Interesting results in Iowa straw poll

[Joseph Crowe]

Mitt Romney wins big....

Ron Paul is 5th

Giulianni, McCain and Thompson are trailing the field.

This result is interesting because in spite of being
totally ignored by the mainstream media, who see to
have crowned Giulianni, Ron Paul did pretty well. It
seems that his message of people being attracted to the
message of liberty is being heard by some folks anyway.

I reckon we will have another Clinton in the CiC chair
in 2009.....should be interesting

[maxo]

Post by Joseph Crowe
Mitt Romney wins big....

I was just arguing about him. I said he looks like Anne Murray, my
adversary insists he's more of a Harvey Korman.

[Dennis M]

Post by maxo

Post by Joseph Crowe
Mitt Romney wins big....

I was just arguing about him. I said he looks like Anne Murray, my
adversary insists he's more of a Harvey Korman.

Dudley Do-Right, Royal Canadian Mounted Police

[Faye]

Post by Joseph Crowe
Mitt Romney wins big....
Ron Paul is 5th

I saw a red/white/blue hand-stenciled little wooden "Ron Paul for
President" sign on Hwy 431 just South of Devil's Elbow on the Joelton/
Whites Creek border. This is how it ought to be done, thought I.

Post by Joseph Crowe
Giulianni, McCain and Thompson are trailing the field.
This result is interesting because in spite of being
totally ignored by the mainstream media, who see to
have crowned Giulianni, Ron Paul did pretty well. It
seems that his message of people being attracted to the
message of liberty is being heard by some folks anyway.
I reckon we will have another Clinton in the CiC chair
in 2009.....should be interesting

I seriously doubt it. She is imbrued with yankee charm.

Faye

[jakdedert]

Post by Faye

Post by Joseph Crowe
Mitt Romney wins big....
Ron Paul is 5th

I saw a red/white/blue hand-stenciled little wooden "Ron Paul for
President" sign on Hwy 431 just South of Devil's Elbow on the Joelton/
Whites Creek border. This is how it ought to be done, thought I.

Post by Joseph Crowe
Giulianni, McCain and Thompson are trailing the field.
This result is interesting because in spite of being
totally ignored by the mainstream media, who see to
have crowned Giulianni, Ron Paul did pretty well. It
seems that his message of people being attracted to the
message of liberty is being heard by some folks anyway.
I reckon we will have another Clinton in the CiC chair
in 2009.....should be interesting

I seriously doubt it. She is imbrued with yankee charm.
Faye

It is an interesting race on both sides, despite there being a single
candidate with whom I can identify. RP is running almost completely an
internet, grass roots campaign. His supporters show up in almost every
forum, hawking him at every turn. At first I thought it a measure of
his actual popularity until I read (and recognized) that it was a
deliberate strategy...along with the hand-stenciled yard signs.

While it's a cunning plan, it's becoming a little transparent.

The Romney win was heavily discussed on the news shows this morning and
there are several articles about it in Google News.

jak

[jakdedert]

Post by jakdedert

Post by Faye

Post by Joseph Crowe
Mitt Romney wins big....
Ron Paul is 5th

I saw a red/white/blue hand-stenciled little wooden "Ron Paul for
President" sign on Hwy 431 just South of Devil's Elbow on the Joelton/
Whites Creek border. This is how it ought to be done, thought I.

Post by Joseph Crowe
Giulianni, McCain and Thompson are trailing the field.
This result is interesting because in spite of being
totally ignored by the mainstream media, who see to
have crowned Giulianni, Ron Paul did pretty well. It
seems that his message of people being attracted to the
message of liberty is being heard by some folks anyway.
I reckon we will have another Clinton in the CiC chair
in 2009.....should be interesting

I seriously doubt it. She is imbrued with yankee charm.
Faye

It is an interesting race on both sides, despite there being a single
candidate with whom I can identify. RP is running almost completely an
internet, grass roots campaign. His supporters show up in almost every
forum, hawking him at every turn. At first I thought it a measure of
his actual popularity until I read (and recognized) that it was a
deliberate strategy...along with the hand-stenciled yard signs.
While it's a cunning plan, it's becoming a little transparent.
The Romney win was heavily discussed on the news shows this morning and
there are several articles about it in Google News.
jak

That first line should have read 'despite there *not* being a single
candidate...."

[maxo]

Post by jakdedert

Post by Faye

Post by Joseph Crowe
Mitt Romney wins big....
Ron Paul is 5th

I saw a red/white/blue hand-stenciled little wooden "Ron Paul for
President" sign on Hwy 431 just South of Devil's Elbow on the Joelton/
Whites Creek border. This is how it ought to be done, thought I.

Post by Joseph Crowe
Giulianni, McCain and Thompson are trailing the field.
This result is interesting because in spite of being
totally ignored by the mainstream media, who see to
have crowned Giulianni, Ron Paul did pretty well. It
seems that his message of people being attracted to the
message of liberty is being heard by some folks anyway.
I reckon we will have another Clinton in the CiC chair
in 2009.....should be interesting

I seriously doubt it. She is imbrued with yankee charm.
Faye

It is an interesting race on both sides, despite there being a single
candidate with whom I can identify. RP is running almost completely an
internet, grass roots campaign. His supporters show up in almost every
forum, hawking him at every turn. At first I thought it a measure of
his actual popularity until I read (and recognized) that it was a
deliberate strategy...along with the hand-stenciled yard signs.
While it's a cunning plan, it's becoming a little transparent.

Astroturf at its finest hour.

He's still a nut job. A nut job that's right about a lot of issues
dealing with the constitution--he's a good match for congress, but I'd
not trust him to the secret red telephone and the Decider decoder
ring.

[Joseph Crowe]

Post by jakdedert

Post by Faye

Post by Joseph Crowe
Mitt Romney wins big....
Ron Paul is 5th

I saw a red/white/blue hand-stenciled little wooden "Ron Paul for
President" sign on Hwy 431 just South of Devil's Elbow on the Joelton/
Whites Creek border. This is how it ought to be done, thought I.

Post by Joseph Crowe
Giulianni, McCain and Thompson are trailing the field.
This result is interesting because in spite of being
totally ignored by the mainstream media, who see to
have crowned Giulianni, Ron Paul did pretty well. It
seems that his message of people being attracted to the
message of liberty is being heard by some folks anyway.
I reckon we will have another Clinton in the CiC chair
in 2009.....should be interesting

I seriously doubt it. She is imbrued with yankee charm.
Faye

It is an interesting race on both sides, despite there being a single
candidate with whom I can identify. RP is running almost completely an
internet, grass roots campaign. His supporters show up in almost every
forum, hawking him at every turn. At first I thought it a measure of
his actual popularity until I read (and recognized) that it was a
deliberate strategy...along with the hand-stenciled yard signs.

I don't know about your area, but here in Austin, he's a genuine
contender. Slick campaigning aside, does a candidate's actual
position mean anything to you or is it just whether he or she is
considered viable by the MSM?

Post by jakdedert
While it's a cunning plan, it's becoming a little transparent.

Do tell. There are a lot of people for whom traditional media
seems a little too slick, glib and well transparent. I am reminded
of this every time I visit an office where I can pick up Time, Newsweek,
US News and Report etc.....all the same bland, biased and lazy
reporting supporting the same old status quo.

Post by jakdedert
The Romney win was heavily discussed on the news shows this morning and
there are several articles about it in Google News.

Yep, and it's interesting that Romney and perhaps Tancredo were the
only ones mentioned....Romney for winning big and Tancredo for losing
big.

Post by jakdedert
jak

[Doug Smith W9WI]

Post by Joseph Crowe
Yep, and it's interesting that Romney and perhaps Tancredo were the
only ones mentioned....Romney for winning big and Tancredo for losing
big.

Who's Tancredo?

I'd say it would only be interesting if he *didn't* lose big!

(I wonder how the other Thompson - the one who *has* declared - did?)

[jakdedert]

<snip>

Post by Joseph Crowe

Post by jakdedert
It is an interesting race on both sides, despite there being a single
candidate with whom I can identify. RP is running almost completely
an internet, grass roots campaign. His supporters show up in almost
every forum, hawking him at every turn. At first I thought it a
measure of his actual popularity until I read (and recognized) that it
was a deliberate strategy...along with the hand-stenciled yard signs.

I don't know about your area, but here in Austin, he's a genuine
contender. Slick campaigning aside, does a candidate's actual
position mean anything to you or is it just whether he or she is
considered viable by the MSM?

In my area (much closer to Faye's than to yours) he's a blip on the
radar and a few hand-painted signs. When did *any* candidate's position
begin to matter to you, anyway. I thought you were totally above it all.

Post by Joseph Crowe

Post by jakdedert
While it's a cunning plan, it's becoming a little transparent.

Do tell. There are a lot of people for whom traditional media
seems a little too slick, glib and well transparent. I am reminded
of this every time I visit an office where I can pick up Time, Newsweek,
US News and Report etc.....all the same bland, biased and lazy
reporting supporting the same old status quo.

No argument from me. I get my news from all of the above, plus a
healthy dose of less well-known sources.

Nonetheless, it gets annoying when the readers comments on every other
news story is 'Ron Paul', like he's the Second Coming...no matter what
the story was about. It's obvious that the only real strategy is to
mention his name online a billion times.

Post by Joseph Crowe

Post by jakdedert
The Romney win was heavily discussed on the news shows this morning
and there are several articles about it in Google News.

Yep, and it's interesting that Romney and perhaps Tancredo were the
only ones mentioned....Romney for winning big and Tancredo for losing
big.

Pardon me, but I was responding to something I 'thought' you wrote. My
mistake, but I had misread your initial post to say that the media
glossed over the Romney win.

jak

Post by Joseph Crowe

Post by jakdedert
jak

[Dennis M]

Post by jakdedert
Nonetheless, it gets annoying when the readers comments on every other
news story is 'Ron Paul', like he's the Second Coming...no matter what
the story was about. It's obvious that the only real strategy is to
mention his name online a billion times.

You've heard about the Ron Paul Drinking Game too? <hiccup...hiccup...>

[JCrowe]

Post by jakdedert
<snip>

Post by Joseph Crowe

Post by jakdedert
It is an interesting race on both sides, despite there being a single
candidate with whom I can identify. RP is running almost completely
an internet, grass roots campaign. His supporters show up in almost
every forum, hawking him at every turn. At first I thought it a
measure of his actual popularity until I read (and recognized) that
it was a deliberate strategy...along with the hand-stenciled yard signs.

I don't know about your area, but here in Austin, he's a genuine
contender. Slick campaigning aside, does a candidate's actual
position mean anything to you or is it just whether he or she is
considered viable by the MSM?

In my area (much closer to Faye's than to yours) he's a blip on the
radar and a few hand-painted signs. When did *any* candidate's position
begin to matter to you, anyway. I thought you were totally above it all.

Jack, your interpretation is wrong. I follow such things in order
to remain informed and I have read the words and records of all
the candidates. The other Republican candidates are essentially in
lockstep. Ron Paul, whose record demonstrates his dedication to
a consistent set of principles, has a logically consistent platform
and the credentials to back it up. He's the only small government
candidate from either party. That makes him interesting, especially
to people who value individual liberty. It does not mean that I have
changed my position WRT democracy and/or voting. ABC, by the way, has
been caught in three blatant cases of misrepresenting the degree of
support that Ron Paul has.....seems like the powers that be wish
Ron Paul would just go away.

Post by jakdedert
Nonetheless, it gets annoying when the readers comments on every other
news story is 'Ron Paul', like he's the Second Coming...no matter what
the story was about. It's obvious that the only real strategy is to
mention his name online a billion times.

So, it appears that what annoys you is not so much Ron Paul's
positions or credentials but rather that you find his supporters'
level of enthusiasm irritating. Interesting.

Post by jakdedert
Pardon me, but I was responding to something I 'thought' you wrote. My
mistake, but I had misread your initial post to say that the media
glossed over the Romney win.

Nope, what I wrote was that the media reports I read (perhaps four of
the major sources) only mentioned Romney to any degree and mentioned
that the poor showing of Tancredo probably meant the end of his run.

Post by jakdedert
jak

[jakdedert]

Post by JCrowe

Post by jakdedert
<snip>

Post by Joseph Crowe

Post by jakdedert
It is an interesting race on both sides, despite there being a
single candidate with whom I can identify. RP is running almost
completely an internet, grass roots campaign. His supporters show
up in almost every forum, hawking him at every turn. At first I
thought it a measure of his actual popularity until I read (and
recognized) that it was a deliberate strategy...along with the
hand-stenciled yard signs.

I don't know about your area, but here in Austin, he's a genuine
contender. Slick campaigning aside, does a candidate's actual
position mean anything to you or is it just whether he or she is
considered viable by the MSM?

In my area (much closer to Faye's than to yours) he's a blip on the
radar and a few hand-painted signs. When did *any* candidate's
position begin to matter to you, anyway. I thought you were totally
above it all.

Jack, your interpretation is wrong. I follow such things in order
to remain informed and I have read the words and records of all
the candidates. The other Republican candidates are essentially in
lockstep. Ron Paul, whose record demonstrates his dedication to
a consistent set of principles, has a logically consistent platform
and the credentials to back it up. He's the only small government
candidate from either party. That makes him interesting, especially
to people who value individual liberty. It does not mean that I have
changed my position WRT democracy and/or voting. ABC, by the way, has
been caught in three blatant cases of misrepresenting the degree of
support that Ron Paul has.....seems like the powers that be wish
Ron Paul would just go away.

Post by jakdedert
Nonetheless, it gets annoying when the readers comments on every other
news story is 'Ron Paul', like he's the Second Coming...no matter what
the story was about. It's obvious that the only real strategy is to
mention his name online a billion times.

So, it appears that what annoys you is not so much Ron Paul's
positions or credentials but rather that you find his supporters'
level of enthusiasm irritating. Interesting.

Perhaps Paul is not so popular in Austin as he appears to
be...regardless of his positions.

I find it more than annoying--troubling, even--when an attempt is made
to make something appear what it is not. I expect that from the
mainstream candidates, and have no more respect for it from them as from
anyone else.

Paul's attempt to manipulate the media by the back door, and create the
*appearance* of a grassroots groundswell, is no less distasteful than
going to a movie and seeing products 'placed' without the acknowledgment
that the manufacturers paid to have them prominently displayed.

That sort of dishonesty tends to also manifest itself in other forms.
I've read some of his positions, and do a degree, agree more with them
than with others'. But do I believe him? The above makes me more than
a little sceptical.

Post by JCrowe

Post by jakdedert
Pardon me, but I was responding to something I 'thought' you wrote.
My mistake, but I had misread your initial post to say that the media
glossed over the Romney win.

Nope, what I wrote was that the media reports I read (perhaps four of
the major sources) only mentioned Romney to any degree and mentioned
that the poor showing of Tancredo probably meant the end of his run.

I understand--now--as I have acknowledged.

jak

Post by JCrowe

Post by jakdedert
jak

[JCrowe]

Post by jakdedert

Post by JCrowe
So, it appears that what annoys you is not so much Ron Paul's
positions or credentials but rather that you find his supporters'
level of enthusiasm irritating. Interesting.

Perhaps Paul is not so popular in Austin as he appears to
be...regardless of his positions.

Or perhaps he's more popular....I see more Ron Paul bumper
stickers every day....more than I see for Hillary, Obama, Giulliani
or McCain. Austin's an interesting city.

Post by jakdedert
I find it more than annoying--troubling, even--when an attempt is made
to make something appear what it is not. I expect that from the
mainstream candidates, and have no more respect for it from them as from
anyone else.

I'm not certain what your insistance that Ron Paul does not have a
legitimate candidacy means....it appears to me to just be sheer
stubbornness. Ron Paul's campaign and its supporters are using the
one effective path that remains open to them to get the message out,
and that is the internet. The mainstream media have branded him as a
pariah and will not honestly cover his campaign, it appears
purposefully. As to his campaign being a grassroots effort, well,
that's the very definition of grassroots.....a bunch of individuals
who voluntarily support and disseminate a candidate's message.

Post by jakdedert
Paul's attempt to manipulate the media by the back door, and create the
*appearance* of a grassroots groundswell, is no less distasteful than
going to a movie and seeing products 'placed' without the acknowledgment
that the manufacturers paid to have them prominently displayed.

What is your real issue here, Jack? Is it that Ron Paul is running
as a Republican? You keep dancing around the issue with what appears to
me to be a form vs. substance issue...Ron Paul does not have a slick
campaign machine, Ron Paul is faking a grassroots movement, Ron Paul
is dishonest...these accusations belie a basic and real ignorance of
Ron Paul and what he stands for.

Post by jakdedert
That sort of dishonesty tends to also manifest itself in other forms.
I've read some of his positions, and do a degree, agree more with them
than with others'. But do I believe him? The above makes me more than
a little sceptical.

Well, look at his record if you continue to be skeptical. I mean it,
Ron Paul's record is rock solid and consistent. View a few of his
speeches on C-SPAN. Were you aware that he opposed the so-called
PATRIOT Act as well as the war in Iraq?

Post by jakdedert
I understand--now--as I have acknowledged.

Thank you. I don't know when I'll make it back to Nashville but
I'd like to get a meatspace meeting when I do. I've been having an
interesting read on the Federal Reserve. I think we are in for an
interesting couple of years.

Post by jakdedert
jak

[Olin]

Post by jakdedert

Post by Faye

Post by Joseph Crowe
Mitt Romney wins big....
Ron Paul is 5th

I saw a red/white/blue hand-stenciled little wooden "Ron Paul for
President" sign on Hwy 431 just South of Devil's Elbow on the Joelton/
Whites Creek border. This is how it ought to be done, thought I.

Post by Joseph Crowe
Giulianni, McCain and Thompson are trailing the field.
This result is interesting because in spite of being
totally ignored by the mainstream media, who see to
have crowned Giulianni, Ron Paul did pretty well. It
seems that his message of people being attracted to the
message of liberty is being heard by some folks anyway.
I reckon we will have another Clinton in the CiC chair
in 2009.....should be interesting

I seriously doubt it. She is imbrued with yankee charm.
Faye

It is an interesting race on both sides, despite there being a single
candidate with whom I can identify. RP is running almost completely an
internet, grass roots campaign. His supporters show up in almost every
forum, hawking him at every turn. At first I thought it a measure of his
actual popularity until I read (and recognized) that it was a deliberate
strategy...along with the hand-stenciled yard signs.
While it's a cunning plan, it's becoming a little transparent.
The Romney win was heavily discussed on the news shows this morning and
there are several articles about it in Google News.

Ron Paul is what he is... a rabble rouser. He's always been that. He's true
to his own principals and values and, with no disrespect to him or his fans,
about as effective a congress member as a pet poodle.

Heard some Romney dweeb proclaiming that Iowans gave America the notice that
change begins in Iowa.

I'm still trying to parse how more of the same equates to change, but then
political speak has always easily avoided much confrontation with reality.

As for Hillary, she may be a senator from New York State, but she's not a
yankee by birth... unless one wants to consider Chicago, Illinois a "yankee"
bastion. Geographically, it's upper midwest. She spent much of her adult and
professional life in Arkansas and truth be told she doesn't even sound THAT
far from George Bush hisownself when you get right down to it. Which would
figure, as this alleged icon of the left wing worked in the 1964 campaign
for Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign.

Actually, the Barry Goldwater of his own later years, would be a major
improvement over ALL current presidential candidates.

The one candidate I've heard with anything approaching a novel idea... Mike
Huckabee opined, on health care, that while he's not in favor of universal
health care, he would push to have the health care available to members of
Congress made available to ALL Americans, OR members of Congress required to
exist on precisely the same health care "benefits" the rest of us enjoy.

[Kent Finnell]

Post by Joseph Crowe
Mitt Romney wins big....
Ron Paul is 5th

And has probably peaked out.

Post by Joseph Crowe
Giulianni, McCain and Thompson are trailing the field.

None of them campained in the state AFAIK and Thompson still hasn't
officially announced.

Post by Joseph Crowe
This result is interesting because in spite of being
totally ignored by the mainstream media, who see to
have crowned Giulianni, Ron Paul did pretty well. It
seems that his message of people being attracted to the
message of liberty is being heard by some folks anyway.

Yeah, sure, right ... Paul would be as much a foreign policy disaster as
Obama, otherwise ... zzzzz

Post by Joseph Crowe
I reckon we will have another Clinton in the CiC chair
in 2009.....should be interesting

Don't make any bets yet, Joseph. Nov. 2008 is 17 months away, or about 10
political lifetimes.

I wouldn't be surprised at a Rodam-Clinton/Obama ticket though. They might
not like each other, but neither did JFK and LBJ. The Democrats would be
happy to play both the gender and the race cards.

[Joseph Crowe]

Post by Kent Finnell
Yeah, sure, right ... Paul would be as much a foreign policy disaster as
Obama, otherwise ... zzzzz

Why do you say that, Kent? Do you actually know what Ron Paul's
position is?

Post by Kent Finnell

Post by Joseph Crowe
I reckon we will have another Clinton in the CiC chair
in 2009.....should be interesting

Don't make any bets yet, Joseph. Nov. 2008 is 17 months away, or about 10
political lifetimes.

The GOP will lose if they have a candidate who supports the current
approach to the conflict in Iraq....it's that simple. The Democrats are
not likely to change the current approach, whoever wins, but they will
give the perception that they will do something different. It worked for
them in the midterms, though of course they have totally betrayed their
supporters on the Iraq issue.

Post by Kent Finnell
I wouldn't be surprised at a Rodam-Clinton/Obama ticket though. They might
not like each other, but neither did JFK and LBJ. The Democrats would be
happy to play both the gender and the race cards.

The Democrats might do so....and the Republicans would use similar
approaches if they could.....I'm puzzled that you perceive a difference
between the parties.....

[jakdedert]

Post by Joseph Crowe
The Democrats might do so....and the Republicans would use similar
approaches if they could.....I'm puzzled that you perceive a difference
between the parties.....

...and I'm puzzled that you seem to care. Seems out of character.

jak

[Kent Finnell]

Post by Joseph Crowe

Post by Kent Finnell
Yeah, sure, right ... Paul would be as much a foreign policy disaster as
Obama, otherwise ... zzzzz

Negotiate with the terrorists.

Post by Joseph Crowe
Why do you say that, Kent? Do you actually know what Ron Paul's
position is?

Post by Kent Finnell

Post by Joseph Crowe
I reckon we will have another Clinton in the CiC chair
in 2009.....should be interesting

Don't make any bets yet, Joseph. Nov. 2008 is 17 months away, or about
10 political lifetimes.

The GOP will lose if they have a candidate who supports the current
approach to the conflict in Iraq....it's that simple. The Democrats are
not likely to change the current approach, whoever wins, but they will
give the perception that they will do something different. It worked for
them in the midterms, though of course they have totally betrayed their
supporters on the Iraq issue.

And what would you do, Joseph. Turn tail and run?

Post by Joseph Crowe

Post by Kent Finnell
I wouldn't be surprised at a Rodam-Clinton/Obama ticket though. They
might not like each other, but neither did JFK and LBJ. The Democrats
would be happy to play both the gender and the race cards.

The Democrats might do so....and the Republicans would use similar
approaches if they could.....I'm puzzled that you perceive a difference
between the parties.....

I'm equally puzzled why you think that Ron Paul could do ANYTHING if by some
fluke he a) got the nomination, or b) ran as a Libertarian/Third Party and
c) became POTUS. He's a gadfly, a principled one, but a gadfly none the
less.

[JCrowe]

Post by Kent Finnell

Post by Joseph Crowe

Post by Kent Finnell
Yeah, sure, right ... Paul would be as much a foreign policy disaster as
Obama, otherwise ... zzzzz

Negotiate with the terrorists.

Hmm, where did you get that idea? Let's face it, by any rational
definition, the most egregious acts of terrorism in the region come
from actions of the U.S. military. I have never seen any indication
from Ron Paul that he intended to "negotiate with the terrorists" as
you say...which indicates your essential ignorance of his positions.

Post by Kent Finnell

Post by Joseph Crowe
The GOP will lose if they have a candidate who supports the current
approach to the conflict in Iraq....it's that simple. The Democrats are
not likely to change the current approach, whoever wins, but they will
give the perception that they will do something different. It worked for
them in the midterms, though of course they have totally betrayed their
supporters on the Iraq issue.

And what would you do, Joseph. Turn tail and run?

Kent, you are so dramatic.....perhaps you should take up acting.
As any rational person would now admit, the initiation of the action
in Iraq was based on lies and terrorists were not in Iraq before the
Bush administration started this war. If the Bush folks had been that
interested in pursuing the masterminds behind 9/11 they would have
skipped Iraq and gone after bin Laden in Afghanistan. In a word, the
U.S. has totally lost militarily, morally and psychologically in Iraq.
What's the point of staying around now? Why waste another drop of blood
from either U.S. military personnel or Iraqis? Turn tail and run is the
language of an irrational bully Kent. It attempts to smear anybody who
makes an argument rather than to address the argument. You might want to
choose a more defensible position.

Post by Kent Finnell

Post by Joseph Crowe
The Democrats might do so....and the Republicans would use similar
approaches if they could.....I'm puzzled that you perceive a difference
between the parties.....

I'm equally puzzled why you think that Ron Paul could do ANYTHING if by some
fluke he a) got the nomination, or b) ran as a Libertarian/Third Party and
c) became POTUS. He's a gadfly, a principled one, but a gadfly none the
less.

Gadfly....perhaps, but he sure seems to have evoked a bit of staged
reaction from the GOP establishment. If Ron Paul became president it
would mean that grassroot support for small government had put him in
such a position and thus members of congress would take notice and start
to act in a way that would keep them in office. FWIW, in my opinion a
real case could be made for impeachment and removal from office of
Bush, Cheney and Pelosi, but that will not happen.

[Kent Finnell]

Post by JCrowe

Post by Kent Finnell

Post by Joseph Crowe

Post by Kent Finnell
Yeah, sure, right ... Paul would be as much a foreign policy disaster
as Obama, otherwise ... zzzzz

Negotiate with the terrorists.

Hmm, where did you get that idea? Let's face it, by any rational
definition, the most egregious acts of terrorism in the region come
from actions of the U.S. military. I have never seen any indication
from Ron Paul that he intended to "negotiate with the terrorists" as
you say...which indicates your essential ignorance of his positions.

His position as of Oct. 2001, in his own words

The same is true in dealing with those who so passionately hate us that
suicide becomes a just and noble cause in their effort to kill and terrorize
us. Without some understanding of what has brought us to the brink of a
worldwide conflict in reconsidering our policies around the globe, we will
be no more successful in making our land secure and free than the drug war
has been in removing drug violence from our cities and towns.
Without some understanding why terrorism is directed towards the United
States, we may well build a prison for ourselves with something called
homeland security while doing nothing to combat the root causes of
terrorism. Let us hope we figure this out soon. We have promoted a foolish
and very expensive domestic war on drugs for more than 30 years. It has done
no good whatsoever. I doubt our Republic can survive a 30-year period of
trying to figure out how to win this guerilla war against terrorism.
Hopefully, we will all seek the answers in these trying times with an open
mind and understanding.
Seek out answers with an open mind and understanding? I understand. The
radical Islamists want to kill us. What's not to understand. They'll open
our minds by cleving our skulls.

Post by JCrowe

Post by Kent Finnell

Post by Joseph Crowe
The GOP will lose if they have a candidate who supports the current
approach to the conflict in Iraq....it's that simple. The Democrats are
not likely to change the current approach, whoever wins, but they will
give the perception that they will do something different. It worked for
them in the midterms, though of course they have totally betrayed their
supporters on the Iraq issue.

And what would you do, Joseph. Turn tail and run?

Kent, you are so dramatic.....perhaps you should take up acting.
As any rational person would now admit, the initiation of the action
in Iraq was based on lies and terrorists were not in Iraq before the
Bush administration started this war. If the Bush folks had been that
interested in pursuing the masterminds behind 9/11 they would have
skipped Iraq and gone after bin Laden in Afghanistan. In a word, the
U.S. has totally lost militarily*, morally and psychologically in Iraq.
What's the point of staying around now? Why waste another drop of blood
from either U.S. military personnel or Iraqis? Turn tail and run is the
language of an irrational bully Kent. It attempts to smear anybody who
makes an argument rather than to address the argument. You might want to
choose a more defensible position.

* According to you, Murtha, and the DailyKos crowd.

Lies by whom? The Bush Administration? To what ends? BTW, you didn't
answer the question. WWJCD (Joseph Crowe, not Jesus Christ)? And now I'm
an irrational bully in your eyes, Joseph? The "lies" were faulty
intelligence reports and virtually everyone in D.C., Democrat and Republican
alike believed them. Hell, even Saddam apparently believed them. I'd guess
his generals kept telling him, "Yeah, boss, we have them (WMDs)." (Out of
fear of what he would do if they told him the truth.)

Post by JCrowe

Post by Kent Finnell

Post by Joseph Crowe
The Democrats might do so....and the Republicans would use similar
approaches if they could.....I'm puzzled that you perceive a difference
between the parties.....

I'm equally puzzled why you think that Ron Paul could do ANYTHING if by
some fluke he a) got the nomination, or b) ran as a Libertarian/Third
Party and c) became POTUS. He's a gadfly, a principled one, but a gadfly
none the less.

Gadfly....perhaps, but he sure seems to have evoked a bit of staged
reaction from the GOP establishment. If Ron Paul became president it
would mean that grassroot support for small government had put him in
such a position and thus members of congress would take notice and start
to act in a way that would keep them in office. FWIW, in my opinion a
real case could be made for impeachment and removal from office of
Bush, Cheney and Pelosi, but that will not happen.

With Nov. 2008 only 17 months away, impeachment of any one or all 3 would be
a massive waste of time and money and would only encourage the enemy.

[JCrowe]

Post by Kent Finnell

Post by JCrowe

Post by Kent Finnell

Post by Kent Finnell
Yeah, sure, right ... Paul would be as much a foreign policy disaster
as Obama, otherwise ... zzzzz

Negotiate with the terrorists.

Hmm, where did you get that idea? Let's face it, by any rational
definition, the most egregious acts of terrorism in the region come
from actions of the U.S. military. I have never seen any indication
from Ron Paul that he intended to "negotiate with the terrorists" as
you say...which indicates your essential ignorance of his positions.

His position as of Oct. 2001, in his own words
The same is true in dealing with those who so passionately hate us that
suicide becomes a just and noble cause in their effort to kill and terrorize
us. Without some understanding of what has brought us to the brink of a
worldwide conflict in reconsidering our policies around the globe, we will
be no more successful in making our land secure and free than the drug war
has been in removing drug violence from our cities and towns.
Without some understanding why terrorism is directed towards the United
States, we may well build a prison for ourselves with something called
homeland security while doing nothing to combat the root causes of
terrorism. Let us hope we figure this out soon. We have promoted a foolish
and very expensive domestic war on drugs for more than 30 years. It has done
no good whatsoever. I doubt our Republic can survive a 30-year period of
trying to figure out how to win this guerilla war against terrorism.
Hopefully, we will all seek the answers in these trying times with an open
mind and understanding.

Seems pretty straightforward to me. U.S. intervention around the
world has implications. People don't like being invaded and occupied.
Ron Paul's position as argued above makes sense as much now as it did
in 2001.

Post by Kent Finnell
Seek out answers with an open mind and understanding? I understand. The
radical Islamists want to kill us. What's not to understand. They'll open
our minds by cleving our skulls.

Appears that your mind is stuck in one position. The interventions in
various parts of the Muslim world by presidents going all the way back
to Truman do have consequences...that's what Ron Paul has said, and he
is supported by reports from the CIA and the 9/11 Commission.

Post by Kent Finnell

Post by JCrowe

Post by Kent Finnell
And what would you do, Joseph. Turn tail and run?

Kent, you are so dramatic.....perhaps you should take up acting.
As any rational person would now admit, the initiation of the action
in Iraq was based on lies and terrorists were not in Iraq before the
Bush administration started this war. If the Bush folks had been that
interested in pursuing the masterminds behind 9/11 they would have
skipped Iraq and gone after bin Laden in Afghanistan. In a word, the
U.S. has totally lost militarily*, morally and psychologically in Iraq.
What's the point of staying around now? Why waste another drop of blood
from either U.S. military personnel or Iraqis? Turn tail and run is the
language of an irrational bully Kent. It attempts to smear anybody who
makes an argument rather than to address the argument. You might want to
choose a more defensible position.

* According to you, Murtha, and the DailyKos crowd.

Well, according to a lot more than me, Murtha and the DailyKos crowd,
whatever that is. You might want to read the words of William Lind who
is an expert on fourth generation warfare.

Post by Kent Finnell
Lies by whom? The Bush Administration? To what ends?

Yes, Kent, total fabrications that were used to justify this war....
if you are still into denial about those lies, I don't see what would
possibly remove the blinders from your eyes.

Post by Kent Finnell
BTW, you didn't
answer the question. WWJCD (Joseph Crowe, not Jesus Christ)?

About what, Kent? Iraq. If I had ever had any say on the matter,
the U.S. feral government would never have gone into there either in
the first gulf war or Bush Jr.'s little debacle. But I don't have any
say in the matter, now do I. Further, withdrawing now rather than later
will save a lot of lives and allow Iraq to get on with the job of
healing from this latest outrage.

Post by Kent Finnell
And now I'm
an irrational bully in your eyes, Joseph? The "lies" were faulty
intelligence reports and virtually everyone in D.C., Democrat and Republican
alike believed them. Hell, even Saddam apparently believed them. I'd guess
his generals kept telling him, "Yeah, boss, we have them (WMDs)." (Out of
fear of what he would do if they told him the truth.)

WMDs, the faked Niger yellowcake, implications of a connection
between al Qaeda and Hussein....all lies....transparent ones to for
anybody with a shred of critical thinking abilities.

Post by Kent Finnell

Post by JCrowe
Gadfly....perhaps, but he sure seems to have evoked a bit of staged
reaction from the GOP establishment. If Ron Paul became president it
would mean that grassroot support for small government had put him in
such a position and thus members of congress would take notice and start
to act in a way that would keep them in office. FWIW, in my opinion a
real case could be made for impeachment and removal from office of
Bush, Cheney and Pelosi, but that will not happen.

With Nov. 2008 only 17 months away, impeachment of any one or all 3 would be
a massive waste of time and money and would only encourage the enemy.

These people are the enemy Kent. Bush and company can do a hell of a
lot more damage in 17 months. In an aside, according to current TSA
guidelines, an individual traveler can be fined up to $1500 for having
a bad attitude....no appeal and no knowledge until one receives notice
in the mail. When I was a kid, they used to tell us of this kind of
horror story about the Soviet Union to scare us. My how times change.

[InfoSuperHwyRoadKill]

Post by Kent Finnell
With Nov. 2008 only 17 months away, impeachment of any one or all 3 would
be a massive waste of time and money and would only encourage the enemy.

Now that is funny, and not just because of new months Bush has mandated for
'08 -- Janubooby, Moronary, and Julidioty.

[MrWonderful]

Post by Kent Finnell
Yeah, sure, right

This argument is the classic case of "napalm the pile"~!
hahahahaha
: ) Lala

[Boston Blackie (PA Robert Black, or is it the other way 'round?)]

Post by Kent Finnell
Negotiate with the terrorists.

MR. McCLELLAN: We do not negotiate with terrorists. We put them out of
business.
http://tinyurl.com/2oharm

"Hammoudi, who heads Iraq's constitutional-reform committee and meets
regularly with top U.S. officials, including military commander Army
Gen. David Petraeus and, recently, Vice President Dick Cheney, was
particularly dismayed that the United States is cooperating with Sunni
insurgent groups in a campaign to destroy the group al Qaeda in Iraq."
http://tinyurl.com/2srzsv

[Cyrus Afzali]

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 00:13:54 -0500, "Kent Finnell"

Post by Kent Finnell

Post by Joseph Crowe

Post by Kent Finnell
Yeah, sure, right ... Paul would be as much a foreign policy disaster as
Obama, otherwise ... zzzzz

Negotiate with the terrorists.

Let me see... we invaded a country that didn't have anything to do
with 9/11 because Junior wanted to make Papa look good. We explained
that incredible gaffe simply as "bad intelligence," and label
everybody who fights that occupation as terrorists?

My only point is we're fanning the terrorism flames by occupying a
country that had nothing to do with 9/11. That's hardly genius foreign
policy.

Post by Kent Finnell

Post by Joseph Crowe
The GOP will lose if they have a candidate who supports the current
approach to the conflict in Iraq....it's that simple. The Democrats are
not likely to change the current approach, whoever wins, but they will
give the perception that they will do something different. It worked for
them in the midterms, though of course they have totally betrayed their
supporters on the Iraq issue.

And what would you do, Joseph. Turn tail and run?

How about leave it up to Iraq to clean up their shit? How much longer
do the American taxpayers have to finance this fiasco? We were lied to
over and over and over again in regard to how oil revenues were going
to pay for this debacle and have yet to see anything worthwhile for
our investment. And yes, that's how I view it. At this point, we've
not made the world, or America for that matter, a safer place by
taking out Saddam because attacks within Iraq have increased
enormously and we still haven't located the guy we let slip away in
Tora Bora after outsourcing his capture.

Republicans seem incapable of admitting failure on this one. And I
simply don't know how you can characterize it as anything but a
failure. We've got a president who barely saw any of the world before
taking office guiding an ambitious foreign policy initiative that is
essentially a Christian jihad. I'm not crazy about paying for a war to
get everyone to convert to Jesus.

[jakdedert]

Post by Cyrus Afzali
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 00:13:54 -0500, "Kent Finnell"

Post by Kent Finnell
And what would you do, Joseph. Turn tail and run?

How about leave it up to Iraq to clean up their shit? How much longer
do the American taxpayers have to finance this fiasco? We were lied to
over and over and over again in regard to how oil revenues were going
to pay for this debacle and have yet to see anything worthwhile for
our investment. And yes, that's how I view it. At this point, we've
not made the world, or America for that matter, a safer place by
taking out Saddam because attacks within Iraq have increased
enormously and we still haven't located the guy we let slip away in
Tora Bora after outsourcing his capture.

They won't clean up their own shit any sooner than the Vietnamese did.
OTOH, eventually, the Viet's did clean up. However it took several
'political lifetimes'. Assuming (a good assumption IMO) that eventually
they do clean up--and on the same timetable--the wingnuts will still
have something to scream about long after any hypothetical pullout by
'Coalition' forces. They'll be able to use the deterioration in Iraq
for several presidential election cycles, well into the next decade in
any case.

The irony really is that few in Iraq are any better off than they were
under Saddam. Many (most?) are worse off, in many ways...yesterday
being a prime example.

Post by Cyrus Afzali
Republicans seem incapable of admitting failure on this one. And I
simply don't know how you can characterize it as anything but a
failure. We've got a president who barely saw any of the world before
taking office guiding an ambitious foreign policy initiative that is
essentially a Christian jihad. I'm not crazy about paying for a war to
get everyone to convert to Jesus.

Bush only let the word 'crusade' slip once and got his head handed to
him over it. With the current (although, currently waning) power of the
fundies in government, it certainly looks like the model for the
present-day intervention.

jak

[JCrowe]

Post by jakdedert

Post by Cyrus Afzali
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 00:13:54 -0500, "Kent Finnell"

Post by Kent Finnell
And what would you do, Joseph. Turn tail and run?

How about leave it up to Iraq to clean up their shit? How much longer
do the American taxpayers have to finance this fiasco?

According to Petreus, up to another ten years. For Kent that
will have less of an effect than for you and the other younger
folk who will suffer the consequences for many more years.

Post by jakdedert

Post by Cyrus Afzali
We were lied to
over and over and over again in regard to how oil revenues were going
to pay for this debacle and have yet to see anything worthwhile for
our investment. And yes, that's how I view it.

As an investment, the Iraq war makes even less sense than as
an anti-terrorism play. Here's a point that many folks have missed:
it would have been far less expensive in every way to buy the oil
on the open market than to destroy the existing infrastructure,
rebuild it and then buy the output. It also would have avoided
all the blowback from killing tens if not hundreds of thousands
of Iraqis. I doubt that the Bushcovites ever had investment in
mind, except as bribes and kickbacks to the likes of Halliburton.

Post by jakdedert

Post by Cyrus Afzali
At this point, we've
not made the world, or America for that matter, a safer place by
taking out Saddam because attacks within Iraq have increased
enormously and we still haven't located the guy we let slip away in
Tora Bora after outsourcing his capture.

Bingo, give the man a cigar. To relate this to Ron Paul, from
whence this thread partially originated, he voted against Iraq and
for Afghanistan involvement. Damn that clear path thinking.

Post by jakdedert
They won't clean up their own shit any sooner than the Vietnamese did.

Hard to say. Given that their infrastructure is in shambles it's
hard to see how the Iraqis will be able to do much without external
assistance. Most likely that will come in the form of aid from the
surrounding Islamic countries who are probably feeling none too
comfortable with the sabre rattling out of Washington from the
Democrats AND Republicans.

Post by jakdedert
OTOH, eventually, the Viet's did clean up. However it took several
'political lifetimes'. Assuming (a good assumption IMO) that eventually
they do clean up--and on the same timetable--the wingnuts will still
have something to scream about long after any hypothetical pullout by
'Coalition' forces. They'll be able to use the deterioration in Iraq
for several presidential election cycles, well into the next decade in
any case.

Yep, the wingnuts from both wings of the welfare/warfare party will
have a field day for decades to come or until they become irrelevant
themselves.

Post by jakdedert
The irony really is that few in Iraq are any better off than they were
under Saddam. Many (most?) are worse off, in many ways...yesterday
being a prime example.

Most assuredly much worse off. Iraq went from the most advanced
country in terms of education, infrastructure and civilization in the
area to a fourth world country where simple survival is not a given
in a few short years, starting with Bush 1's dirty little war.

Post by jakdedert

Post by Cyrus Afzali
Republicans seem incapable of admitting failure on this one. And I
simply don't know how you can characterize it as anything but a
failure. We've got a president who barely saw any of the world before
taking office guiding an ambitious foreign policy initiative that is
essentially a Christian jihad. I'm not crazy about paying for a war to
get everyone to convert to Jesus.

Excellent comment, Cyrus. However, you seem to forget that the
Democrats have been complicit in this whole matter from the getgo.
They never really opposed the war effort, with some like Joe Lieberman
actively campaigning for it. Since they gained the majority in the
house of reprehensibles and the senate, they have not changed their
tune one iota......abdication of responsibility is nothing to be
admired.

Post by jakdedert
Bush only let the word 'crusade' slip once and got his head handed to
him over it. With the current (although, currently waning) power of the
fundies in government, it certainly looks like the model for the
present-day intervention.

The "fundies" are pushing like hell for a followup in Iran and the
big guns in the Democratic corral are right up there with them in their
support, with almost no exceptions.

Post by jakdedert
jak

[Cyrus Afzali]

Post by JCrowe

Post by jakdedert

Post by Cyrus Afzali
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 00:13:54 -0500, "Kent Finnell"

Post by Kent Finnell
And what would you do, Joseph. Turn tail and run?

How about leave it up to Iraq to clean up their shit? How much longer
do the American taxpayers have to finance this fiasco?

According to Petreus, up to another ten years. For Kent that
will have less of an effect than for you and the other younger
folk who will suffer the consequences for many more years.

Interestingly enough, if you go to technorati.com right now, they have
a link to a video from Dick Cheney in 1994 where he tells C-Span that
an invasion of Iraq would create a quagmire the U.S. would find
difficult to get out of. This from a guy that's such an ardent
believer in what we're doing now.

Post by JCrowe

Post by jakdedert

Post by Cyrus Afzali
We were lied to
over and over and over again in regard to how oil revenues were going
to pay for this debacle and have yet to see anything worthwhile for
our investment. And yes, that's how I view it.

As an investment, the Iraq war makes even less sense than as
it would have been far less expensive in every way to buy the oil
on the open market than to destroy the existing infrastructure,
rebuild it and then buy the output. It also would have avoided
all the blowback from killing tens if not hundreds of thousands
of Iraqis. I doubt that the Bushcovites ever had investment in
mind, except as bribes and kickbacks to the likes of Halliburton.

Right, which makes it harder for me to make sense of the "we did for
the oil" line than the whole jihad argument. Even if we were in it for
the oil, surely at some point somebody pointed out to Bushie that
unless things could be stabilized very quickly in Iraq, our invasion
of Iraq would create more instability initially in oil pricing than it
would bring a sense of calm to the market.

Post by JCrowe

Post by jakdedert

Post by Cyrus Afzali
Republicans seem incapable of admitting failure on this one. And I
simply don't know how you can characterize it as anything but a
failure. We've got a president who barely saw any of the world before
taking office guiding an ambitious foreign policy initiative that is
essentially a Christian jihad. I'm not crazy about paying for a war to
get everyone to convert to Jesus.

Excellent comment, Cyrus. However, you seem to forget that the
Democrats have been complicit in this whole matter from the getgo.
They never really opposed the war effort, with some like Joe Lieberman
actively campaigning for it. Since they gained the majority in the
house of reprehensibles and the senate, they have not changed their
tune one iota......abdication of responsibility is nothing to be
admired.

Well, no I don't entirely forget. Aside from her baggage that others
may have with her, one of the problems that I have with Hillary is
she's actually been complicit with the Republicans in many of their
post-9/11 moves. I realize that, politically speaking, there was a
while following 9/11 where it was seen that everybody had to move lock
and step together for the good of the country, to show unity, etc.

But there's a big difference between coming together for the sake of
finding Bin Laden, strengthening airport and port security and real
initiatives that make a difference and supporting things that go to
far in terms of harming the rights of ordinary citizens. In this area,
I believe Dems have been patsies on many occasions. If they had come
out sooner against this stuff, it would have been much better.

Post by JCrowe

Post by jakdedert
Bush only let the word 'crusade' slip once and got his head handed to
him over it. With the current (although, currently waning) power of the
fundies in government, it certainly looks like the model for the
present-day intervention.

The "fundies" are pushing like hell for a followup in Iran and the
big guns in the Democratic corral are right up there with them in their
support, with almost no exceptions.

I think sane heads will prevail in terms of Iran, realizing that in a
part of the world with so little stability, it will be a tough thing
to take on one of its original countries that dates back many
centuries. Iran's no Iraq.

[JCrowe]

Post by Cyrus Afzali

Post by JCrowe
Excellent comment, Cyrus. However, you seem to forget that the
Democrats have been complicit in this whole matter from the getgo.
They never really opposed the war effort, with some like Joe Lieberman
actively campaigning for it. Since they gained the majority in the
house of reprehensibles and the senate, they have not changed their
tune one iota......abdication of responsibility is nothing to be
admired.

Well, no I don't entirely forget. Aside from her baggage that others
may have with her, one of the problems that I have with Hillary is
she's actually been complicit with the Republicans in many of their
post-9/11 moves. I realize that, politically speaking, there was a
while following 9/11 where it was seen that everybody had to move lock
and step together for the good of the country, to show unity, etc.

Hillary is a real war monger. Her words and her actions prove that.

Post by Cyrus Afzali
But there's a big difference between coming together for the sake of
finding Bin Laden, strengthening airport and port security and real
initiatives that make a difference and supporting things that go to
far in terms of harming the rights of ordinary citizens. In this area,
I believe Dems have been patsies on many occasions. If they had come
out sooner against this stuff, it would have been much better.

The actions that infringe the liberties of citizens concern me because
the rate of infringement and the degree of infringement are increasing
rapidly. Unfortunately, I must run the gauntlet of TSA harassment
tomorrow as I travel once again.

Post by Cyrus Afzali

Post by JCrowe
The "fundies" are pushing like hell for a followup in Iran and the
big guns in the Democratic corral are right up there with them in their
support, with almost no exceptions.

I think sane heads will prevail in terms of Iran, realizing that in a
part of the world with so little stability, it will be a tough thing
to take on one of its original countries that dates back many
centuries. Iran's no Iraq.

From a strategic, tactical and logical PoV, screwing with Iran makes
no sense. But none of that seems to have much of an effect on policy
with the current crew. I don't hold out much hope for the upcoming
set of powerseekers either.

[Dennis M]

Post by Kent Finnell

Post by Joseph Crowe
Giulianni, McCain and Thompson are trailing the field.

None of them campained in the state AFAIK and Thompson still hasn't
officially announced.

If I was a Republican and I wanted to keep the White House in '08 I'd hope
Thompson didn't announce, from all indications he's going to run as Bush
2.0 more than any other candidate. See how far that'll get you in the
general election (folksy pickup truck BS notwithstanding).

[MrWonderful]

Post by Kent Finnell
The Democrats would be
happy to play both the gender and the race cards.

kent prefers to play the rupublucun stupid card.
: ) Lala

[Boston Blackie (PA Robert Black, or is it the other way 'round?)]

Post by Kent Finnell
The Democrats would be
happy to play both the gender and the race cards.

[MrWonderful]

On Aug 13, 8:25?am, Boston Blackie (PA Robert Black, or is it the

Post by Kent Finnell
The Democrats would be
happy to play both the gender and the race cards

Then it *is* your contention that kent has played the race and gender
cards, just as he alleges the enemy would be happily do-do~!

[JG]

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 08:25:47 -0500, Boston Blackie (PA Robert Black,

Post by Kent Finnell
The Democrats would be
happy to play both the gender and the race cards.

Yeah. I noticed that too. Bet then, it's Kent.

[Boston Blackie (PA Robert Black, or is it the other way 'round?)]

Post by JG
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 08:25:47 -0500, Boston Blackie (PA Robert Black,

Post by Kent Finnell
The Democrats would be
happy to play both the gender and the race cards.

Yeah. I noticed that too. Bet then, it's Kent.

I wonder, with all due respect to a certain mindset, when the Democrats
will be able to field a female or minority candidate without being
accused of playing "... both the gender and the race cards."

[JG]

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 08:37:53 -0500, Boston Blackie (PA Robert Black,

Post by Boston Blackie (PA Robert Black, or is it the other way 'round?)
I wonder, with all due respect to a certain mindset, when the Democrats
will be able to field a female or minority candidate without being
accused of playing "... both the gender and the race cards."

I thought they had done a pretty good job of it this time. While it
doesn't shock me hearing it from Kent, and I don't listen to
right-wing talk radio, this was the first I'd heard it.

Wonder what the Madison Midget would have to say if Condi ever
decides to run for President?

[Kent Finnell]

Post by JG
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 08:37:53 -0500, Boston Blackie (PA Robert Black,

Post by Boston Blackie (PA Robert Black, or is it the other way 'round?)
I wonder, with all due respect to a certain mindset, when the Democrats
will be able to field a female or minority candidate without being
accused of playing "... both the gender and the race cards."

I thought they had done a pretty good job of it this time. While it
doesn't shock me hearing it from Kent, and I don't listen to
right-wing talk radio, this was the first I'd heard it.
Wonder what the Madison Midget would have to say if Condi ever
decides to run for President?

I've already stated my thoughts on that, Jim.

The Democrats would play the gender and race cards by making statements like
"it's time for a woman" or "it's time for a black" in order to evoke guilt
in males and whites. That's not a likely tactic for the Republicans, IMO.
They could counter with any one of the 3 white guys now in contention
(McCain is all but gone) and Condi Rice as VP. I'd like to see it, but she
has expressed no interest and she's never had the experience of running for
an elective office. As I said almost 10 years ago, my dream team, barring
Dr. Rice, would be Fred Dalton Thompson and J.C. Watts.

Madison Midget, Jim? Resorting to name calling I see.

[Boston Blackie (PA Robert Black, or is it the other way 'round?)]

Post by JG
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 08:37:53 -0500, Boston Blackie (PA Robert Black,

Post by Boston Blackie (PA Robert Black, or is it the other way 'round?)
I wonder, with all due respect to a certain mindset, when the Democrats
will be able to field a female or minority candidate without being
accused of playing "... both the gender and the race cards."

I thought they had done a pretty good job of it this time. While it
doesn't shock me hearing it from Kent, and I don't listen to
right-wing talk radio, this was the first I'd heard it.
Wonder what the Madison Midget would have to say if Condi ever
decides to run for President?

possibly how economical it would be to run a Black woman?

Probably this: "...

[Faye]

Post by Joseph Crowe
I reckon we will have another Clinton in the CiC chair
in 2009.....should be interesting

http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pub&dt=070813&cat=politics&st=politicsd8qvk9501&src=ap

"Republicans are upset with their candidates," Arnold added, "but she
will make up for that by essentially scaring folks to the polls."

Faye

[Zeek!]

Straw poll????

I prefer plastic straws over paper. Do they even make paper straws
anymore? I think I just dated myself!

Actually a nice stainless steel or glass straw/tube would be the cat's
nuts!!!

Yes, put me down for plastic.

[Boston Blackie (PA Robert Black, or is it the other way 'round?)]

Post by Zeek!
Straw poll????
I prefer plastic straws over paper. Do they even make paper straws
anymore? I think I just dated myself!
Actually a nice stainless steel or glass straw/tube would be the cat's
nuts!!!
Yes, put me down for plastic.

That's the last straw! ;{)

[jakdedert]

Post by Zeek!
Straw poll????
I prefer plastic straws over paper. Do they even make paper straws
anymore? I think I just dated myself!
Actually a nice stainless steel or glass straw/tube would be the cat's
nuts!!!
Yes, put me down for plastic.

My kids used to bring home those 'crazy straws'; ie plastic curly
straws, but I wouldn't let them keep them despite the protests.

How do you clean a straw...pipe cleaners...real long ones?

No thanks, I'll stick to disposable.

jak

[MrWonderful]

Post by jakdedert

Post by Zeek!
Yes, put me down for plastic.

My kids used to bring home those 'crazy straws'; ie plastic curly
straws, but I wouldn't let them keep them despite the protests.
How do you clean a straw...pipe cleaners...real long ones?
No thanks, I'll stick to disposable.
jak

OK, everyone got that?
Jak likes disposable straws, doesn't trust cleaning straws, especially
the long curly ones~!
Glad we got that str8, now we can get on to more pressing issues~!
hahahahaha
Like, suspenders for plumbers to prevent the ol' buttcrack exposure~!
: ) Lala