Re: The Great Don Quijote of RBM!

[Bill Sornson]

RonSonic wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:18:16 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>> In article <[email protected]>, "Bill
>>>> Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There was no "al Qaeda in Iraq" prior to GWB's destabilization of
>>>>>> Iraq.
>>>>>
>>>>> So why did Hillary claim there was on the Senate floor in
>>>>> justifying her vote? She went /beyond/ what the Admin claimed,
>>>>> yet gets a total pass for it.
>>>>
>>>> The Senate was given doctored, skewed and fabricated information on
>>>> which to make their decision. In short, they were lied to and
>>>> manipulated. Personally I think they should have been astute
>>>> enough to see that, since it was bloody obvious to those of us
>>>> outside the Beltway, and I do hold the Senate accountable for that.
>>>> The Administration's claims didn't pass the smell test at the
>>>> time, which of course ended up being substantiated by later events.
>>>>
>>>> Hillary doesn't get a free pass with me on this issue- one of the
>>>> reasons I won't vote for her.
>>>
>>> She went /beyond/ Admin claims -- prolly because of inside info from
>>> Hubby. (Hell, read his 1998 speech about Saddam Hussein sometime.)
>>>
>>> Again, she gets a PASS (from the mainstream media at least) for
>>> this.
>>
>> The mainstream media owned and operated by high-dollar Republican
>> contributors? That mainstream media? The one that abdicated all
>> responsibility in looking in the Candidate Bush's background of
>> incompetence prior to the 2000 election and gave him a free pass?
>> The mainstream media that failed to bother to look into the veracity
>> of the Bush Administration's claims during it's rush to war? The
>> mainstream media that didn't bother to challenge the Bush
>> Administration's obvious outrageous lies, high crimes and
>> misdemeanors until after the public finally managed to wise up?
>> That mainstream media?
>
> The same one that loudly and repeatedly reported every single thing
> you are griping about in that last paragraph.

Exactly right.

>> Given that I see Hillary's votes on the issue reported in the media
>> all the time, I think you're dreaming. Most of the media is firmly
>> entrenched with the new right. Whether the voters will care about
>> Hillary's votes for war is a different issue the electorate being
>> prone to a short memory.
>
> As much as I disagree with her on so many things, she had been
> consistent and reasonable on the Iraq war. She saw the same intel on
> her hubby's desk as Bush saw on his and she knew it and was mostly
> honest about it. This bizarre primary season put an end to that.

Exactly right.

 

[RonSonic]

On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 23:34:03 -0500, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>RonSonic wrote:
>> On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:18:16 -0500, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>I am thinking the results of the US Civil War were in some ways
>unfortunate. The current country could be divided with the Upper Midwest
>and New England could become the The Reality Based States of America,
>the West could be the Small Government Libertarian States of America,
>and the South could be the Feudal States of America. With some
>migration, people would be happier since they could live with their own
>kind.

You are onto something there. The states comprising the Union having been able
to prevail by reason of industrial capacity and immigrant conscripts, continue
to believe that they maintain some right to demand the resources of the rest of
the country and command its citizenry. That they repeatedly lose in national
elections hasn't quite sunk in.

Ron

 

[still me]

On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 22:34:09 -0400, RonSonic
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>The mainstream media owned and operated by high-dollar Republican
>>contributors? That mainstream media? The one that abdicated all
>>responsibility in looking in the Candidate Bush's background of
>>incompetence prior to the 2000 election and gave him a free pass? The
>>mainstream media that failed to bother to look into the veracity of the
>>Bush Administration's claims during it's rush to war? The mainstream
>>media that didn't bother to challenge the Bush Administration's obvious
>>outrageous lies, high crimes and misdemeanors until after the public
>>finally managed to wise up? That mainstream media?
>
>The same one that loudly and repeatedly reported every single thing you are
>griping about in that last paragraph.

Have to agree. I don't read off beat media. But, it was very obvious
that the Administration was ignoring all evidence that Sadaam didn't
have WMD's and just pushing rhetoric. And the public was buying the
rhetoric. After all, Joe Wilson, the Administration's own rep, had
doused the nuclear connection. It was reported, it was ignored by most
people. Two UN WMD inspectors had reported finding nothing, then been
verbally kicked around by the administration, and that was ignored.
Two or three days before Bush ordered us into Iraq (it was looking
imminent), the Chileans introduced a resolution to delay 30 days and
do one last inspection - Bush refused to wait 30 days, no doubt
fearing that they would once again find no WMD's and he'd be out of
excuses to invade Iraq.

All this was reported. It was obvious to anyone who can reason that
Bush was bent on invading Iraq no matter what the evidence. The public
(once again) displayed their ability to listen to the President spew
nonsense and went for the ride instead of looking at what the media
was reporting.

>>Given that I see Hillary's votes on the issue reported in the media all
>>the time, I think you're dreaming. Most of the media is firmly
>>entrenched with the new right. Whether the voters will care about
>>Hillary's votes for war is a different issue the electorate being prone
>>to a short memory.
>
>As much as I disagree with her on so many things, she had been consistent and
>reasonable on the Iraq war. She saw the same intel on her hubby's desk as Bush
>saw on his and she knew it and was mostly honest about it. This bizarre primary
>season put an end to that.

Reasonable? She was a typical "bend with the wind" politician who
caved and voted with the current public sway, see above. She was not
unique in that regard, but she is notable. As for the intelligence,
Bush had further intelligence showing that they had yet to find any
evidence of anything in Iraq, but that makes no difference. Bush lied,
repeatedly, obviously, and dopes like Hillary went along for the ride.

 

[RonSonic]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 14:09:41 GMT, still me <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 22:34:09 -0400, RonSonic
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>The mainstream media owned and operated by high-dollar Republican
>>>contributors? That mainstream media? The one that abdicated all
>>>responsibility in looking in the Candidate Bush's background of
>>>incompetence prior to the 2000 election and gave him a free pass? The
>>>mainstream media that failed to bother to look into the veracity of the
>>>Bush Administration's claims during it's rush to war? The mainstream
>>>media that didn't bother to challenge the Bush Administration's obvious
>>>outrageous lies, high crimes and misdemeanors until after the public
>>>finally managed to wise up? That mainstream media?
>>
>>The same one that loudly and repeatedly reported every single thing you are
>>griping about in that last paragraph.
>
>Have to agree. I don't read off beat media. But, it was very obvious
>that the Administration was ignoring all evidence that Sadaam didn't
>have WMD's and just pushing rhetoric. And the public was buying the
>rhetoric. After all, Joe Wilson, the Administration's own rep, had
>doused the nuclear connection.

Joe Wilson was not a rep of the administration but of a faction within CIA
that'd been there since long ago. Further he did nothing to discredit the *****
angle. It was reported and rightly ignored.

> It was reported, it was ignored by most
>people. Two UN WMD inspectors had reported finding nothing, then been
>verbally kicked around by the administration, and that was ignored.
>Two or three days before Bush ordered us into Iraq (it was looking
>imminent), the Chileans introduced a resolution to delay 30 days and
>do one last inspection - Bush refused to wait 30 days, no doubt
>fearing that they would once again find no WMD's and he'd be out of
>excuses to invade Iraq.
>
>All this was reported. It was obvious to anyone who can reason that
>Bush was bent on invading Iraq no matter what the evidence. The public
>(once again) displayed their ability to listen to the President spew
>nonsense and went for the ride instead of looking at what the media
>was reporting.
>
>>>Given that I see Hillary's votes on the issue reported in the media all
>>>the time, I think you're dreaming. Most of the media is firmly
>>>entrenched with the new right. Whether the voters will care about
>>>Hillary's votes for war is a different issue the electorate being prone
>>>to a short memory.
>>
>>As much as I disagree with her on so many things, she had been consistent and
>>reasonable on the Iraq war. She saw the same intel on her hubby's desk as Bush
>>saw on his and she knew it and was mostly honest about it. This bizarre primary
>>season put an end to that.
>
>Reasonable? She was a typical "bend with the wind" politician who
>caved and voted with the current public sway, see above. She was not
>unique in that regard, but she is notable. As for the intelligence,
>Bush had further intelligence showing that they had yet to find any
>evidence of anything in Iraq, but that makes no difference. Bush lied,
>repeatedly, obviously, and dopes like Hillary went along for the ride.

Actually the evidence is in that Saddam was working every possible angle, just
that we haven't found any vast stockpiles of illegal weaponry. Remember Saddam's
own generals thought they had the stuff. If a country's own military thinks they
have chemical weapons any foreign intelligence agency is going to be fooled.

Saddam played a bluff and held his cards too long. He played it well enough to
fool pretty well everyone. Remember the Germany that refused to assist us
against Saddam, they had quadrupled their supply of smallpox vaccine based on
their intelligence from Iraq. So the questionable intelligence was there for
everyone including Hillary and Bill and GWB.

Ron

 

[Bill Sornson]

still me wrote:

> After all, Joe Wilson, the Administration's own rep, had
> doused the nuclear connection.

ROTFL (Even the biased 9-11 Commission Report nails him for being a liar.)
ROTFL

Good stuff!

 

[RonSonic]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 09:17:26 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>still me wrote:
>
>> After all, Joe Wilson, the Administration's own rep, had
>> doused the nuclear connection.
>
>ROTFL (Even the biased 9-11 Commission Report nails him for being a liar.)
>ROTFL
>
>Good stuff!

The obviously fake document ploy was a good one. Back in my days of
investigating life and health insurance claims I made a bundle off of a bogus
Haitian Acte de Deces that named me as having died in Port au Prince. Opposing
counsel of course argued that the existence of a fake document does not preclude
the existence of the real thing. But in all the gambit worked as well for Joe
Wilson as it did for me.

Ron

 

[Bill Sornson]

RonSonic wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 09:17:26 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> still me wrote:
>>
>>> After all, Joe Wilson, the Administration's own rep, had
>>> doused the nuclear connection.
>>
>> ROTFL (Even the biased 9-11 Commission Report nails him for being a
>> liar.) ROTFL
>>
>> Good stuff!
>
> The obviously fake document ploy was a good one. Back in my days of
> investigating life and health insurance claims I made a bundle off of
> a bogus Haitian Acte de Deces that named me as having died in Port au
> Prince. Opposing counsel of course argued that the existence of a
> fake document does not preclude the existence of the real thing. But
> in all the gambit worked as well for Joe Wilson as it did for me.

I hear CBS News is hiring.

Bill "FYI" S.

 

[RonSonic]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:04:51 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>RonSonic wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 09:17:26 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> still me wrote:
>>>
>>>> After all, Joe Wilson, the Administration's own rep, had
>>>> doused the nuclear connection.
>>>
>>> ROTFL (Even the biased 9-11 Commission Report nails him for being a
>>> liar.) ROTFL
>>>
>>> Good stuff!
>>
>> The obviously fake document ploy was a good one. Back in my days of
>> investigating life and health insurance claims I made a bundle off of
>> a bogus Haitian Acte de Deces that named me as having died in Port au
>> Prince. Opposing counsel of course argued that the existence of a
>> fake document does not preclude the existence of the real thing. But
>> in all the gambit worked as well for Joe Wilson as it did for me.
>
>I hear CBS News is hiring.
>
>Bill "FYI" S.

My fake documents are real fake documents. They accept phonies and are of no
interest to me.

Ron

 

[still me]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:04:51 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>But
>> in all the gambit worked as well for Joe Wilson as it did for me.

Righto! Joe made it all up. That's why the ADministration worked so
hard to discredit him.

Oh... wait... his information was correct. Gee, I sense a problem with
your suggestions about him. In fact, oh my Gawd, the Administration
may have worked to discredit a man telling the truth who was exposing
their phony reason for invading Iraq.

I can't believe this. It's shocking!

 

[still me]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:08:13 -0400, RonSonic
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Actually the evidence is in that Saddam was working every possible angle, just
>that we haven't found any vast stockpiles of illegal weaponry. Remember Saddam's
>own generals thought they had the stuff. If a country's own military thinks they
>have chemical weapons any foreign intelligence agency is going to be fooled.

Puullllezzse! Don't tell me you are still trying the "we haven't found
the WMD's yet". Even GWB gave up on that one. You really are
embarrassing yourself.

>Saddam played a bluff and held his cards too long. He played it well enough to
>fool pretty well everyone. Remember the Germany that refused to assist us
>against Saddam, they had quadrupled their supply of smallpox vaccine based on
>their intelligence from Iraq. So the questionable intelligence was there for
>everyone including Hillary and Bill and GWB.
>
Total BS. Stop making excuses. It was clear as day that Bush had only
one agenda - invade Iraq no matter what the evidence.

 

[still me]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:06:32 -0400, RonSonic
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>You are onto something there. The states comprising the Union having been able
>to prevail by reason of industrial capacity and immigrant conscripts, continue
>to believe that they maintain some right to demand the resources of the rest of
>the country and command its citizenry. That they repeatedly lose in national
>elections hasn't quite sunk in.

Damn immigrants. Oh, BTW, what native tribe are you?

>Ron

 

[still me]

On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 19:21:02 -0400, RonSonic
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Moderate Democrats know he's the only Dem to get elected to two full terms since
>television and love him for it. Unfortunately they're allowing their party to be
>dragged off by the same collection of leftover hippies, rage junkies and protest
>sex addicts that's been losing all those other elections for them.
>
While I disagree with your characterization of the people who run the
Dems, you are correct that they let the most liberal faction of the
party control the candidates. They're too stupid to figure out that
you have to run candidates who draw votes from more that your core
(since the core was voting for you already, and that' only 45% in any
election). Duh.

They've already shown ther stupidity this time around - expect a
cakewalk for the Rep's. The only thing they have going for them is the
fact that Bush is a moron, has violated the Constitution multiple
times, got us into a pointless war, and has the most corrupt
administration since Nixon. Even all that is probably just enough to
make it a "contest" unless the Dem's dump Hillary and Obama and run a
candidate that can draw votes from beyond their core (a Southerner).

 

[Bill Sornson]

still me wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:04:51 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> But
>>> in all the gambit worked as well for Joe Wilson as it did for me.
>
> Righto! Joe made it all up. That's why the ADministration worked so
> hard to discredit him.
>
> Oh... wait... his information was correct. Gee, I sense a problem with
> your suggestions about him. In fact, oh my Gawd, the Administration
> may have worked to discredit a man telling the truth who was exposing
> their phony reason for invading Iraq.
>
> I can't believe this. It's shocking!

Do you /ever/ read real news accounts of events? You're like reading a BLOG
DIGEST tonight! LOL

 

[RonSonic]

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 04:11:14 GMT, still me <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 19:21:02 -0400, RonSonic
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Moderate Democrats know he's the only Dem to get elected to two full terms since
>>television and love him for it. Unfortunately they're allowing their party to be
>>dragged off by the same collection of leftover hippies, rage junkies and protest
>>sex addicts that's been losing all those other elections for them.
>>
>While I disagree with your characterization of the people who run the
>Dems, you are correct that they let the most liberal faction of the
>party control the candidates. They're too stupid to figure out that
>you have to run candidates who draw votes from more that your core
>(since the core was voting for you already, and that' only 45% in any
>election). Duh.

I'll claim a little artistic leeway on that description - more for color than
precision, but only somewhate exaggerated.

>They've already shown ther stupidity this time around - expect a
>cakewalk for the Rep's. The only thing they have going for them is the
>fact that Bush is a moron, has violated the Constitution multiple
>times, got us into a pointless war, and has the most corrupt
>administration since Nixon. Even all that is probably just enough to
>make it a "contest" unless the Dem's dump Hillary and Obama and run a
>candidate that can draw votes from beyond their core (a Southerner).

The Democrats can continue to run against Bush, and probably will, but inasmuch
as he won't be the other name on the ballot it'll be largely wasted. I actually
consider Hillary to be a significant and substantial candidate - a bit short in
the personal charm department maybe but a far more serious person than the last
two stuffed senatorial shirts they trotted out. Unfortunately for her she will
likely come out of this insanely long primary having adopted enough leftish
coloration to leave her unelectable by the general public.

Southerner would help, anybody from the Midwest wouldn't hurt, and I mean the
real midwest where they still have some factories and railyards and cows, not
Chicago. They keep getting alliances with union officials and think that's the
same as having the union vote and it isn't the same thing at all. Even now there
aren't enough government workers for that to succeed. Over the decades the
Republican party has evolved into a creature that feeds on New England liberals.

George Foreman says fights are about styles and tactics, who has the right style
to counter the other guy's game, who uses his particular skills to advantage.
Let's see how this plays out.

Ron

 

[RonSonic]

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 04:01:29 GMT, still me <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:06:32 -0400, RonSonic
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>You are onto something there. The states comprising the Union having been able
>>to prevail by reason of industrial capacity and immigrant conscripts, continue
>>to believe that they maintain some right to demand the resources of the rest of
>>the country and command its citizenry. That they repeatedly lose in national
>>elections hasn't quite sunk in.
>
>Damn immigrants. Oh, BTW, what native tribe are you?

Cherokee.

What's with the "damn immigrants" thing? That's Kunichean in it's near complete
irrelevence to the point. Previous military victory does not create a perpetual
right to dictate to the rest of the country.

Ron

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Bill Sornson of Pre-retirement Ink wrote:
>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>>> Clive George wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The sig problems are due to you using a free teranews account - they
>>>>>> put a sig on advertising themselves, so you shouldn't put your own
>>>>>> on. If you want to use sigs, use a better news server...
>>>>> Ah, ha! By (Clive) George, you've solved the case.
>>>> That doesn't make sense - only the first separator should matter [1].
>>>>
>>>> [1] Works this way for Thunderbird.
>>> I see your sig in gray (faded), too. BUT, I think most newsreaders only
>>> delete the text after the /last/ separator. (See how your sig appears
>>> above, which the auto-ad is gone?)
>>>
>>> Bill "you're delaying my nap time" S.
>> I think Sorni's problem is that he is using micro$oft Outlook Express,
>> which has some weird functions. Or the problem could be with micro$oft
>> MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138.
>
> And why the hell don't you use Outlook Express like I do if your ISP
> supports it? All this **** about getting around Microsoft is for idiots.
> Hells Bells, if it works, then use it!

Why should I use "Outhouse Express" (and "Internet Exploder" for that
matter) when more functional program exist? Besides, the great market
share for micro$oft means that most of the computer nasties going around
are aimed as their products.

--
Tom "Mozilla" Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Keats]

"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Keats" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "We" may wonder, but "I" don't wonder, because I got the straight
>> skinny right from the horse's mouth. According to bin Laden it's
>> because we are "infidels". And they will continue to hate us until
>> we "come to Islam" and live under Sharia law. He has never once
>> indicated it's because we aren't "nice" to them. In fact, in a jihad
>> holy war "being nice" is considered weakness to be exploited.
>
> That is the simplistic construction but I think it has a lot going for
> it. The "death tapes" produced by various suicide bombers have made it
> quite clear what their motivation is. I see no reason to disbelieve
> their simple, clear, fervent statements. Bush is wrong again- "they"
> don't "hate us for our freedom," They hate us because we are not
> Muslim. They hate us for supporting Israel over the Palestinians. They
> hate us because of the failure of much of the Middle East to get out of
> the Middle Ages, for which it is easier to blame the modern world than
> the strictures of the extremist elements of Islam which prevent
> modernizing. There are other economic, social and cultural factors as
> well, which allow for the rampant, virulently hate-filled version of
> Islam to exist.
>
> By comparison there are many moderate Muslims whom I have met, primarily
> through work. They are pleasant, generous people who work hard. They
> are typically quiet and unassuming, a bit outside of the American
> mainstream and aware of it but not necessarily uncomfortable with it-
> and more than willing to explain their understanding of their religion
> with people who ask about it with sincerity.


Here are some web sites to help with your Muslim studies:

www.religion-of-peace-blows-up-mosques.com
www.religion-of-peace-blows-up-nightclubs.com
www.religion-of-peace-blows-up-officebuildings.org
www.religion-of-peace-stones-young-girls.com
www.religion-of-peace-blows-up-buses.org
www.religion-of-peace-stones-married-women.com
www.religion-of-peace-stones-homosexuals.com
www.religion-of-peace-sues-at-the-drop-of-a-hat.com

<snip>
>> You do realize we are in a religious war with fundamentalist Islam
>> don't you?
>
> However, I would quibble with your use of the term "fundamentalist
> Islam" and would instead suggest "radical Islamists." Fundamentalists
> are not necessarily radicals and radicals usually have twisted the
> fundamentals of a faith to suit their agenda. We see it in the US with
> the Christianists too, the main difference being that they are not
> currently as violent as the radical Islamists. They have been in the
> past, however- just tonight on TV I watched a member of the Ku Klux Klan
> proudly proclaim that the KKK was a "terror group" 40 years ago. They
> often justify their terrorism with perversions of Christian theology.
>
> I would say that I fear the American Christianists more than I fear the
> radical Islamists. For one thing, the Christianists are just as nuts;
> for another, there are far more of them than Islamists in the US.

You start out being fairly rational but then you drift so far out in left
field there's no reeling you in. Go hide under you bed so the Christians
won't find you.

Keats

 

[Bill Sornson]

RonSonic wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 04:11:14 GMT, still me <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 19:21:02 -0400, RonSonic
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Moderate Democrats know he's the only Dem to get elected to two
>>> full terms since television and love him for it. Unfortunately
>>> they're allowing their party to be dragged off by the same
>>> collection of leftover hippies, rage junkies and protest sex
>>> addicts that's been losing all those other elections for them.
>>>
>> While I disagree with your characterization of the people who run the
>> Dems, you are correct that they let the most liberal faction of the
>> party control the candidates. They're too stupid to figure out that
>> you have to run candidates who draw votes from more that your core
>> (since the core was voting for you already, and that' only 45% in any
>> election). Duh.
>
> I'll claim a little artistic leeway on that description - more for
> color than precision, but only somewhate exaggerated.
>
>> They've already shown ther stupidity this time around - expect a
>> cakewalk for the Rep's. The only thing they have going for them is
>> the fact that Bush is a moron, has violated the Constitution multiple
>> times, got us into a pointless war, and has the most corrupt
>> administration since Nixon. Even all that is probably just enough to
>> make it a "contest" unless the Dem's dump Hillary and Obama and run a
>> candidate that can draw votes from beyond their core (a Southerner).
>
> The Democrats can continue to run against Bush, and probably will,
> but inasmuch as he won't be the other name on the ballot it'll be
> largely wasted. I actually consider Hillary to be a significant and
> substantial candidate - a bit short in the personal charm department
> maybe but a far more serious person than the last two stuffed
> senatorial shirts they trotted out. Unfortunately for her she will
> likely come out of this insanely long primary having adopted enough
> leftish coloration to leave her unelectable by the general public.


You're discounting the rockstar status of the Clinton name, plus the
outright fawning support of the mainstream media. (Note its absolute
refusal to ask her a pointed question about anything -- with the possible
exception of "soft" issues like gay marraige in the recent farcical
"debate".)


> Southerner would help, anybody from the Midwest wouldn't hurt, and I
> mean the real midwest where they still have some factories and
> railyards and cows, not Chicago. They keep getting alliances with
> union officials and think that's the same as having the union vote
> and it isn't the same thing at all. Even now there aren't enough
> government workers for that to succeed. Over the decades the
> Republican party has evolved into a creature that feeds on New
> England liberals.

That's one reason I doubt that Obama will be her VP choice. (That plus the
fact that his ONLY distinguishing trait is his race -- which is mixed at
that. If he were just another white freshman Senator, no one would know who
the heck he is.)

> George Foreman says fights are about styles and tactics, who has the
> right style to counter the other guy's game, who uses his particular
> skills to advantage. Let's see how this plays out.

Indeed. Should be interesting. (But it's still so freaking EARLY to even
be talking about!)

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> message news:[email protected]...
>>>> Bill Sornson of Pre-retirement Ink wrote:
>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>>>>> Clive George wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The sig problems are due to you using a free teranews account - they
>>>>>>>> put a sig on advertising themselves, so you shouldn't put your own
>>>>>>>> on. If you want to use sigs, use a better news server...
>>>>>>> Ah, ha! By (Clive) George, you've solved the case.
>>>>>> That doesn't make sense - only the first separator should matter [1].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] Works this way for Thunderbird.
>>>>> I see your sig in gray (faded), too. BUT, I think most newsreaders
>>>>> only delete the text after the /last/ separator. (See how your sig
>>>>> appears above, which the auto-ad is gone?)
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill "you're delaying my nap time" S.
>>>> I think Sorni's problem is that he is using micro$oft Outlook Express,
>>>> which has some weird functions. Or the problem could be with micro$oft
>>>> MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138.
>>> And why the hell don't you use Outlook Express like I do if your ISP
>>> supports it? All this **** about getting around Microsoft is for idiots.
>>> Hells Bells, if it works, then use it!
>> Why should I use "Outhouse Express" (and "Internet Exploder" for that
>> matter) when more functional program exist? Besides, the great market
>> share for micro$oft means that most of the computer nasties going around
>> are aimed as their products.
>
> Others are complaining about the form of your posts. No one, so far as I
> know, is complaining about the form of my posts. Microsoft must be doing
> something right!

WHOOSH!

"Others" would be Sorni, who is also using Outhouse Express. There are
several ways OE gets tripped up that does not happed to proper news/mail
readers.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk.” - gene daniels

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Bill Sornson]

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> Edward Dolan wrote:

>> Others are complaining about the form of your posts. No one, so far
>> as I know, is complaining about the form of my posts. Microsoft must
>> be doing something right!

> WHOOSH!
>
> "Others" would be Sorni, who is also using Outhouse Express. There are
> several ways OE gets tripped up that does not happed to proper
> news/mail readers.

Do "proper" newsreaders add spam to every single post? LOL

I hardly complained, merely noting that one has to manually delete your sig
file every single time due to your "proper newsreader" adding a needless ad
tag to your every blathering. This defeats the "proper" REASON to use a sig
file separator; you might as well just paste a text phrase.

OE works fine for me, and doesn't spam itself constantly (or at all). Guess
it's not elitist enough for a trikie rider! LOL

> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> “Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk.” - gene daniels

OK, that one's worth repeating...

BS (a little)