On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:59:54 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:32:03 -0400, John H. wrote:


Gosh, and there were only 14% more Democrats than Republicans in the
poll.

That is low. Currently, only 20% of adults self identify themselves as
Republicans, 36% self identify themselves as Democrats. There should
have been 16% more Democrats polled.

I'm surprised they poll anything besides Democrats.

Wouldn't that be the ultimate 'proof'?

"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon,
since LBJ
escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any
kind.
Just like the Crusade we are on now,
That war was not going to be won.

Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a
different
administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in
either
place.
I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference,
nor can
the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in
mountain
ambushes.
This is a war of necessity.

It is necessary that we *win* this war.

So saith the messiah.

What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*?

This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy
to
change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the
trick.
I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least
I
hope so.

What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't
do that, you shouldn't be in charge.

--
Nom=de=Plume

There is no problem with his changing his mind. Unless it is
because a CNN poll says he should change his stance. We did not
hire him to be an arbitrator of popularity. He needs to learn the
"Buck Stops Here" part of the Presidency.
I agree. What makes you think he's being an arbiter of popularity?

--
Nom=de=Plume

He is being like Clinton. Following the polls. CNN, etc poll says
people prefer this, then O seems to follow along. Clinton should have
made the hard decisions instead of the popular decisions and he would
have gone in to the books as one of the great Presidents.
And, you know this because? Which polls do you think he's following?
Perhaps you're talking about the "public option" that 70ish % of the
population supports? Yup, he's following the polls!

Which hard decisions didn't Clinton make? Ummm... let's see.. Bosnia,
Somalia, gay in the military, a balanced budget, a surplus....

During his worst nightmare aka Monica he retained high public support.
I guess he was just following the polls.
--
Nom=de=Plume

He did not leave a surplus! The National debt did not go down. The
dot.com bubble just poured more money in to the coffers than they could
spend right away. Lots of that money was committed to future spending,
which is hurting us now. Same thing with California. So much extra
cash that the budget has doubled in the last 8 years before now, and
lots of that money was committed as if the gobs of extra money was a
permanent source. Bosnia was and is a disaster. Still an ongoing
disaster, and was a European problem. Did not concern us. Somalia. He
refused the heavy tanks, etc that were requested. Black Hawk down was a
disaster because of no heavy armor. Why didn't Clinton authorize gays
in the military, instead of pushing under the rug? Man up Clinton. Make
a ruling. Just like Truman ruled the military was desegregated. Make
the ruling. As to gays destroying the military. Seems to work ok in
the UK and some other European countries. Clinton was extremely lucky
on the financial front. It was already starting to crash, before the
election. And Gore accelerated the meltdown with his election claims.
Clinton should have fired Greenspan or at least had looked at the
overheated market. But Clintons choice of advisors was lacking a lot of
knowledge. Barrack is listening to some polls on the healthcare. Those
who think they should have free healthcare. Same ones who thought he
was going to pay their mortgage and put gas in the tank. Too many
problems just now to tackle healthcare. Man Up. Tell the country we
need health care, and we will take a year or two and get it correct.
Not a 1000 page bill no one is allowed to read, or have 15 minutes to
look at it and vote. Direct the justice Department to prosecute any
body who was in charge of Naked Shorts and uncovered short sales on Wall
Street, and force them to return all profits and 10x punitive damages.
Including Paulson's buddies. Fire the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
officials, not give them a $2 mega buck signing bonus. He is listening
the polls (slanted polls) and doing leadership that way. He is not
stupid, he is also not an Einstein, but he is naive as hell.



You might want to trim your rants or at least break them up into
intelligible paragraphs. Too much jumble for me to even try to respond to
without wasting lots of time. Believe what you want. It's a free country
(expecting another rant any second.....).


He presented you with a lot of food for thought and you complain that he
didn't make a neat little finger sandwich out of it.
If I were him I'd let you go hungry rather than trying to spoon feed you.


Not really. Mostly just rants about Clinton, intermixed with a bunch of
nonsense. Why don't you feed yourself... seems like you need some
intellectual nutrients.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon,
since LBJ
escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any
kind.
Just like the Crusade we are on now,
That war was not going to be won.

Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different
administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in
either
place.
I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor
can
the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain
ambushes.
This is a war of necessity.

It is necessary that we *win* this war.

So saith the messiah.

What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*?

This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to
change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick.
I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I
hope so.

What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do
that, you shouldn't be in charge.

--
Nom=de=Plume

There is no problem with his changing his mind. Unless it is because
a CNN poll says he should change his stance. We did not hire him to
be an arbitrator of popularity. He needs to learn the "Buck Stops
Here" part of the Presidency.
I agree. What makes you think he's being an arbiter of popularity?

--
Nom=de=Plume

He is being like Clinton. Following the polls. CNN, etc poll says
people prefer this, then O seems to follow along. Clinton should have
made the hard decisions instead of the popular decisions and he would
have gone in to the books as one of the great Presidents.

And, you know this because? Which polls do you think he's following?
Perhaps you're talking about the "public option" that 70ish % of the
population supports? Yup, he's following the polls!

Which hard decisions didn't Clinton make? Ummm... let's see.. Bosnia,
Somalia, gay in the military, a balanced budget, a surplus....

During his worst nightmare aka Monica he retained high public support. I
guess he was just following the polls.

Another "woman" who suffers from Monika envy.


You're another guy who who confuses cigars with themselves.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:32:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Jim" wrote in message
.. .
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon,
since LBJ
escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any
kind.
Just like the Crusade we are on now,
That war was not going to be won.

Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different
administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in
either
place.
I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor
can
the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain
ambushes.
This is a war of necessity.

It is necessary that we *win* this war.

So saith the messiah.

What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*?

This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to
change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick.
I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I
hope so.

What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do
that, you shouldn't be in charge.

--
Nom=de=Plume

There is no problem with his changing his mind. Unless it is because
a CNN poll says he should change his stance. We did not hire him to
be an arbitrator of popularity. He needs to learn the "Buck Stops
Here" part of the Presidency.
I agree. What makes you think he's being an arbiter of popularity?

--
Nom=de=Plume

He is being like Clinton. Following the polls. CNN, etc poll says
people prefer this, then O seems to follow along. Clinton should have
made the hard decisions instead of the popular decisions and he would
have gone in to the books as one of the great Presidents.

And, you know this because? Which polls do you think he's following?
Perhaps you're talking about the "public option" that 70ish % of the
population supports? Yup, he's following the polls!

Which hard decisions didn't Clinton make? Ummm... let's see.. Bosnia,
Somalia, gay in the military, a balanced budget, a surplus....

During his worst nightmare aka Monica he retained high public support. I
guess he was just following the polls.

Another "woman" who suffers from Monika envy.


You're another guy who who confuses cigars with themselves.

lol

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:32:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Jim" wrote in message
.. .
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon,
since LBJ
escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any
kind.
Just like the Crusade we are on now,
That war was not going to be won.

Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different
administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in
either
place.
I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor
can
the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain
ambushes.
This is a war of necessity.

It is necessary that we *win* this war.

So saith the messiah.

What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*?

This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to
change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick.
I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I
hope so.

What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do
that, you shouldn't be in charge.

--
Nom=de=Plume

There is no problem with his changing his mind. Unless it is because
a CNN poll says he should change his stance. We did not hire him to
be an arbitrator of popularity. He needs to learn the "Buck Stops
Here" part of the Presidency.
I agree. What makes you think he's being an arbiter of popularity?

--
Nom=de=Plume

He is being like Clinton. Following the polls. CNN, etc poll says
people prefer this, then O seems to follow along. Clinton should have
made the hard decisions instead of the popular decisions and he would
have gone in to the books as one of the great Presidents.

And, you know this because? Which polls do you think he's following?
Perhaps you're talking about the "public option" that 70ish % of the
population supports? Yup, he's following the polls!

Which hard decisions didn't Clinton make? Ummm... let's see.. Bosnia,
Somalia, gay in the military, a balanced budget, a surplus....

During his worst nightmare aka Monica he retained high public support. I
guess he was just following the polls.

Another "woman" who suffers from Monika envy.


You're another guy who who confuses cigars with themselves.

Waste of good energy interacting with this fool. At least Herring is
just delusional and misguided, this asshole is mean spirited.

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:06:17 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:32:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Jim" wrote in message
. ..
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon,
since LBJ
escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any
kind.
Just like the Crusade we are on now,
That war was not going to be won.

Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different
administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in
either
place.
I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor
can
the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain
ambushes.
This is a war of necessity.

It is necessary that we *win* this war.

So saith the messiah.

What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*?

This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to
change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick.
I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I
hope so.

What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do
that, you shouldn't be in charge.

--
Nom=de=Plume

There is no problem with his changing his mind. Unless it is because
a CNN poll says he should change his stance. We did not hire him to
be an arbitrator of popularity. He needs to learn the "Buck Stops
Here" part of the Presidency.
I agree. What makes you think he's being an arbiter of popularity?

--
Nom=de=Plume

He is being like Clinton. Following the polls. CNN, etc poll says
people prefer this, then O seems to follow along. Clinton should have
made the hard decisions instead of the popular decisions and he would
have gone in to the books as one of the great Presidents.

And, you know this because? Which polls do you think he's following?
Perhaps you're talking about the "public option" that 70ish % of the
population supports? Yup, he's following the polls!

Which hard decisions didn't Clinton make? Ummm... let's see.. Bosnia,
Somalia, gay in the military, a balanced budget, a surplus....

During his worst nightmare aka Monica he retained high public support. I
guess he was just following the polls.

Another "woman" who suffers from Monika envy.


You're another guy who who confuses cigars with themselves.

Waste of good energy interacting with this fool. At least Herring is
just delusional and misguided, this asshole is mean spirited.

Thanks.

On 10/23/09 7:51 AM, wf3h wrote:
On Oct 22, 11:50 pm, wrote:

Scrrrrreeeeeech.. Hold on there. Some polls have been taken out of
context by the minority media, but 70% of the people do not want "the
public option".

nope. just the reverse:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n5098517.shtml

clear majority of Americans -- 72 percent -- support a government-
sponsored health care plan to compete with private insurers, a new CBS
News/New York Times poll finds

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101902451.html

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that support for a
government-run health-care plan to compete with private insurers has
rebounded from its summertime lows and wins clear majority support
from the public.


try again.


A larger percentage of the public now recognizes that the right wing and
its corporate sponsors have been trying to **** them over...again.

H the K wrote:
On 10/23/09 7:51 AM, wf3h wrote:
On Oct 22, 11:50 pm, wrote:

Scrrrrreeeeeech.. Hold on there. Some polls have been taken out of
context by the minority media, but 70% of the people do not want "the
public option".

nope. just the reverse:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n5098517.shtml

clear majority of Americans -- 72 percent -- support a government-
sponsored health care plan to compete with private insurers, a new CBS
News/New York Times poll finds

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101902451.html


A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that support for a
government-run health-care plan to compete with private insurers has
rebounded from its summertime lows and wins clear majority support
from the public.


try again.


A larger percentage of the public now recognizes that the right wing and
its corporate sponsors have been trying to **** them over...again.

Ah, that's the way to get you point across, foul language.

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon,
since LBJ
escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any
kind.
Just like the Crusade we are on now,
That war was not going to be won.

Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a
different
administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be
in either
place.
I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference,
nor can
the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in
mountain
ambushes.
This is a war of necessity.

It is necessary that we *win* this war.

So saith the messiah.

What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*?

This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy
to
change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the
trick.
I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least
I
hope so.

What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't
do that, you shouldn't be in charge.

--
Nom=de=Plume

There is no problem with his changing his mind. Unless it is
because a CNN poll says he should change his stance. We did not
hire him to be an arbitrator of popularity. He needs to learn the
"Buck Stops Here" part of the Presidency.
I agree. What makes you think he's being an arbiter of popularity?

--
Nom=de=Plume

He is being like Clinton. Following the polls. CNN, etc poll says
people prefer this, then O seems to follow along. Clinton should
have made the hard decisions instead of the popular decisions and he
would have gone in to the books as one of the great Presidents.
And, you know this because? Which polls do you think he's following?
Perhaps you're talking about the "public option" that 70ish % of the
population supports? Yup, he's following the polls!

Which hard decisions didn't Clinton make? Ummm... let's see.. Bosnia,
Somalia, gay in the military, a balanced budget, a surplus....

During his worst nightmare aka Monica he retained high public support.
I guess he was just following the polls.
--
Nom=de=Plume

He did not leave a surplus! The National debt did not go down. The
dot.com bubble just poured more money in to the coffers than they could
spend right away. Lots of that money was committed to future spending,
which is hurting us now. Same thing with California. So much extra
cash that the budget has doubled in the last 8 years before now, and
lots of that money was committed as if the gobs of extra money was a
permanent source. Bosnia was and is a disaster. Still an ongoing
disaster, and was a European problem. Did not concern us. Somalia.
He refused the heavy tanks, etc that were requested. Black Hawk down
was a disaster because of no heavy armor. Why didn't Clinton authorize
gays in the military, instead of pushing under the rug? Man up Clinton.
Make a ruling. Just like Truman ruled the military was desegregated.
Make the ruling. As to gays destroying the military. Seems to work ok
in the UK and some other European countries. Clinton was extremely
lucky on the financial front. It was already starting to crash, before
the election. And Gore accelerated the meltdown with his election
claims. Clinton should have fired Greenspan or at least had looked at
the overheated market. But Clintons choice of advisors was lacking a
lot of knowledge. Barrack is listening to some polls on the
healthcare. Those who think they should have free healthcare. Same
ones who thought he was going to pay their mortgage and put gas in the
tank. Too many problems just now to tackle healthcare. Man Up. Tell
the country we need health care, and we will take a year or two and get
it correct. Not a 1000 page bill no one is allowed to read, or have 15
minutes to look at it and vote. Direct the justice Department to
prosecute any body who was in charge of Naked Shorts and uncovered
short sales on Wall Street, and force them to return all profits and
10x punitive damages. Including Paulson's buddies. Fire the Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac officials, not give them a $2 mega buck signing bonus.
He is listening the polls (slanted polls) and doing leadership that
way. He is not stupid, he is also not an Einstein, but he is naive as
hell.



You might want to trim your rants or at least break them up into
intelligible paragraphs. Too much jumble for me to even try to respond
to without wasting lots of time. Believe what you want. It's a free
country (expecting another rant any second.....).


He presented you with a lot of food for thought and you complain that he
didn't make a neat little finger sandwich out of it.
If I were him I'd let you go hungry rather than trying to spoon feed you.


Not really. Mostly just rants about Clinton, intermixed with a bunch of
nonsense. Why don't you feed yourself... seems like you need some
intellectual nutrients.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Can not help it if you are reading comprehension challenged.

"jps" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:25:55 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

He is not stupid, he is also not an Einstein, but he is naive as hell.

And you've had so many years on the planet and governed millions in
that time, taking into account all factors, contingencies and
predictions and you'd do a better job.

It's damned funny that I never heard you bitch so succinctly during
Bush's presidency.

Come on Bill, you haven't been a Dem in decades. Isn't time to stop
fooling yourself?

I amn not a current Dem, as they are so far to the left, is impossible to
be one. Also am not Repub as they are too far to the right. More
Libertarian view, but staying a registered Dem, allows me some say in trying
to get the Dem's more to the middle. More Fiscal Conservative, and keep the
social liberal. You on the other hand want the Government to take care of
you cradle to grave.