C
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
R
Raptor
Guest
Dan Spisak wrote:
> A good picture except for the loser in the middle. But that is what he
> was in the campaign: in the middle. He had no plan for Iraq or anything
> else. All he did was critize - just another cheap politician.
In retrospect, the election was decided in early 2003. Shrub created a
problem with no solution. With no viable alternative, 50.something% of
voters defaulted to the incumbent.
--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.
> A good picture except for the loser in the middle. But that is what he
> was in the campaign: in the middle. He had no plan for Iraq or anything
> else. All he did was critize - just another cheap politician.
In retrospect, the election was decided in early 2003. Shrub created a
problem with no solution. With no viable alternative, 50.something% of
voters defaulted to the incumbent.
--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.
R
Raptor
Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> Apparently Kerry is there at LA's invitation. Crow worked for Kerry in
> 2004 and Armstrong and Crow were in Boston for the post-election party.
Crow is a flaming libbie. I knew there was somthing I liked about her.
Something else, I mean.
> Maybe Armstrong has figured out that Bush is a sociopath who uses him
> to further his own political objectives,
Can't tell from Lance's comments, as far as I have seen. (Not sure I
agree with it either. I don't think Shrub is a sociopath.)
that Bush got us involved in a
> stupid war whose cost in American lives, money and international
> influence is almost beyond conprehension,
Likely (that Lance realizes this) if you do a lot of reading between the
lines of what he's said. His few comments about the war have been
non-committal.
and that the Republican Party
> no longer represents individualism but instead stands for borrowing
> money from the Chinese to wage a wasteful war and finance taxcuts and
> war profiteering for Bush's cronies, for wasted US military power, for
> rightwing fundamentalism shoved down your throat, and for a gang of
> creeps that are willing to do anything, no matter how treasonous, in
> their pursuit of power.
Have no clue what Lance thinks about this.
I have yet to find an intelligent AND informed person who voted for
Shrub. (And I live in Utah; the odds are there for such people to
exist.) As near as I can tell, you voted for Shrub only if you were:
stupid (including failure to think about your vote),
ill- or mis-informed,
a religious activist.
Add in the facts that Lance is at least fairly intelligent and clearly
agnostic, and I put the odds on him being at least a bit more of a Kerry
fan than Shrub. Sheryl Crow will push him further to the light side of
political ideology.
--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.
> Apparently Kerry is there at LA's invitation. Crow worked for Kerry in
> 2004 and Armstrong and Crow were in Boston for the post-election party.
Crow is a flaming libbie. I knew there was somthing I liked about her.
Something else, I mean.
> Maybe Armstrong has figured out that Bush is a sociopath who uses him
> to further his own political objectives,
Can't tell from Lance's comments, as far as I have seen. (Not sure I
agree with it either. I don't think Shrub is a sociopath.)
that Bush got us involved in a
> stupid war whose cost in American lives, money and international
> influence is almost beyond conprehension,
Likely (that Lance realizes this) if you do a lot of reading between the
lines of what he's said. His few comments about the war have been
non-committal.
and that the Republican Party
> no longer represents individualism but instead stands for borrowing
> money from the Chinese to wage a wasteful war and finance taxcuts and
> war profiteering for Bush's cronies, for wasted US military power, for
> rightwing fundamentalism shoved down your throat, and for a gang of
> creeps that are willing to do anything, no matter how treasonous, in
> their pursuit of power.
Have no clue what Lance thinks about this.
I have yet to find an intelligent AND informed person who voted for
Shrub. (And I live in Utah; the odds are there for such people to
exist.) As near as I can tell, you voted for Shrub only if you were:
stupid (including failure to think about your vote),
ill- or mis-informed,
a religious activist.
Add in the facts that Lance is at least fairly intelligent and clearly
agnostic, and I put the odds on him being at least a bit more of a Kerry
fan than Shrub. Sheryl Crow will push him further to the light side of
political ideology.
--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.
T
trg
Guest
"Raptor" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected]...
> Likely (that Lance realizes this) if you do a lot of reading between the
> lines of what he's said. His few comments about the war have been
> non-committal.
No, pre-war he came out against the invasion. Maybe it was just a ploy to
get into Sheryl pants?
[email protected]...
> Likely (that Lance realizes this) if you do a lot of reading between the
> lines of what he's said. His few comments about the war have been
> non-committal.
No, pre-war he came out against the invasion. Maybe it was just a ploy to
get into Sheryl pants?
D
Donald Munro
Guest
PanFan wrote:
>> - Since the Iraq war started, the price of oil has jumped from $30 per
>> barrel to roughly $58 per barrel. The Saudis produce about 12 million
>> barrels per day. The Saudis are MAKING $336 million more per day since
>> the war began.
Stewart Fleming wrote:
> Did you hear the conspiracy theory that Bush was actually a Saudi agent?
Rove must have started that theory too.
>> - Since the Iraq war started, the price of oil has jumped from $30 per
>> barrel to roughly $58 per barrel. The Saudis produce about 12 million
>> barrels per day. The Saudis are MAKING $336 million more per day since
>> the war began.
Stewart Fleming wrote:
> Did you hear the conspiracy theory that Bush was actually a Saudi agent?
Rove must have started that theory too.
C
C.M. Burns
Guest
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 23:35:59 -0600, Raptor <[email protected]>
wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> Apparently Kerry is there at LA's invitation. Crow worked for Kerry in
>> 2004 and Armstrong and Crow were in Boston for the post-election party.
>
>Crow is a flaming libbie. I knew there was somthing I liked about her.
>Something else, I mean.
>
>> Maybe Armstrong has figured out that Bush is a sociopath who uses him
>> to further his own political objectives,
>
>Can't tell from Lance's comments, as far as I have seen. (Not sure I
>agree with it either. I don't think Shrub is a sociopath.)
>
>that Bush got us involved in a
>> stupid war whose cost in American lives, money and international
>> influence is almost beyond conprehension,
>
>Likely (that Lance realizes this) if you do a lot of reading between the
>lines of what he's said. His few comments about the war have been
>non-committal.
>
>and that the Republican Party
>> no longer represents individualism but instead stands for borrowing
>> money from the Chinese to wage a wasteful war and finance taxcuts and
>> war profiteering for Bush's cronies, for wasted US military power, for
>> rightwing fundamentalism shoved down your throat, and for a gang of
>> creeps that are willing to do anything, no matter how treasonous, in
>> their pursuit of power.
>
>Have no clue what Lance thinks about this.
>
>I have yet to find an intelligent AND informed person who voted for
>Shrub. (And I live in Utah; the odds are there for such people to
>exist.) As near as I can tell, you voted for Shrub only if you were:
>
>stupid (including failure to think about your vote),
>ill- or mis-informed,
>a religious activist.
>
It's such well informed opinions as these that account for great
success that the Democratic party has had in Congressional,
Senatorial, and Presidential elections recently.
Democrates need to come up with a little better slogan than "Vote for
Us or you must be miss-informed, religious bigot, moron!".
wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> Apparently Kerry is there at LA's invitation. Crow worked for Kerry in
>> 2004 and Armstrong and Crow were in Boston for the post-election party.
>
>Crow is a flaming libbie. I knew there was somthing I liked about her.
>Something else, I mean.
>
>> Maybe Armstrong has figured out that Bush is a sociopath who uses him
>> to further his own political objectives,
>
>Can't tell from Lance's comments, as far as I have seen. (Not sure I
>agree with it either. I don't think Shrub is a sociopath.)
>
>that Bush got us involved in a
>> stupid war whose cost in American lives, money and international
>> influence is almost beyond conprehension,
>
>Likely (that Lance realizes this) if you do a lot of reading between the
>lines of what he's said. His few comments about the war have been
>non-committal.
>
>and that the Republican Party
>> no longer represents individualism but instead stands for borrowing
>> money from the Chinese to wage a wasteful war and finance taxcuts and
>> war profiteering for Bush's cronies, for wasted US military power, for
>> rightwing fundamentalism shoved down your throat, and for a gang of
>> creeps that are willing to do anything, no matter how treasonous, in
>> their pursuit of power.
>
>Have no clue what Lance thinks about this.
>
>I have yet to find an intelligent AND informed person who voted for
>Shrub. (And I live in Utah; the odds are there for such people to
>exist.) As near as I can tell, you voted for Shrub only if you were:
>
>stupid (including failure to think about your vote),
>ill- or mis-informed,
>a religious activist.
>
It's such well informed opinions as these that account for great
success that the Democratic party has had in Congressional,
Senatorial, and Presidential elections recently.
Democrates need to come up with a little better slogan than "Vote for
Us or you must be miss-informed, religious bigot, moron!".
C
C.M. Burns
Guest
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 23:35:59 -0600, Raptor <[email protected]>
wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> Apparently Kerry is there at LA's invitation. Crow worked for Kerry in
>> 2004 and Armstrong and Crow were in Boston for the post-election party.
>
>Crow is a flaming libbie. I knew there was somthing I liked about her.
>Something else, I mean.
>
>> Maybe Armstrong has figured out that Bush is a sociopath who uses him
>> to further his own political objectives,
>
>Can't tell from Lance's comments, as far as I have seen. (Not sure I
>agree with it either. I don't think Shrub is a sociopath.)
>
>that Bush got us involved in a
>> stupid war whose cost in American lives, money and international
>> influence is almost beyond conprehension,
>
>Likely (that Lance realizes this) if you do a lot of reading between the
>lines of what he's said. His few comments about the war have been
>non-committal.
>
>and that the Republican Party
>> no longer represents individualism but instead stands for borrowing
>> money from the Chinese to wage a wasteful war and finance taxcuts and
>> war profiteering for Bush's cronies, for wasted US military power, for
>> rightwing fundamentalism shoved down your throat, and for a gang of
>> creeps that are willing to do anything, no matter how treasonous, in
>> their pursuit of power.
>
>Have no clue what Lance thinks about this.
>
>I have yet to find an intelligent AND informed person who voted for
>Shrub. (And I live in Utah; the odds are there for such people to
>exist.) As near as I can tell, you voted for Shrub only if you were:
>
>stupid (including failure to think about your vote),
>ill- or mis-informed,
>a religious activist.
>
It's such well informed opinions as these that account for great
success that the Democratic party has had in Congressional,
Senatorial, and Presidential elections recently.
Democrates need to come up with a little better slogan than "Vote for
Us or you must be miss-informed, religious bigot, moron!".
wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> Apparently Kerry is there at LA's invitation. Crow worked for Kerry in
>> 2004 and Armstrong and Crow were in Boston for the post-election party.
>
>Crow is a flaming libbie. I knew there was somthing I liked about her.
>Something else, I mean.
>
>> Maybe Armstrong has figured out that Bush is a sociopath who uses him
>> to further his own political objectives,
>
>Can't tell from Lance's comments, as far as I have seen. (Not sure I
>agree with it either. I don't think Shrub is a sociopath.)
>
>that Bush got us involved in a
>> stupid war whose cost in American lives, money and international
>> influence is almost beyond conprehension,
>
>Likely (that Lance realizes this) if you do a lot of reading between the
>lines of what he's said. His few comments about the war have been
>non-committal.
>
>and that the Republican Party
>> no longer represents individualism but instead stands for borrowing
>> money from the Chinese to wage a wasteful war and finance taxcuts and
>> war profiteering for Bush's cronies, for wasted US military power, for
>> rightwing fundamentalism shoved down your throat, and for a gang of
>> creeps that are willing to do anything, no matter how treasonous, in
>> their pursuit of power.
>
>Have no clue what Lance thinks about this.
>
>I have yet to find an intelligent AND informed person who voted for
>Shrub. (And I live in Utah; the odds are there for such people to
>exist.) As near as I can tell, you voted for Shrub only if you were:
>
>stupid (including failure to think about your vote),
>ill- or mis-informed,
>a religious activist.
>
It's such well informed opinions as these that account for great
success that the Democratic party has had in Congressional,
Senatorial, and Presidential elections recently.
Democrates need to come up with a little better slogan than "Vote for
Us or you must be miss-informed, religious bigot, moron!".
C
C.M. Burns
Guest
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 23:35:59 -0600, Raptor <[email protected]>
wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> Apparently Kerry is there at LA's invitation. Crow worked for Kerry in
>> 2004 and Armstrong and Crow were in Boston for the post-election party.
>
>Crow is a flaming libbie. I knew there was somthing I liked about her.
>Something else, I mean.
>
>> Maybe Armstrong has figured out that Bush is a sociopath who uses him
>> to further his own political objectives,
>
>Can't tell from Lance's comments, as far as I have seen. (Not sure I
>agree with it either. I don't think Shrub is a sociopath.)
>
>that Bush got us involved in a
>> stupid war whose cost in American lives, money and international
>> influence is almost beyond conprehension,
>
>Likely (that Lance realizes this) if you do a lot of reading between the
>lines of what he's said. His few comments about the war have been
>non-committal.
>
>and that the Republican Party
>> no longer represents individualism but instead stands for borrowing
>> money from the Chinese to wage a wasteful war and finance taxcuts and
>> war profiteering for Bush's cronies, for wasted US military power, for
>> rightwing fundamentalism shoved down your throat, and for a gang of
>> creeps that are willing to do anything, no matter how treasonous, in
>> their pursuit of power.
>
>Have no clue what Lance thinks about this.
>
>I have yet to find an intelligent AND informed person who voted for
>Shrub. (And I live in Utah; the odds are there for such people to
>exist.) As near as I can tell, you voted for Shrub only if you were:
>
>stupid (including failure to think about your vote),
>ill- or mis-informed,
>a religious activist.
>
It's such well informed opinions as these that account for great
success that the Democratic party has had in Congressional,
Senatorial, and Presidential elections recently.
Democrates need to come up with a little better slogan than "Vote for
Us or you must be miss-informed, religious bigot, moron!".
wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> Apparently Kerry is there at LA's invitation. Crow worked for Kerry in
>> 2004 and Armstrong and Crow were in Boston for the post-election party.
>
>Crow is a flaming libbie. I knew there was somthing I liked about her.
>Something else, I mean.
>
>> Maybe Armstrong has figured out that Bush is a sociopath who uses him
>> to further his own political objectives,
>
>Can't tell from Lance's comments, as far as I have seen. (Not sure I
>agree with it either. I don't think Shrub is a sociopath.)
>
>that Bush got us involved in a
>> stupid war whose cost in American lives, money and international
>> influence is almost beyond conprehension,
>
>Likely (that Lance realizes this) if you do a lot of reading between the
>lines of what he's said. His few comments about the war have been
>non-committal.
>
>and that the Republican Party
>> no longer represents individualism but instead stands for borrowing
>> money from the Chinese to wage a wasteful war and finance taxcuts and
>> war profiteering for Bush's cronies, for wasted US military power, for
>> rightwing fundamentalism shoved down your throat, and for a gang of
>> creeps that are willing to do anything, no matter how treasonous, in
>> their pursuit of power.
>
>Have no clue what Lance thinks about this.
>
>I have yet to find an intelligent AND informed person who voted for
>Shrub. (And I live in Utah; the odds are there for such people to
>exist.) As near as I can tell, you voted for Shrub only if you were:
>
>stupid (including failure to think about your vote),
>ill- or mis-informed,
>a religious activist.
>
It's such well informed opinions as these that account for great
success that the Democratic party has had in Congressional,
Senatorial, and Presidential elections recently.
Democrates need to come up with a little better slogan than "Vote for
Us or you must be miss-informed, religious bigot, moron!".
C
C.M. Burns
Guest
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 23:35:59 -0600, Raptor <[email protected]>
wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> Apparently Kerry is there at LA's invitation. Crow worked for Kerry in
>> 2004 and Armstrong and Crow were in Boston for the post-election party.
>
>Crow is a flaming libbie. I knew there was somthing I liked about her.
>Something else, I mean.
>
>> Maybe Armstrong has figured out that Bush is a sociopath who uses him
>> to further his own political objectives,
>
>Can't tell from Lance's comments, as far as I have seen. (Not sure I
>agree with it either. I don't think Shrub is a sociopath.)
>
>that Bush got us involved in a
>> stupid war whose cost in American lives, money and international
>> influence is almost beyond conprehension,
>
>Likely (that Lance realizes this) if you do a lot of reading between the
>lines of what he's said. His few comments about the war have been
>non-committal.
>
>and that the Republican Party
>> no longer represents individualism but instead stands for borrowing
>> money from the Chinese to wage a wasteful war and finance taxcuts and
>> war profiteering for Bush's cronies, for wasted US military power, for
>> rightwing fundamentalism shoved down your throat, and for a gang of
>> creeps that are willing to do anything, no matter how treasonous, in
>> their pursuit of power.
>
>Have no clue what Lance thinks about this.
>
>I have yet to find an intelligent AND informed person who voted for
>Shrub. (And I live in Utah; the odds are there for such people to
>exist.) As near as I can tell, you voted for Shrub only if you were:
>
>stupid (including failure to think about your vote),
>ill- or mis-informed,
>a religious activist.
>
It's such well informed opinions as these that account for great
success that the Democratic party has had in Congressional,
Senatorial, and Presidential elections recently.
Democrates need to come up with a little better slogan than "Vote for
Us or you must be miss-informed, religious bigot, moron!".
wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> Apparently Kerry is there at LA's invitation. Crow worked for Kerry in
>> 2004 and Armstrong and Crow were in Boston for the post-election party.
>
>Crow is a flaming libbie. I knew there was somthing I liked about her.
>Something else, I mean.
>
>> Maybe Armstrong has figured out that Bush is a sociopath who uses him
>> to further his own political objectives,
>
>Can't tell from Lance's comments, as far as I have seen. (Not sure I
>agree with it either. I don't think Shrub is a sociopath.)
>
>that Bush got us involved in a
>> stupid war whose cost in American lives, money and international
>> influence is almost beyond conprehension,
>
>Likely (that Lance realizes this) if you do a lot of reading between the
>lines of what he's said. His few comments about the war have been
>non-committal.
>
>and that the Republican Party
>> no longer represents individualism but instead stands for borrowing
>> money from the Chinese to wage a wasteful war and finance taxcuts and
>> war profiteering for Bush's cronies, for wasted US military power, for
>> rightwing fundamentalism shoved down your throat, and for a gang of
>> creeps that are willing to do anything, no matter how treasonous, in
>> their pursuit of power.
>
>Have no clue what Lance thinks about this.
>
>I have yet to find an intelligent AND informed person who voted for
>Shrub. (And I live in Utah; the odds are there for such people to
>exist.) As near as I can tell, you voted for Shrub only if you were:
>
>stupid (including failure to think about your vote),
>ill- or mis-informed,
>a religious activist.
>
It's such well informed opinions as these that account for great
success that the Democratic party has had in Congressional,
Senatorial, and Presidential elections recently.
Democrates need to come up with a little better slogan than "Vote for
Us or you must be miss-informed, religious bigot, moron!".
C
C.M. Burns
Guest
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 23:35:59 -0600, Raptor <[email protected]>
wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> Apparently Kerry is there at LA's invitation. Crow worked for Kerry in
>> 2004 and Armstrong and Crow were in Boston for the post-election party.
>
>Crow is a flaming libbie. I knew there was somthing I liked about her.
>Something else, I mean.
>
>> Maybe Armstrong has figured out that Bush is a sociopath who uses him
>> to further his own political objectives,
>
>Can't tell from Lance's comments, as far as I have seen. (Not sure I
>agree with it either. I don't think Shrub is a sociopath.)
>
>that Bush got us involved in a
>> stupid war whose cost in American lives, money and international
>> influence is almost beyond conprehension,
>
>Likely (that Lance realizes this) if you do a lot of reading between the
>lines of what he's said. His few comments about the war have been
>non-committal.
>
>and that the Republican Party
>> no longer represents individualism but instead stands for borrowing
>> money from the Chinese to wage a wasteful war and finance taxcuts and
>> war profiteering for Bush's cronies, for wasted US military power, for
>> rightwing fundamentalism shoved down your throat, and for a gang of
>> creeps that are willing to do anything, no matter how treasonous, in
>> their pursuit of power.
>
>Have no clue what Lance thinks about this.
>
>I have yet to find an intelligent AND informed person who voted for
>Shrub. (And I live in Utah; the odds are there for such people to
>exist.) As near as I can tell, you voted for Shrub only if you were:
>
>stupid (including failure to think about your vote),
>ill- or mis-informed,
>a religious activist.
>
It's such well informed opinions as these that account for great
success that the Democratic party has had in Congressional,
Senatorial, and Presidential elections recently.
Democrates need to come up with a little better slogan than "Vote for
Us or you must be miss-informed, religious bigot, moron!".
wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> Apparently Kerry is there at LA's invitation. Crow worked for Kerry in
>> 2004 and Armstrong and Crow were in Boston for the post-election party.
>
>Crow is a flaming libbie. I knew there was somthing I liked about her.
>Something else, I mean.
>
>> Maybe Armstrong has figured out that Bush is a sociopath who uses him
>> to further his own political objectives,
>
>Can't tell from Lance's comments, as far as I have seen. (Not sure I
>agree with it either. I don't think Shrub is a sociopath.)
>
>that Bush got us involved in a
>> stupid war whose cost in American lives, money and international
>> influence is almost beyond conprehension,
>
>Likely (that Lance realizes this) if you do a lot of reading between the
>lines of what he's said. His few comments about the war have been
>non-committal.
>
>and that the Republican Party
>> no longer represents individualism but instead stands for borrowing
>> money from the Chinese to wage a wasteful war and finance taxcuts and
>> war profiteering for Bush's cronies, for wasted US military power, for
>> rightwing fundamentalism shoved down your throat, and for a gang of
>> creeps that are willing to do anything, no matter how treasonous, in
>> their pursuit of power.
>
>Have no clue what Lance thinks about this.
>
>I have yet to find an intelligent AND informed person who voted for
>Shrub. (And I live in Utah; the odds are there for such people to
>exist.) As near as I can tell, you voted for Shrub only if you were:
>
>stupid (including failure to think about your vote),
>ill- or mis-informed,
>a religious activist.
>
It's such well informed opinions as these that account for great
success that the Democratic party has had in Congressional,
Senatorial, and Presidential elections recently.
Democrates need to come up with a little better slogan than "Vote for
Us or you must be miss-informed, religious bigot, moron!".
C
C.M. Burns
Guest
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 23:35:59 -0600, Raptor <[email protected]>
wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> Apparently Kerry is there at LA's invitation. Crow worked for Kerry in
>> 2004 and Armstrong and Crow were in Boston for the post-election party.
>
>Crow is a flaming libbie. I knew there was somthing I liked about her.
>Something else, I mean.
>
>> Maybe Armstrong has figured out that Bush is a sociopath who uses him
>> to further his own political objectives,
>
>Can't tell from Lance's comments, as far as I have seen. (Not sure I
>agree with it either. I don't think Shrub is a sociopath.)
>
>that Bush got us involved in a
>> stupid war whose cost in American lives, money and international
>> influence is almost beyond conprehension,
>
>Likely (that Lance realizes this) if you do a lot of reading between the
>lines of what he's said. His few comments about the war have been
>non-committal.
>
>and that the Republican Party
>> no longer represents individualism but instead stands for borrowing
>> money from the Chinese to wage a wasteful war and finance taxcuts and
>> war profiteering for Bush's cronies, for wasted US military power, for
>> rightwing fundamentalism shoved down your throat, and for a gang of
>> creeps that are willing to do anything, no matter how treasonous, in
>> their pursuit of power.
>
>Have no clue what Lance thinks about this.
>
>I have yet to find an intelligent AND informed person who voted for
>Shrub. (And I live in Utah; the odds are there for such people to
>exist.) As near as I can tell, you voted for Shrub only if you were:
>
>stupid (including failure to think about your vote),
>ill- or mis-informed,
>a religious activist.
>
It's such well informed opinions as these that account for great
success that the Democratic party has had in Congressional,
Senatorial, and Presidential elections recently.
Democrates need to come up with a little better slogan than "Vote for
Us or you must be miss-informed, religious bigot, moron!".
wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> Apparently Kerry is there at LA's invitation. Crow worked for Kerry in
>> 2004 and Armstrong and Crow were in Boston for the post-election party.
>
>Crow is a flaming libbie. I knew there was somthing I liked about her.
>Something else, I mean.
>
>> Maybe Armstrong has figured out that Bush is a sociopath who uses him
>> to further his own political objectives,
>
>Can't tell from Lance's comments, as far as I have seen. (Not sure I
>agree with it either. I don't think Shrub is a sociopath.)
>
>that Bush got us involved in a
>> stupid war whose cost in American lives, money and international
>> influence is almost beyond conprehension,
>
>Likely (that Lance realizes this) if you do a lot of reading between the
>lines of what he's said. His few comments about the war have been
>non-committal.
>
>and that the Republican Party
>> no longer represents individualism but instead stands for borrowing
>> money from the Chinese to wage a wasteful war and finance taxcuts and
>> war profiteering for Bush's cronies, for wasted US military power, for
>> rightwing fundamentalism shoved down your throat, and for a gang of
>> creeps that are willing to do anything, no matter how treasonous, in
>> their pursuit of power.
>
>Have no clue what Lance thinks about this.
>
>I have yet to find an intelligent AND informed person who voted for
>Shrub. (And I live in Utah; the odds are there for such people to
>exist.) As near as I can tell, you voted for Shrub only if you were:
>
>stupid (including failure to think about your vote),
>ill- or mis-informed,
>a religious activist.
>
It's such well informed opinions as these that account for great
success that the Democratic party has had in Congressional,
Senatorial, and Presidential elections recently.
Democrates need to come up with a little better slogan than "Vote for
Us or you must be miss-informed, religious bigot, moron!".
T
Tim Lines
Guest
Carl Sundquist wrote:
>
> Tim Lines wrote:
>
>>Is there someone who really loves "crass commercialism"?
>
>
> Mrs. Kerry?
>
My guess would be that she could do without the crass part.
My guess could be wrong. I've only had my cable hooked up for 2+ weeks
now after living without for 10 years. Some of that **** qualifies as
crass commercialism and if it's on, somebody must like it. I'd bet that
if I figured out who likes that ****, I'd find that it's appeal crosses
political boundaries. I'd bet more than I have on that.
>
> Tim Lines wrote:
>
>>Is there someone who really loves "crass commercialism"?
>
>
> Mrs. Kerry?
>
My guess would be that she could do without the crass part.
My guess could be wrong. I've only had my cable hooked up for 2+ weeks
now after living without for 10 years. Some of that **** qualifies as
crass commercialism and if it's on, somebody must like it. I'd bet that
if I figured out who likes that ****, I'd find that it's appeal crosses
political boundaries. I'd bet more than I have on that.
T
Tim Lines
Guest
Carl Sundquist wrote:
>
> Tim Lines wrote:
>
>>Is there someone who really loves "crass commercialism"?
>
>
> Mrs. Kerry?
>
My guess would be that she could do without the crass part.
My guess could be wrong. I've only had my cable hooked up for 2+ weeks
now after living without for 10 years. Some of that **** qualifies as
crass commercialism and if it's on, somebody must like it. I'd bet that
if I figured out who likes that ****, I'd find that it's appeal crosses
political boundaries. I'd bet more than I have on that.
>
> Tim Lines wrote:
>
>>Is there someone who really loves "crass commercialism"?
>
>
> Mrs. Kerry?
>
My guess would be that she could do without the crass part.
My guess could be wrong. I've only had my cable hooked up for 2+ weeks
now after living without for 10 years. Some of that **** qualifies as
crass commercialism and if it's on, somebody must like it. I'd bet that
if I figured out who likes that ****, I'd find that it's appeal crosses
political boundaries. I'd bet more than I have on that.
T
Tim Lines
Guest
Carl Sundquist wrote:
>
> Tim Lines wrote:
>
>>Is there someone who really loves "crass commercialism"?
>
>
> Mrs. Kerry?
>
My guess would be that she could do without the crass part.
My guess could be wrong. I've only had my cable hooked up for 2+ weeks
now after living without for 10 years. Some of that **** qualifies as
crass commercialism and if it's on, somebody must like it. I'd bet that
if I figured out who likes that ****, I'd find that it's appeal crosses
political boundaries. I'd bet more than I have on that.
>
> Tim Lines wrote:
>
>>Is there someone who really loves "crass commercialism"?
>
>
> Mrs. Kerry?
>
My guess would be that she could do without the crass part.
My guess could be wrong. I've only had my cable hooked up for 2+ weeks
now after living without for 10 years. Some of that **** qualifies as
crass commercialism and if it's on, somebody must like it. I'd bet that
if I figured out who likes that ****, I'd find that it's appeal crosses
political boundaries. I'd bet more than I have on that.
T
Tim Lines
Guest
Carl Sundquist wrote:
>
> Tim Lines wrote:
>
>>Is there someone who really loves "crass commercialism"?
>
>
> Mrs. Kerry?
>
My guess would be that she could do without the crass part.
My guess could be wrong. I've only had my cable hooked up for 2+ weeks
now after living without for 10 years. Some of that **** qualifies as
crass commercialism and if it's on, somebody must like it. I'd bet that
if I figured out who likes that ****, I'd find that it's appeal crosses
political boundaries. I'd bet more than I have on that.
>
> Tim Lines wrote:
>
>>Is there someone who really loves "crass commercialism"?
>
>
> Mrs. Kerry?
>
My guess would be that she could do without the crass part.
My guess could be wrong. I've only had my cable hooked up for 2+ weeks
now after living without for 10 years. Some of that **** qualifies as
crass commercialism and if it's on, somebody must like it. I'd bet that
if I figured out who likes that ****, I'd find that it's appeal crosses
political boundaries. I'd bet more than I have on that.
T
Tim Lines
Guest
Carl Sundquist wrote:
>
> Tim Lines wrote:
>
>>Is there someone who really loves "crass commercialism"?
>
>
> Mrs. Kerry?
>
My guess would be that she could do without the crass part.
My guess could be wrong. I've only had my cable hooked up for 2+ weeks
now after living without for 10 years. Some of that **** qualifies as
crass commercialism and if it's on, somebody must like it. I'd bet that
if I figured out who likes that ****, I'd find that it's appeal crosses
political boundaries. I'd bet more than I have on that.
>
> Tim Lines wrote:
>
>>Is there someone who really loves "crass commercialism"?
>
>
> Mrs. Kerry?
>
My guess would be that she could do without the crass part.
My guess could be wrong. I've only had my cable hooked up for 2+ weeks
now after living without for 10 years. Some of that **** qualifies as
crass commercialism and if it's on, somebody must like it. I'd bet that
if I figured out who likes that ****, I'd find that it's appeal crosses
political boundaries. I'd bet more than I have on that.
T
Tim Lines
Guest
Carl Sundquist wrote:
>
> Tim Lines wrote:
>
>>Is there someone who really loves "crass commercialism"?
>
>
> Mrs. Kerry?
>
My guess would be that she could do without the crass part.
My guess could be wrong. I've only had my cable hooked up for 2+ weeks
now after living without for 10 years. Some of that **** qualifies as
crass commercialism and if it's on, somebody must like it. I'd bet that
if I figured out who likes that ****, I'd find that it's appeal crosses
political boundaries. I'd bet more than I have on that.
>
> Tim Lines wrote:
>
>>Is there someone who really loves "crass commercialism"?
>
>
> Mrs. Kerry?
>
My guess would be that she could do without the crass part.
My guess could be wrong. I've only had my cable hooked up for 2+ weeks
now after living without for 10 years. Some of that **** qualifies as
crass commercialism and if it's on, somebody must like it. I'd bet that
if I figured out who likes that ****, I'd find that it's appeal crosses
political boundaries. I'd bet more than I have on that.
T
Tim Lines
Guest
trg wrote:
> "Raptor" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
> [email protected]...
>
>
>>Likely (that Lance realizes this) if you do a lot of reading between the
>>lines of what he's said. His few comments about the war have been
>>non-committal.
>
>
> No, pre-war he came out against the invasion. Maybe it was just a ploy to
> get into Sheryl pants?
>
>
And that is a stronger, more sensible basis for maintaining a political
stance than most Americans have.
> "Raptor" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
> [email protected]...
>
>
>>Likely (that Lance realizes this) if you do a lot of reading between the
>>lines of what he's said. His few comments about the war have been
>>non-committal.
>
>
> No, pre-war he came out against the invasion. Maybe it was just a ploy to
> get into Sheryl pants?
>
>
And that is a stronger, more sensible basis for maintaining a political
stance than most Americans have.
T
Tim Lines
Guest
trg wrote:
> "Raptor" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
> [email protected]...
>
>
>>Likely (that Lance realizes this) if you do a lot of reading between the
>>lines of what he's said. His few comments about the war have been
>>non-committal.
>
>
> No, pre-war he came out against the invasion. Maybe it was just a ploy to
> get into Sheryl pants?
>
>
And that is a stronger, more sensible basis for maintaining a political
stance than most Americans have.
> "Raptor" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
> [email protected]...
>
>
>>Likely (that Lance realizes this) if you do a lot of reading between the
>>lines of what he's said. His few comments about the war have been
>>non-committal.
>
>
> No, pre-war he came out against the invasion. Maybe it was just a ploy to
> get into Sheryl pants?
>
>
And that is a stronger, more sensible basis for maintaining a political
stance than most Americans have.
T
Tim Lines
Guest
trg wrote:
> "Raptor" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
> [email protected]...
>
>
>>Likely (that Lance realizes this) if you do a lot of reading between the
>>lines of what he's said. His few comments about the war have been
>>non-committal.
>
>
> No, pre-war he came out against the invasion. Maybe it was just a ploy to
> get into Sheryl pants?
>
>
And that is a stronger, more sensible basis for maintaining a political
stance than most Americans have.
> "Raptor" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
> [email protected]...
>
>
>>Likely (that Lance realizes this) if you do a lot of reading between the
>>lines of what he's said. His few comments about the war have been
>>non-committal.
>
>
> No, pre-war he came out against the invasion. Maybe it was just a ploy to
> get into Sheryl pants?
>
>
And that is a stronger, more sensible basis for maintaining a political
stance than most Americans have.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 133
- Views
- 6K
- Replies
- 89
- Views
- 10K
M
- Replies
- 105
- Views
- 3K
R