tom
>
rdean3...@flash.net
<kenfort...@trashameritech.net> wrote:
>rdean3...@flash.net wrote:
>> <links snipped>
>> Can you say President McCain...?
>
>Whistling past the grave yard again ?
Sure, whatever...
>
>I'll wager one bottle of 6 yr old Sazerac Rye Whiskey, one bottle
>of Jade Absinthe, a bottle of Peychaud's bitters, a box of sugar
>cubes and a half dozen lemons against two bottles of Lagavulin
>and a six pack of Dixie Blackened Voodoo that McCain doesn't win
>in November.
I'd not bet much on who might win in November - there's waaaaaaay too
much time between now and then, but I'll bet you any amount you wish
that there will be at least one more Democratic clusterfuck between now
and then.
TC,
R
Ken Fortenberry
And I don't doubt that sometime between now and the election
McCain will have a thermonuclear, temper tantrum meltdown. It
won't be pretty and I hope somebody captures it on video.
--
Ken Fortenberry
rdean3...@flash.net
<kenfort...@trashameritech.net> wrote:
>rdean3...@flash.net wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 May 2008 17:41:19 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
>> <kenfort...@trashameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>>> rdean3...@flash.net wrote:
>>>> <links snipped>
>>>> Can you say President McCain...?
>>> Whistling past the grave yard again ?
>>
>> Sure, whatever...
>>> I'll wager one bottle of 6 yr old Sazerac Rye Whiskey, one bottle
>>> of Jade Absinthe, a bottle of Peychaud's bitters, a box of sugar
>>> cubes and a half dozen lemons against two bottles of Lagavulin
>>> and a six pack of Dixie Blackened Voodoo that McCain doesn't win
>>> in November.
>>
>> I'd not bet much on who might win in November - there's waaaaaaay too
>> much time between now and then, but I'll bet you any amount you wish
>> that there will be at least one more Democratic clusterfuck between now
>> and then.
>
>And I don't doubt that sometime between now and the election
>McCain will have a thermonuclear, temper tantrum meltdown.
Now that's a bet I'd take, at least in a figurative sense, unless we can
agree on what constitutes a "thermonuclear...meltdown" - while I can see
him getting, generally, "angry," I'm skeptical of what I'd call
meltdown-level angry, especially in anything remotely resembling
"public."
>It won't be pretty and I hope somebody captures it on video.
In the unlikely event it occurs, I'd hope so, too...for at least a
couple of reasons...
TC,
R
salmobytes
> a box of sugar cubes
would be president, because everybody I knew was going to vote for him
:-))))))
asadi
....that's one nice bird...and one nice drink...
john
Wolfgang
<rdean3...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:s4a724t6bmobilkm6...@4ax.com...
That's what we like to see......profound confidence in one's own prescience
followed by yet more daring prognostication.
Wolfgang
who thinks it rather remarkable that a word like "weasel" should show the
unprecedented patience and fortitude to wait around for a couple of
centuries awaiting just the right bearer. :)
rb608
wrote:
> McCain doesn't win
> in November.
He's married to a younger, blonde, filthy rich trophy wife who own a
beer distributor. He already wins, unless you have one of those with
a TV in the top of her head. :-(
But yeah, I think that's a safe bet. I'm less than convinced McCain
will even survive the R convention. They know he's a lock for second
place; I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he takes one for the party and
somebody more electable is on the ticket instead.
Joe F.
rw
Like who? They don't have anyone more electable.
--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.
rb608
> Like who? They don't have anyone more electable.
Not a friggin clue. It just seems to me his vulnerability/senility/
dishonesty/assininity has been sufficiently exposed thus far that
they'd be looking for an alternative; unless they think they can
bolster his chances with the right VP choice. And again, no friggin
clue who that might be.
Joe F.
rdean3...@flash.net
<junkm...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On May 8, 6:41 pm, Ken Fortenberry <kenfortenbe...@trashameritech.net>
>wrote:
>> McCain doesn't win
>> in November.
>
>He's married to a younger, blonde, filthy rich trophy wife who own a
>beer distributor.
The term "trophy wife" is hardly a reasonable description of her and I
give them points for sticking together through some rough times.
>He already wins, unless you have one of those with
>a TV in the top of her head. :-(
>
>But yeah, I think that's a safe bet.
Now straight-up bets I'd not do, but since all of you are so sure about
it, howsabout some serious odds and some real wagering - any of you
girls ready to put yer money where yer mouths are?
And no, I don't mean "big bucks," I mean _BIG_ bucks,
R
...heck, I'd seriously think about 5kUSD for 20-1...
Scott Seidman
4ax.com:
I think there's a real reason why he keeps putting off the release of his
health records. He doesn't seem to be the same guy he was just four years
ago. The only reason why he's still viable is because he's largely been
keeping his mouth shut. Now that he'll have to slug it out, he'll spiral
down fast.
--
Scott
Reverse name to reply
rdean3...@flash.net
wrote:
So, are you offering to bet...?
TC,
R
PS - IIRC, you are also a fan of Jackie Mason, and I made a left-handed
reference to some of his "Jews, Gentiles, and cars/boats" schtick in a
reply to you about your shoulder - how is it, BTW? - and then, I tried
to find a transcript of the whole routines online. No joy - snippets
and short quotes, but not the whole bits. Do you happen to know the
specific tour/shows those are from? TIA
Scott Seidman
4ax.com:
> PS - IIRC, you are also a fan of Jackie Mason, and I made a left-handed
> reference to some of his "Jews, Gentiles, and cars/boats" schtick in a
> reply to you about your shoulder - how is it, BTW?
I figured there was schtick in there somewhere, but missed it through the
Vicadin haze.
This Figure-8 clavicle splint was designed in the third ring of hell. The
pain isn't very big, so I can't complain too much, but the splint/sling is
a real claustrophobic arrangement. Sleeping is tough, but when I hit the
perfect Vicadin/Flexaril ratio, it works out.
Ken Fortenberry
> rb608 wrote:
>> Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>>> McCain doesn't win
>>> in November.
>> He's married to a younger, blonde, filthy rich trophy wife who own a
>> beer distributor.
>
> The term "trophy wife" is hardly a reasonable description of her and I
> give them points for sticking together through some rough times.
That's the trouble with trophy wives, they don't stay trophies
forever.
>> He already wins, unless you have one of those with
>> a TV in the top of her head. :-(
>>
>> But yeah, I think that's a safe bet.
>
> Now straight-up bets I'd not do, ...
> any of you
> girls ready to put yer money where yer mouths are?
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !! My proposed bet is on the record.
What's the matter Sally, have you been caught talking out
of the wrong end of your gastrointestinal tract again ?
--
Ken Fortenberry
daytripper
daytripper
wrote:
>rdean3...@flash.net wrote in news:tifh249ebp098vm86mgjunovp2ldpu9cbo@
My first bone doc said "if you were a teenager, we could put all the pieces in
different corners of the room and they'd still knit together". He put *my*
odds at around 90% of healing without surgery.
That figure dropped by 5% with each visit over the next 6 months.
By October (10 months from the explosion) he finally broached the idea of
surgery - but he was leaning towards just removing the entire clavicle, saying
I wasn't a sports star and didn't need it that badly. I said I still enjoyed
snow-skiing and water skiing and I expected I'd actually need functional
clavicles to enjoy those, and I expressed major dismay about the removal idea,
while he spent the visit describing all the things that could go wrong during
a repair attempt. But he was willing to give it a try.
The Thursday before the scheduled Monday surgery, he explained he no longer
actually performs surgeries (ostensibly because of his age), but would assist
his partner in the operation. His partner came into the room, and the first
thing I asked was "how many of these do you do in a year". Partner's response:
"I haven't done any since medical school".
Ohhh kay. So much for dealing with Harvard bone docs.
I demanded a copy of all the films, contacted my BIL, who contacted the head
of orthopedic surgery at the Lahey Clinic, who set me up with his protege -
who did roughly 50 of these clavicle repairs each year. And he explained all
the ways that he made sure not to cause more damage than he's fixing,
including putting his hand between the back-side of the bones and all the
important junk that lies under the clavicle, so if he broke through with the
drill he'd nail himself and not the junk.
A week later I was all screwed back together again, and healing. He had to
take some bone graft out of my hip - which he took from the same side as the
shattered clavy, so I could sleep on the other side. Good thinking. Something
I'm sure the Harvard nitwits would not have considered.
He also said if I had come to Lahey in the first place, they'd have operated
within a few days of the breakage...
/daytripper (and there's no shortage of Harvard educated idiots out there)
rdean3...@flash.net
The old joke's punchline:
"at Haw-vahd, they teach us to wash our hands after we urinate..."
"Yeah, well, at Yale, we know enough not to piss on our hands..."
...a wag might observe that both Barack and Michelle Obama went to
Harvard...and there's seems to be no shortage of them...
Help? Well, if you are a hand-pisser, it might,
R
rdean3...@flash.net
<day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
rdean3...@flash.net
And your proposed bet is a straight-up bet. I'd not take any potential
Prez at 1-1, I said exactly that, and am I making any noises about
_anyone_ being a certainty. I've said in the past, and I still say that
with the information today, it'll be a close election, and that the Dems
appear to have more potential stumbling blocks on the horizon than
McCain. Tomorrow promises to make the Dems even more screwed-up.
Tell you what - I'll make it really light on ya. Since you're so sure,
give me 20-1, and I'll only insist on putting up $100 USD, since that
seems to be "big bucks"...care to talk terms on a real money bet?
And there it is,
R
Ken Fortenberry
At 20 to 1 ?!!??!! Either you're friggin' nuts or you think I am.
No more Wayno bets for this boy.
--
Ken Fortenberry
rw
>
> Tell you what - I'll make it really light on ya. Since you're so sure,
> give me 20-1, and I'll only insist on putting up $100 USD, since that
> seems to be "big bucks"...care to talk terms on a real money bet?
>
> And there it is,
> R
>
Are you offering 20-1 that McCain will beat Obama? Yes or no. Spare me
the splippery, weaselly shit.
If you're offering 20-1 I'll bet $1000, but I'll insist that a neutral
3rd party hold the money (because I don't trust you).
Tim J.
> rdean3...@flash.net wrote:
>>
>> Tell you what - I'll make it really light on ya. Since you're so
>> sure, give me 20-1, and I'll only insist on putting up $100 USD,
>> since that seems to be "big bucks"...care to talk terms on a real
>> money bet? And there it is,
>>
>
> the splippery, weaselly shit.
>
> If you're offering 20-1 I'll bet $1000, but I'll insist that a neutral
> 3rd party hold the money (because I don't trust you).
Everyone send their $1,000 to:
Tim Johnson
c/o Solutions by Computer, Inc.
191 Chestnut Street
Springfield, MA 01103
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj
rw
That would be $20,000 for rdean. :-)
Tom Littleton
<rdean3...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:stkh24hjotpi5qqc8...@4ax.com...
> Since you're so sure,
> give me 20-1, and I'll only insist on putting up $100 USD, since that
> seems to be "big bucks"...care to talk terms on a real money bet?
Where did the 20-1 odds come from, pray tell?? I can be "sure" of a lot of
stuff, but wouldn't be batshit crazy enough to offer 20-1 against it to
anyone with a contrary view. I understand that your point is that anything
could happen, making the long odds a dimwitted offer(Fred is putting his
cash together,as we speak, no doubt). Still, it wasn't anyone in the Dem
camp who offered the line: "can you say President Obama?", so even-up or
maybe 8-5 seems fair in relation to your level of certainty<bseg>.
Tom
rdean3...@flash.net
wrote:
>
><rdean3...@flash.net> wrote in message
>news:stkh24hjotpi5qqc8...@4ax.com...
>> Since you're so sure,
>> give me 20-1, and I'll only insist on putting up $100 USD, since that
>> seems to be "big bucks"...care to talk terms on a real money bet?
>
>Where did the 20-1 odds come from, pray tell??
Basically, it's about where my reluctance to bet is overcome by
favorable odds. But many seem to see Obama as a thing as sure as the
sun coming up tomorrow. If someone offered me 20:1 odds on the sun
coming up or not, I'd take it. If someone offered me 20:1 on, say, Ron
Paul taking it all, I'd take it. Therefore, I figure 20:1 on what one
sees as a dead cert should appear to be free money.
>I can be "sure" of a lot of
>stuff, but wouldn't be batshit crazy enough to offer 20-1 against it to
>anyone with a contrary view.
Howsabout 20:1 on that sun thang...? Or, if you prefer, Ron Paul as
POTUS?
>I understand that your point is that anything
>could happen, making the long odds a dimwitted offer(Fred is putting his
>cash together,as we speak, no doubt).
Actually, it's a straight wager - no sucker bet intended. Obviously,
darned few Obama supporters think "anything could happen" - they think
Obama is as sure a thing as, well, death and taxes, so it would seem
they'd jump on admittedly long odds...or maybe they aren't all _that_
certain. You and I both know that real money (and no, Dave, $100.00
ain't "real money" when it comes to serious wagering) separates the
gamblers from the gawkers, and it seems a whole lot of Obamafans are
gawkers.
>Still, it wasn't anyone in the Dem
>camp who offered the line: "can you say President Obama?",
Wanna bet...?
> so even-up or maybe 8-5 seems fair in relation to your level of certainty<bseg>.
Given the 3 possibles, 20:1 ought to give you a fair idea as to my level
of certainty.
TC,
R
> Tom
>
rdean3...@flash.net
wrote:
>rdean3...@flash.net wrote:
>>
>> Tell you what - I'll make it really light on ya. Since you're so sure,
>> give me 20-1, and I'll only insist on putting up $100 USD, since that
>> seems to be "big bucks"...care to talk terms on a real money bet?
>>
>> And there it is,
>> R
>>
>
>Are you offering 20-1 that McCain will beat Obama? Yes or no.
No.
>Spare me the splippery, weaselly shit.
Had your fill at the "Ruff Ryder Saloon" this evening I take it.
>If you're offering 20-1 I'll bet $1000,
I am. Are you sure - yes or no?
>but I'll insist that a neutral 3rd party hold the money
>(because I don't trust you).
"Hold the money?" You don't gamble with actual grown men, do ya?
HTH,
R
rw
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 18:15:38 -0700, rw <rw56_to_...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>rdean3...@flash.net wrote:
>>
>>>Tell you what - I'll make it really light on ya. Since you're so sure,
>>>give me 20-1, and I'll only insist on putting up $100 USD, since that
>>>seems to be "big bucks"...care to talk terms on a real money bet?
>>>
>>>And there it is,
>>>R
>>>
>>
>>Are you offering 20-1 that McCain will beat Obama? Yes or no.
>
>
> No.
So then are you ASKING for 20-1 odds?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
rdean3...@flash.net
wrote:
>rdean3...@flash.net wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 May 2008 18:15:38 -0700, rw <rw56_to_...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>rdean3...@flash.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>Tell you what - I'll make it really light on ya. Since you're so sure,
>>>>give me 20-1, and I'll only insist on putting up $100 USD, since that
>>>>seems to be "big bucks"...care to talk terms on a real money bet?
>>>>
>>>>And there it is,
>>>>R
>>>>
>>>
>>>Are you offering 20-1 that McCain will beat Obama? Yes or no.
>>
>>
>> No.
>
>So then are you ASKING for 20-1 odds?
>
>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Yeah, that's what I thought - you're not as self-certain as you might
like to be...or wish others to think you are...you know, sorta like your
everyday life...
And there ya are,
R
Wolfgang
<rdean3...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:0heh24dhd0g57vhi1...@4ax.com...
See, it's the supreme confidence displayed in all these "big bucks" bet
offers that make you such a formidable debate opponent in the eyes of all us
timid folk here. You must be VERY rich by now from the proceeds.
Wolfgang
who used to wonder why all the fuss about nostalgia till he was reminded (ad
infinitum) of what fun third grade was.
Wolfgang
<rdean3...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:fgkh245qh8ntii65h...@4ax.com...
No, a wag would never observe any such thing......though a poseur very
likely would.
> Help? Well, if you are a hand-pisser, it might,
Some of us are capable of missing our hands when we urinate......but we wash
them anyway.
Wolfgang
Wolfgang
<rdean3...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:stkh24hjotpi5qqc8...@4ax.com...
I'll take that bet for $4,186,313.56 (U.S.)
> And there it is,
Yeah, there it is.
Wolfgang
Wolfgang
<rdean3...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:6dvh24toac78c7g20...@4ax.com...
> If someone offered me 20:1 odds on the sun
> coming up or not, I'd take it.
Done. I got $35,839,762.55 (U.S.) says the sun comes up tomorrow. If I
lose I owe you $716,795,251.00. No personal checks, please.
Wolfgang
who notes at much too late a date that getting rich is much easier than he
thought.
rdean3...@flash.net
<day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
I saw something on CNN that both GOP and Dem "civilians" ought to take
to heart:
The commentator had a touch-screen map and above it was a horizontal
"meter" indicating the EC result as he touched states to toggle them
back and forth, red or blue. Based on current _individual state_
voting, it's about a dead heat, but 4-6 "swing states" that are true
wild cards are likely to make the difference. Long story short, it was
among the best graphic demonstrations to just how close this thing
currently looks. People forget, and these broad polls rarely show, that
the overall US "popular vote" is meaningless. It's like winner-take-all
primaries - 30,000,000 to 1 is the exact same thing as 15,000,001 to
15,000,000. One must look at how the choice will be made rather than
polling "likely voters" nationwide and trying to shoehorn that into EC
guidelines...but these small-sample "<whatever> voter" polls are whole a
lot cheaper, and basically, damned few of those reading these broad
polls would understand the difference anyway. If these polls were
actually great data, why do you think the campaigns spend so much on
their own polling?
TC,
R
Wolfgang
<rdean3...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:80aj24pvoj7r0fuld...@4ax.com...
Almost makes a boy consider waiting till after the election to determine who
the winner is, rather than relying on the outcome of the latest round of
idiot versus moron twittering.
Wolfgang
who actually doesn't suppose it will ever catch on in the general
population.
daytripper
JR
> http://www.sunherald.com/306/story/558331.html
In an interview with Politico magazine and the Internet portal
Yahoo, Bush also said he gave up golf in 2003 out of respect for
U.S. soldiers killed in the war, which has now lasted more than
five years.
"I didn't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see
the commander in chief playing golf," he said. "I feel I owe it
to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them.
And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal."
*****
There's leadership and then there's leadership....
rdean3...@flash.net
<day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
>http://www.sunherald.com/306/story/558331.html
Double BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! You might want to do a tad of vetting on
your Dem hero...here's a start: Joey Langston...
Neither of these two redneck motherfuckers are worth a shit, but the
parallels 'twixt Obama/Rezko and Childers/Langston are pretty amusing...
Oh, and BTW, their parties weren't on the ballot, so most objective
observers are discounting much Dem v. GOP read on it. Feel free to read
much into this, and feel free to listen to pundits who simply see it as
a Dem over the GOP, but trust me or don't, regardless of who says what
in public, neither Obama's people or McCain's are assigning any real
meaning to this.
TC,
R
And BTW, Davis is among the sorry-assed GOP locals to whom I referred...
sned...@msn.com
> http://www.sunherald.com/306/story/558331.html
I think the message of these victories by Democratic conservatives is
that conservatives are welcome in the Democratic party. It speaks to
the American tradition of non-ideological parties, parties that
aggregate and moderate interests to arrive at a consensus program of
governance and progress on problems facing the country as a whole. It
runs counter to the European model of liberal/conservative bisection
of the electorate which tends to lead to deadlock and rancour in a
large federal republic such as the US. Non ideological parties by
definition have to come up with moderate policies and changes. Its
exactly what the founders wanted. Now maybe liberals can be made
welcome in the Republican party again.
Dave
Dave LaCourse
<day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
>http://www.sunherald.com/306/story/558331.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/obama_needs_to_study_history_b.html
salmobytes
me 25 bucks a month to run advertizements on my website. I should have
told them to kiss my ass, but instead I just said I wouldn't run
political ads of any kind.
This is real right wing stuff. They have good marketing skills and they
couch all their arguments in what sounds vaguely like a rational
discussion. But it isn't, because they always distort the other side of
the argument. Gone are the old Everet Dirkson days when republicans and
democrats disagreed honestly.
"Critical thinking" is supposed to be what comes out of a liberal arts
education. That means you have to pay attention to both sides, respect
both sides and understand both sides of any argument. And then do your
best to draw your own logical, well-considered opinion. Cynical
propaganda machines don't necessarily even say what they really want.
They try to manipulate both sides of an external buzz-word-laden
argument, in order to benefit their own agenda. This realclearnews
outfit is a dishonest disiniformation propaganda machine.
Wolfgang
<sned...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:905bee1a-358b-4592...@l17g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
*************
Ah yes, who could forget "The Great Non-Ideological Founders' Consensus"?
Wolfgang
who is amazed not only by the depth but also by the breadth of knowledge to
be gained by poring over condensed milk can labels.
rdean3...@flash.net
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/04/obama.ads/index.html
But if it helps, the two goobers in 'tripper's cite don't follow the
idea of Dem="Liberal" and GOP="Conservative"...they tend to follow the
idea of Dumbass=dumbass. If not for the convergence of a number of
factors, nobody would have cared if these two had taken bats to each
other. And while it probably won't get this far, both parties could
wind up with some ugly blowback on this one, with the Dems looking the
worse in it all - (mostly) undeservedly - it's just that the sorry Dem
had more access than the sorry R - if the national parties had real
stones, they'd have stayed well away from this race. If anyone is
interested, google up "joey langston airport" and go from there.
TC,
R
>
>Dave
daytripper
Dave LaCourse
wrote:
>Those realclearpolitics guys sent me an email a while back and offered
>me 25 bucks a month to run advertizements on my website. I should have
>told them to kiss my ass, but instead I just said I wouldn't run
>political ads of any kind.
>
>This is real right wing stuff.
Ah, yeas, killing the messenger.....
Regardless the source, the article is true. Obama said those things
and he was wrong. How about that?
rdean3...@flash.net
<day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 13 May 2008 22:47:51 -0500, rdean3...@flash.net wrote:
>[....]
>
>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/house_gop_shifts_into_panic_mo.html
Hey, whatever you wish to believe...but if the Dems harp on this
nationally, they will probably regret it. And I suspect the GOP will
regret having Huckabee, et al, anywhere near this one. I suspect this
one will, in mutual self-interest, die on the vine, but ???
>
>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html
Yeah, if I were Obama, and I had merely glanced at the numbers on such
broad, skewed polling data that showed me with a 1-7, avg. 4.8, point
lead and had MOE of 3-8 points, I'd probably just hang around the house
and await my inevitable swearing-in...OTOH, if I had actually read some
of the reports and/or had my own good data from targeted polls, I'd know
that this is basically a dead heat and that the current biggest thing
against McCain is his age (a more-easily overcome "fact negative" - some
35% are concerned enough about it to factor it), but that my
"inexperience" numbers slightly out-weigh my "honest" numbers - Obama
is seen, generally, as more "honest" (55-45), but that with that age,
McCain is seen far and away (like 60-40) as the stronger, more
experienced "leader." So I'd probably be out campaigning my ass
off...in all 57 states...
HTH,
R
sned...@msn.com
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 22:47:11 -0400, daytripper
>
> >http://www.sunherald.com/306/story/558331.html
>
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/obama_needs_to_stud...
The unconditional surrender policy of WWII is generally considered to
have been a mistake that resulted in hundreds of thousands of military
deaths and several million additional civilian casualties. Even with
Nazi Germany, the failure to pick up on overtures from Admiral Canaris
of the Abwher, most certainly undercut the opposition to Hitler, and
resulted in the execution and suicide of German leadership which was
prepared to end the War. These policies also helped move the various
German extermination programs into higher gear right to the very end.
One of the major successes of talking to the enemy (well perhaps mixed
successes) was the discussions that led to bringing into American
hands General Reinhard Gehlen and the entire "Armies East" (on the
ground in Russia and the East bloc) German espionage and sabotage
networks. The Nazi behind-the-lines networks went to work for the US
lock, stock and barrel with General Gehlen still in command. This coup
was our most important human intelligence asset thru much of the early
cold war. Gehlen actually taught at the War College on and off, but
don't look for him in any class pictures. ;-I
In the Pacific the unconditional surrender mistake played right into
the hands of the hard right militarists. One small example of it's
cost were the 5000 or more US prisoners and US citizens who were
killed in the Atomic bombings of Japan.
David
rdean3...@flash.net
OK, let's assume for the purposes of discussion the above is absolute
fact (it really doesn't matter, but...). How does the above translate
into Obama actually knowing about that of which he speaks...? There
seems to be nothing "partisan" involved - Obama said that Roosevelt,
Truman, and Kennedy talked "to our enemies." Both you and the cited
article seem to indicate that they did not, in fact, do so. How would
pointing out that Obama doesn't know recent history of great importance
be considered "partisan?"
HTH,
R
rdean3...@flash.net
You've convinced me. The race typified typical Dem campaigning,
Childers is your kind of Democrat, and the whole thing is the kind of
"change" Obama is talking about....BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
HTH,
R
...and here's hoping the DNC pushes this heavily, too...
sned...@msn.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Because all these kind of niggling little attacks are partisan
Richard. We both know that. Is this America or what? Niggling little
attacks can be personally satisfying in a perverse way, More or less
organized. And, hit or miss, sometimes the media will stumble onto a
one line mis-statement of a catchy over simplification and zipppo,
overnite, multitudes are swayed perhaps by a creation of whole cloth,
for pennies.SOP
But lets go back to the issue which is "talking to (Negotiating with),
the Enemy." I think the original article is a part of an orchestrated
deliverable of an "Issue Project" group, probably overseen by the RNC.
There are at least two suggestions that this may be the case.. First
is the "Get Real" context. And the second is that this is a heavily
"coded" issue.
Context: You can argue a case that any given Prez was more or less
communicative/noncommunicative with the "enemy" than any other Prez.
Concocting slick mis interpretations and supposed mis-statements is a
standard , one from column A, another from Column B... type service
available the length of "K" Street, now freshly laundered thanks to
one Grover Norquist. The whole issue reeks of the professional
campaign, maybe a little of a "darkside" outfit. May their billable
hours wither. Its pro political consultants working the attrition
game, or perhaps tuning up/testing parts of the issues attack for the
general prez campaign.
Code: The "talking with the enemy" game, again suggests a professional
campaign operation. Its standard purpose is to turn a specific part of
Obama's strong Iraq suit, against him, in part by confounding it with
the Israeli/Palistinian negotiations and Israeli refusal to recognize
or openly "talk" to Hamas or in Lebonon, Hezzbulla, Even the weakened
Olmert government was able to "play" Bush the fool this week and
Obama reacted. Did he take bait? OR is he counter-punching?
Anyway that's one reading.
Dave
rdean3...@flash.net
>Because all these kind of niggling little attacks are partisan
>Richard. We both know that.
No, "we" don't, because it isn't a niggling little attack or partisan.
But the sense that they are either or both sure is...and paranoid, too.
Noticing that he doesn't know history is actually about as non-partisan
(in the political sense) as it gets. Now, claiming he is somehow
"un-American" because of it would be partisan...pointing out that it has
been said that those who don't know any history are doomed to repeat it
would not be...
HTH,
R
sned...@msn.com
And what you just did is SOP also. Its called "reverting to reserve
message" in the trade or some such, in this case restating without
having to offer any evidence, the assertion that Obama doesn't know or
is ignoring history. Get real. The funny part of this is that campaign
pros credit some part of these tactics to the folks that did Bill
Clinton's campaigns. i.e., the targeting of these kinds of attrition
tactics on the Strongest issues of the opposition.
Dave
rdean3...@flash.net
>On May 16, 4:29 am, rdean3REM...@flash.net wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 00:54:25 -0700 (PDT), snedek...@msn.com wrote:
>> >Because all these kind of niggling little attacks are partisan
>> >Richard. We both know that.
>>
>> No, "we" don't, because it isn't a niggling little attack or partisan.
>> But the sense that they are either or both sure is...and paranoid, too.
>> Noticing that he doesn't know history is actually about as non-partisan
>> (in the political sense) as it gets. Now, claiming he is somehow
>> "un-American" because of it would be partisan...pointing out that it has
>> been said that those who don't know any history are doomed to repeat it
>> would not be...
>>
>> HTH,
>> R
>
>And what you just did is SOP also.
Wow. Can't get anything past you...
>Its called "reverting to reserve message" in the trade or some such,
HEY! That's supposed to be a secret...have you been sneaking into
meetings or something...? I guess it's time to change the password...
> in this case restating without having to offer any evidence,
> the assertion that Obama doesn't know or is ignoring history.
Oooooh, it's evidence you want...OK...
Sen. Obama said: "I trust the American people to understand that it is
not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our
enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did."
The article says Roosevelt and Truman did not, and that Kennedy either
didn't or he sorta did, but made a mess of things. You seem to agree
with that assessment. I'll not bother to quote the entire piece since
the link is there, and I'll not quote you because, well, it's mostly
gibberish. IAC, based upon that, Obama could not do it "like Roosevelt
did" or "like Truman did," and with regard to Kennedy, he either did
not, and so Obama could not do it "like...Kennedy did," or worse,
Kennedy did, but fucked it up, so for Obama to actually do it
"like...Kennedy did," even allowing that Kennedy did "talk...to our
enemies," would mean that he intends to be a rash, inexperienced leader
with no follow-through....
And as an aside, there is no rational way for someone to be a supporter
of Kennedy as POTUS, in general, and be very critical of George Bush, in
general, as POTUS. Heck, Kennedy fans should be yelling for a
(Jeb)Bush/(Neil)Bush ticket...
>Get real.
OK. Done.
>The funny part of this is that campaign
>pros credit some part of these tactics to the folks that did Bill
>Clinton's campaigns. i.e., the targeting of these kinds of attrition
>tactics on the Strongest issues of the opposition.
Darn, do you have a copy of the instruction book, too?!? Someone's sure
gonna get in trouble over this one...
HTH,
R
>
>Dave
Wolfgang
<rdean3...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:6scr24ld90lk4fd61...@4ax.com...
Do you think the time will EVER come when you tire of getting smacked
around.....and confessing to impotence in excruciating detail? :)
Wolfgang
sned...@msn.com
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Note to Self: Never, never take these discussions serious enough to
presume that even seven years into a disaster a true believer might
figure out that a few of their presumptions might be faulty. Your
comparison of Bush and Kennedy is a whopper that could cause win you
this year's Joseph Goebbels Award. Good going.
Following your logic and faulty reasoning Richard, I will
categorically state that no American President has ever spoken
directly to our country's enemies. Now I can probably join the "Bushee
Dead ender Club."
Just a side note: It looks like at least part of Bush's trip is to
coordinate Israeli/US cooperation on a $300 million program of
sabotage, assassination, and terrorism inside of Iran. It looks
increasingly like Seymour Hirsch was right and the secret war INSIDE
Iran has begun. I guess one stupid war isn't enough. Some of the money
is going to PKK (Communist) terror teams now being trained in Northern
Iraq for deployment into Iran. The US funded assassination groups
inside Iran have already started to kill Revolutionary Guard Colonels
systematically. One more dirty little war.
Dave
rdean3...@flash.net
>Note to Self: Never, never take these discussions serious enough to
>presume that even seven years into a disaster a true believer might
>figure out that a few of their presumptions might be faulty. Your
>comparison of Bush and Kennedy is a whopper that could cause win you
>this year's Joseph Goebbels Award. Good going.
Ya got me there...thus far, there's no evidence that Bush and a brother
have been boinking bimbos in the White House...
>
>Following your logic and faulty reasoning Richard, I will
>categorically state that no American President has ever spoken
>directly to our country's enemies.
Define "our country's enemies."
>Now I can probably join the "Bushee Dead ender Club."
Well, if they won't let you join, maybe they'll let you reciprocate back
to your club...
>Just a side note: It looks like at least part of Bush's trip is to
>coordinate Israeli/US cooperation on a $300 million program of
>sabotage, assassination, and terrorism inside of Iran.
Uh, yeah...nowadays, it's a lot easier to coordinate in person, what
with the only means of communication to a far away land like Israel
being sailing vessels and all...
>It looks increasingly like Seymour Hirsch was right
Er, it looks increasingly like Seymour Hersh is something,
alright...right isn't likely to make the list often, if at all...
>and the secret war INSIDE
>Iran has begun. I guess one stupid war isn't enough. Some of the money
>is going to PKK (Communist) terror teams now being trained in Northern
>Iraq for deployment into Iran. The US funded assassination groups
>inside Iran have already started to kill Revolutionary Guard Colonels
>systematically. One more dirty little war.
Ah...OK. I think there is a Mossad agent under your bed. Probably has
a Uzi with poison bullets, too...
>
>Dave
I was pretty sure it was you long before I reached this point in the
proceedings...
HTH,
R
sned...@msn.com
I doubt that the Bushees have time for bimbos: too busy down in the
White house torture Theater, actually most probably located in the Old
Exec building, where they have admitted to having a live hook-up with
the torture sites around the world and the capability of interacting
with the on-site torturers in case they come up with extra little
fandangos to make things more exciting for them or the screams louder.
So far the admin has fessed up to Cheney and staff being in the room
lots as well as the ex Sec of Defense. Looks like some of the pervs
liked to listen with the lights out and others brought their lunch. So
far they deny that the Prez ever dropped, not even once.
I think maybe they ought to run DNA tests on any sticky seats in the
room.
As to Bush's personal presence in Israel to coordinate the $300
million sabotage, assassination, and terror project inside Iran: Ill
just suggest you catch up on internal Israeli politics, noting the
multiple fronts on which Omert is in trouble, and his backround vis a
vie attacking Iran. Both he and Bush are lame ducks looking for some
Gotterdammerung way out of the messes they created. The source for my
statement concerning the administration's funding of the Kurdish PKK
communist assassination teams is a former War College Colonel.
Im not sure but did Bill Clinton ever fund communist ht squads? Maybe
he was just too busy with the Bimbos, or actually running a budget
surplus, or actually trying to kill Osama bin Laddin.
Dave