| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Fester" |
| Date: |
27 Jan 2008 04:57:27 PM |
| Object: |
OT: The Presidential Field |
Here's my rundown on the remaining candidates. Read on Lefties, you may
find a surprise or two :-)
Republicans:
1. Rudy. My preference, but not the party's. He needs to win FL
convincingly and that's not going to happen. Rudy is good on Security,
Economics and Social (he's a Federalist as am I).
2. Romney. Second best and very viable. Mitt's strength is economics but
he also displays the right attitude toward security. Lame on social issues,
but they take a back seat for me anyway.
3. McCain. Great American, war hero, independent and a man I admire
greatly. A man I would never vote for, however. From McCain-Feingold to No
Child Left Behind he has demonstrated a remarkable incompetence on
legislative matters.
4. Huckabee. Huck is proof that the Republican party has about 25% to 35%
fundies. No more and no less. It defines his polling/primary range. He's
the right's equivalent of John Edwards (pandering populist), only with
sincerity and honesty.
Democrats:
1. Hillary. Armageddon! The most mendacious, corrupt, megalomaniacal pol
on the planet (makes Putin look laid back and laissez faire).
2. Obama. I have a lot of respect for him. I disagree with most of what I
understand are his policy positions, but I can't help being inspired when
the man talks. His kind of idealism and poetic oration is a valuable asset.
He has the ability to unite the country. I can see myself wanting to give
his plan a shot, even if I'm pessimistic about it because I think that if we
act together we can make anything work.
3. Edwards. Fraud. Manipulate the moronic masses with another weepy story
that Dickens would have wished he wrote, why dontcha?
Who would I vote for? In order:
Rudy (unlikely to get nom)
Romney
Obama (I wish he were more likely to get nom, but I doubt he will.
Hill-Billy has done a great job of turning people's impression of him in to
"that black guy")
McCain (only if he were running against Shrillery)
.
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The Presidential Field |
27 Jan 2008 09:59:39 PM |
|
|
In article <479d0c57$0$6150$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, says...
Here's my rundown on the remaining candidates. Read on Lefties, you may
find a surprise or two :-)
<snip mostly pretty unsurprising opinions>
Speaking for all the Lefties in a.a., we're sure relieved that you scuttled back
outta the couch crevice to deliver that Earth-shaker.
--
Apostate a.a. #1931
..sig currently undergoing maintenance
want a free or premium posting account with Teranews?
https://secure.usenetbilling.com/newbilling/manageaccount.cgi?referredby=1089312943
&action=Create+New+Account&vendor=teranews
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew F. Heil" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The Presidential Field |
27 Jan 2008 05:57:10 PM |
|
|
On Jan 27, 4:57=A0pm, "Fester" <n...@home.com> wrote:
Here's my rundown on the remaining candidates. =A0Read on Lefties, you may=
find a surprise or two :-)
Republicans:
1. =A0Rudy. =A0My preference, but not the party's. =A0He needs to win FL
convincingly and that's not going to happen. =A0Rudy is good on Security,
Economics and Social (he's a Federalist as am I).
2. =A0Romney. =A0Second best and very viable. =A0Mitt's strength is econom=
ics but
he also displays the right attitude toward security. =A0Lame on social iss=
ues,
but they take a back seat for me anyway.
3. =A0McCain. =A0Great American, war hero, independent and a man I admire
greatly. =A0A man I would never vote for, however. =A0From McCain-Feingold=
to No
Child Left Behind he has demonstrated a remarkable incompetence on
legislative matters.
4. =A0Huckabee. =A0Huck is proof that the Republican party has about 25% t=
o 35%
fundies. =A0No more and no less. =A0It defines his polling/primary range. =
=A0He's
the right's equivalent of John Edwards (pandering populist), only with
sincerity and honesty.
Democrats:
1. =A0Hillary. =A0Armageddon! =A0The most mendacious, corrupt, megalomania=
cal pol
on the planet (makes Putin look laid back and laissez faire).
2. =A0Obama. =A0I have a lot of respect for him. =A0I disagree with most o=
f what I
understand are his policy positions, but I can't help being inspired when
the man talks. =A0His kind of idealism and poetic oration is a valuable as=
set.
He has the ability to unite the country. =A0I can see myself wanting to gi=
ve
his plan a shot, even if I'm pessimistic about it because I think that if =
we
act together we can make anything work.
3. =A0Edwards. =A0Fraud. =A0Manipulate the moronic masses with another wee=
py story
that Dickens would have wished he wrote, why dontcha?
Who would I vote for? =A0In order:
Rudy (unlikely to get nom)
Romney
Obama (I wish he were more likely to get nom, but I doubt he will.
Hill-Billy has done a great job of turning people's impression of him in t=
o
"that black guy")
McCain (only if he were running against Shrillery)
At least you seem to have dropped the absurd notion that John McCain
couldn't possibly win the nomination. Good for you. It'll make
accepting his eventual (likely) nomination easier.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The Presidential Field |
28 Jan 2008 05:58:20 AM |
|
|
"Andrew F. Heil" <andrewfheil2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5d1d41f0-e5b2-4aeb-97f1-8ede8550a21f@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 27, 4:57 pm, "Fester" <n...@home.com> wrote:
Here's my rundown on the remaining candidates. Read on Lefties, you may
find a surprise or two :-)
Republicans:
1. Rudy. My preference, but not the party's. He needs to win FL
convincingly and that's not going to happen. Rudy is good on Security,
Economics and Social (he's a Federalist as am I).
2. Romney. Second best and very viable. Mitt's strength is economics but
he also displays the right attitude toward security. Lame on social
issues,
but they take a back seat for me anyway.
3. McCain. Great American, war hero, independent and a man I admire
greatly. A man I would never vote for, however. From McCain-Feingold to No
Child Left Behind he has demonstrated a remarkable incompetence on
legislative matters.
4. Huckabee. Huck is proof that the Republican party has about 25% to 35%
fundies. No more and no less. It defines his polling/primary range. He's
the right's equivalent of John Edwards (pandering populist), only with
sincerity and honesty.
Democrats:
1. Hillary. Armageddon! The most mendacious, corrupt, megalomaniacal pol
on the planet (makes Putin look laid back and laissez faire).
2. Obama. I have a lot of respect for him. I disagree with most of what I
understand are his policy positions, but I can't help being inspired when
the man talks. His kind of idealism and poetic oration is a valuable
asset.
He has the ability to unite the country. I can see myself wanting to give
his plan a shot, even if I'm pessimistic about it because I think that if
we
act together we can make anything work.
3. Edwards. Fraud. Manipulate the moronic masses with another weepy story
that Dickens would have wished he wrote, why dontcha?
Who would I vote for? In order:
Rudy (unlikely to get nom)
Romney
Obama (I wish he were more likely to get nom, but I doubt he will.
Hill-Billy has done a great job of turning people's impression of him in
to
"that black guy")
McCain (only if he were running against Shrillery)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At least you seem to have dropped the absurd notion that John McCain
couldn't possibly win the nomination. Good for you. It'll make
accepting his eventual (likely) nomination easier.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
His comeback was remarkable, but I still think (and hope) that he won't.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The Presidential Field |
30 Jan 2008 06:10:35 PM |
|
|
"Andrew F. Heil" <andrewfheil2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5d1d41f0-e5b2-4aeb-97f1-8ede8550a21f@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 27, 4:57 pm, "Fester" <n...@home.com> wrote:
Here's my rundown on the remaining candidates. Read on Lefties, you may
find a surprise or two :-)
Republicans:
1. Rudy. My preference, but not the party's. He needs to win FL
convincingly and that's not going to happen. Rudy is good on Security,
Economics and Social (he's a Federalist as am I).
2. Romney. Second best and very viable. Mitt's strength is economics but
he also displays the right attitude toward security. Lame on social
issues,
but they take a back seat for me anyway.
3. McCain. Great American, war hero, independent and a man I admire
greatly. A man I would never vote for, however. From McCain-Feingold to No
Child Left Behind he has demonstrated a remarkable incompetence on
legislative matters.
4. Huckabee. Huck is proof that the Republican party has about 25% to 35%
fundies. No more and no less. It defines his polling/primary range. He's
the right's equivalent of John Edwards (pandering populist), only with
sincerity and honesty.
Democrats:
1. Hillary. Armageddon! The most mendacious, corrupt, megalomaniacal pol
on the planet (makes Putin look laid back and laissez faire).
2. Obama. I have a lot of respect for him. I disagree with most of what I
understand are his policy positions, but I can't help being inspired when
the man talks. His kind of idealism and poetic oration is a valuable
asset.
He has the ability to unite the country. I can see myself wanting to give
his plan a shot, even if I'm pessimistic about it because I think that if
we
act together we can make anything work.
3. Edwards. Fraud. Manipulate the moronic masses with another weepy story
that Dickens would have wished he wrote, why dontcha?
Who would I vote for? In order:
Rudy (unlikely to get nom)
Romney
Obama (I wish he were more likely to get nom, but I doubt he will.
Hill-Billy has done a great job of turning people's impression of him in
to
"that black guy")
McCain (only if he were running against Shrillery)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
At least you seem to have dropped the absurd notion that John McCain
couldn't possibly win the nomination. Good for you. It'll make
accepting his eventual (likely) nomination easier.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well ... after that FL vote, I am truly down in the dumps over our future.
I'm afraid it is now looking a lot like McCain vs Hugo Chavez in a pant
suit. After that "snub" at the SOTU, I'm sure that the Clintons will
channel the ghost of DW Griffiths to gain sympathy for the white girl whose
"honor" was soiled by that negra. Croc tears worked in NH, racism worked in
SC and the combo will be unstoppable among the Oprafied morons in that
party.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The Presidential Field |
29 Jan 2008 03:59:31 PM |
|
|
On Jan 27, 5:57=A0pm, "Fester" <n...@home.com> wrote:
Here's my rundown on the remaining candidates. =A0Read on Lefties, you may=
find a surprise or two :-)
Republicans:
1. =A0Rudy. =A0My preference, but not the party's. =A0He needs to win FL
convincingly and that's not going to happen. =A0Rudy is good on Security,
Economics and Social (he's a Federalist as am I).
Rudy has a personality problem. I.e. he's an arrogant *****. After 8
years of the ***** Shrub, everybody is tired of the attidude "my way
or the highway" which Rudy has in spades. As regards actual positions
on the issues, I find Rudy the best of the Reps.
2. =A0Romney. =A0Second best and very viable. =A0Mitt's strength is econom=
ics but
he also displays the right attitude toward security. =A0Lame on social iss=
ues,
but they take a back seat for me anyway.
Romney might not be too bad. He would probably be straightforward and
common-sensicle on economic issues.
3. =A0McCain. =A0Great American, war hero, independent and a man I admire
greatly. =A0A man I would never vote for, however. =A0From McCain-Feingold=
to No
Child Left Behind he has demonstrated a remarkable incompetence on
legislative matters.
I would not trust McCain on military issues. If a delicate situation
came up with Iran, say, and we had a hard decision of whether or not
to take military action, who could trust him to have restraint if, in
fact, restraint was the better option?
4. =A0Huckabee. =A0Huck is proof that the Republican party has about 25% t=
o 35%
fundies. =A0No more and no less. =A0It defines his polling/primary range. =
=A0He's
the right's equivalent of John Edwards (pandering populist), only with
sincerity and honesty.
Agreed.
Democrats:
1. =A0Hillary. =A0Armageddon! =A0The most mendacious, corrupt, megalomania=
cal pol
on the planet (makes Putin look laid back and laissez faire).
You conservatives exaggerate this. Where does that extraordinary anti-
Clinton pique come from? To me a major plus for Hillary is the way
she gets the goat of the far right. But I lost a lot of respect for
her when she tried to sign on to a flag-burning amendment. Who the
hell does she think she was fooling with that one? Obvious insincere
pandering pure and simple.
2. =A0Obama. =A0I have a lot of respect for him. =A0I disagree with most o=
f what I
understand are his policy positions, but I can't help being inspired when
the man talks. =A0His kind of idealism and poetic oration is a valuable as=
set.
He has the ability to unite the country. =A0I can see myself wanting to gi=
ve
his plan a shot, even if I'm pessimistic about it because I think that if =
we
act together we can make anything work.
I think Obama has a hell of a good brain. I agree that his oratory
can be inspiring. But I have doubts about his experience.
3. =A0Edwards. =A0Fraud. =A0Manipulate the moronic masses with another wee=
py story
that Dickens would have wished he wrote, why dontcha?
I don't see why you are so negative about Edwards. Do you want to
give specifics on this? But he seems to have no chance anyways.
Who would I vote for? =A0In order:
Rudy (unlikely to get nom)
Romney
Obama (I wish he were more likely to get nom, but I doubt he will.
Hill-Billy has done a great job of turning people's impression of him in t=
o
"that black guy")
McCain (only if he were running against Shrillery)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The Presidential Field |
31 Jan 2008 05:45:32 AM |
|
|
"Mike" <matmzc@hofstra.edu> wrote in message
news:030ae67f-1c9a-43bb-8b80-dbbaae2df6b5@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 27, 5:57 pm, "Fester" <n...@home.com> wrote:
Here's my rundown on the remaining candidates. Read on Lefties, you may
find a surprise or two :-)
Republicans:
1. Rudy. My preference, but not the party's. He needs to win FL
convincingly and that's not going to happen. Rudy is good on Security,
Economics and Social (he's a Federalist as am I).
Rudy has a personality problem. I.e. he's an arrogant *****. After 8
years of the ***** Shrub, everybody is tired of the attidude "my way
or the highway" which Rudy has in spades. As regards actual positions
on the issues, I find Rudy the best of the Reps.
2. Romney. Second best and very viable. Mitt's strength is economics but
he also displays the right attitude toward security. Lame on social
issues,
but they take a back seat for me anyway.
Romney might not be too bad. He would probably be straightforward and
common-sensicle on economic issues.
3. McCain. Great American, war hero, independent and a man I admire
greatly. A man I would never vote for, however. From McCain-Feingold to No
Child Left Behind he has demonstrated a remarkable incompetence on
legislative matters.
I would not trust McCain on military issues. If a delicate situation
came up with Iran, say, and we had a hard decision of whether or not
to take military action, who could trust him to have restraint if, in
fact, restraint was the better option?
4. Huckabee. Huck is proof that the Republican party has about 25% to 35%
fundies. No more and no less. It defines his polling/primary range. He's
the right's equivalent of John Edwards (pandering populist), only with
sincerity and honesty.
Agreed.
Democrats:
1. Hillary. Armageddon! The most mendacious, corrupt, megalomaniacal pol
on the planet (makes Putin look laid back and laissez faire).
You conservatives exaggerate this. Where does that extraordinary anti-
Clinton pique come from? To me a major plus for Hillary is the way
she gets the goat of the far right. But I lost a lot of respect for
her when she tried to sign on to a flag-burning amendment. Who the
hell does she think she was fooling with that one? Obvious insincere
pandering pure and simple.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don''t think so at all. The lying ***** is Hugo Chavez in a pant suit. A
Shrillery administration, with a compliant Congress, would spell economic
disaster, military unpreparedness and an historical loss of the very
freedoms leftists constatnly and falsely whine that Bush has infringed on.
Here's a short list:
Gone will be our ability to speak freely (Fariness Doctrine).
Gone will be our freedom of property (eminent domain).
Our right to vote will be diluted by the admission of illegal immigrants to
our polls.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Obama. I have a lot of respect for him. I disagree with most of what I
understand are his policy positions, but I can't help being inspired when
the man talks. His kind of idealism and poetic oration is a valuable
asset.
He has the ability to unite the country. I can see myself wanting to give
his plan a shot, even if I'm pessimistic about it because I think that if
we
act together we can make anything work.
I think Obama has a hell of a good brain. I agree that his oratory
can be inspiring. But I have doubts about his experience.
3. Edwards. Fraud. Manipulate the moronic masses with another weepy story
that Dickens would have wished he wrote, why dontcha?
I don't see why you are so negative about Edwards. Do you want to
give specifics on this? But he seems to have no chance anyways.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, he spent an entire term as Senator from my state and did not
propose a single piece of legislation to help the pooah, who he claims to
care so deeply about. Nor did he lift a finger to advance the interests of
the people in NC he ostensibly represented. He used his term to fabricate a
claim of having "international experience" to prepare for his Presidential
campaign ambitions. All he does his stoke resentment of "the rich" of which
he is one, but has never lifted a finger to help anyone, rich or pooah
unless there is a camera around. And of course, like most libs, he lacks
the slightest understanding of how a capitalist society functions and how a
growing economy benefits all particiapants. Finally, as a trial lawyer he
loves to talk about the victims of the evil corps he represented but he
never gives a moment's thought to the people who get laid off and are forced
to suffer when he secures a multi-million dollar judgment via some sham,
weepy, specious argument (channeling dead babies, etc).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who would I vote for? In order:
Rudy (unlikely to get nom)
Romney
Obama (I wish he were more likely to get nom, but I doubt he will.
Hill-Billy has done a great job of turning people's impression of him in
to
"that black guy")
McCain (only if he were running against Shrillery)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The Presidential Field |
28 Jan 2008 08:01:41 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:57:27 -0500 in
479d0c57$0$6150$4c368faf@roadrunner.com, "Fester" <not@home.com> wrote:
1. Hillary. Armageddon! The most mendacious, corrupt, megalomaniacal
pol on the planet (makes Putin look laid back and laissez faire).
That's President Hillary to you...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"If the Bible proves that God exists then comic books prove
the existence of Superman."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The Presidential Field |
29 Jan 2008 12:31:41 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in news:51e275-1og.ln1@75-104-
212-2.cust.wildblue.net:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:57:27 -0500 in
479d0c57$0$6150$4c368faf@roadrunner.com, "Fester" <not@home.com> wrote:
1. Hillary. Armageddon! The most mendacious, corrupt, megalomaniacal
pol on the planet (makes Putin look laid back and laissez faire).
That's President Hillary to you...
Not yet...
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
People who think with their epidermis or their genitalia or their clan are
the problem to begin with.
C. Hitchens
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Mayhar" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The Presidential Field |
29 Jan 2008 11:21:11 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:01:41 -0600, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:57:27 -0500 in
479d0c57$0$6150$4c368faf@roadrunner.com, "Fester" <not@home.com> wrote:
1. Hillary. Armageddon! The most mendacious, corrupt, megalomaniacal
pol on the planet (makes Putin look laid back and laissez faire).
That's President Hillary to you...
The _only_ reason I might ever like to see Clinton win the Presidency
this time around would be to watch the Hillary-haters fat heads pop like
so many Mr. Creosotes after one too many after-dinner mints.
Or like Martians exposed to Slim Whitman.
--
Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/
Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/
http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/
http://www.zazzle.com/fmayhar*
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The Presidential Field |
29 Jan 2008 11:50:50 AM |
|
|
"Frank Mayhar" <frank@exit.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.01.29.17.28.12@exit.com...
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:01:41 -0600, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:57:27 -0500 in
479d0c57$0$6150$4c368faf@roadrunner.com, "Fester" <not@home.com> wrote:
1. Hillary. Armageddon! The most mendacious, corrupt, megalomaniacal
pol on the planet (makes Putin look laid back and laissez faire).
That's President Hillary to you...
The _only_ reason I might ever like to see Clinton win the Presidency
this time around would be to watch the Hillary-haters fat heads pop like
so many Mr. Creosotes after one too many after-dinner mints.
But it's wafer-thin!
Or like Martians exposed to Slim Whitman.
LOL! One of the witchling's favorite movies! Tim Burton rocks :)
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The Presidential Field |
29 Jan 2008 06:42:00 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:21:11 -0800 in pan.2008.01.29.17.28.12@exit.com,
Frank Mayhar <frank@exit.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:01:41 -0600, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:57:27 -0500 in
479d0c57$0$6150$4c368faf@roadrunner.com, "Fester" <not@home.com> wrote:
1. Hillary. Armageddon! The most mendacious, corrupt,
megalomaniacal pol on the planet (makes Putin look laid back and
laissez faire).
That's President Hillary to you...
The _only_ reason I might ever like to see Clinton win the Presidency
this time around would be to watch the Hillary-haters fat heads pop like
so many Mr. Creosotes after one too many after-dinner mints.
Or like Martians exposed to Slim Whitman.
Uh huh. <eg>
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a
holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ
- to have dominion in the civil structures, just as in every
other aspect of life and godliness. But it is dominion that
we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after.
Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just
equal time. It is dominion we are after."
-- George Grant, "The Changing of the Guard"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
