Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:38:39 -0400, hk wrote:

I don't think one day of McCain's military experience is relevant to the
job he is seeking.
You sure as hell did when Kerry was running.
Only in comparison to Bush's dangerous service with the Texas Air
National Guard, and Cheney and Rumsfeld's war mongering in the face of
non-service.

By itself, it has no relevance. What's relevant is having the smarts to
avoid wars or to find a way to extricate a country from an ongoing war.

So let me see if I understand you.

1 - By comparison, Kerry's military combat record was relevant becasue
Bush never saw combat and thus was the superior candidate.

2 - Kerry had military combat experience and the VP and SecDef at that
time didn't thus making him the superior candidate.

3 - Based on one and two, Kerry was the superior candidate because he
had more military experience than the Administration had.

4 - It was relevant then, but not relevant now.

I understand completely.

I know some farmers who would love to hire you to fertilize their
fields because their entire herd of cows aren't as full of what makes
the grass grow green as you are.


Both Kerry and Bush used their military records in their campaigns.
Compared to Bush's holiday with the TANG, Kerry's "military" record was
real. Bush's was b.s. In choosing a POTUS, though, I don't think
either's military record was relevant. Cheney and Rumsfeld were simply
war mongerers, and compared to their non-experience, Kerry's service was
relevant.

The point is, you really don't understand. Too abstract, I suppose.

BAR wrote:
hk wrote:
...do you own?

3?
4?
5?
6?
7?


John McCain, who said some months ago he didn't know much about the
economy, yesterday said he didn't know how many houses he owned, and
how many houses his wife owned.

(The answer for McCain and spouse is at least seven houses.)

I'm sure the millions of Americans who recently lost their houses, or
are about to, or are hoping they won't in the future, can identify
with the ultra-rich McCains and McCain's possible running mate, the
ultra-rich Mitt Romney.

John McCain, the man for the middle class. snerk

As it turns out John McCain doesn't own any houses and has built a wall
between his and his wife's finances. So, not knowing how many houses his
wife has is a good ethically speaking. But, you wouldn't understand that.

snerk

Just another example of how little McCain really knows about the world
around him.

On Aug 21, 9:13 pm, hk wrote:
BAR wrote:
hk wrote:
...do you own?

3?
4?
5?
6?
7?

John McCain, who said some months ago he didn't know much about the
economy, yesterday said he didn't know how many houses he owned, and
how many houses his wife owned.

(The answer for McCain and spouse is at least seven houses.)

I'm sure the millions of Americans who recently lost their houses, or
are about to, or are hoping they won't in the future, can identify
with the ultra-rich McCains and McCain's possible running mate, the
ultra-rich Mitt Romney.

John McCain, the man for the middle class. snerk

As it turns out John McCain doesn't own any houses and has built a wall
between his and his wife's finances. So, not knowing how many houses his
wife has is a good ethically speaking. But, you wouldn't understand that.

snerk

Just another example of how little McCain really knows about the world
around him.

A wise general once said that "It is good that war is hell because
otherwise we would grow fond of it" (paraphrase). Unlike Hillary and
Obimbo, McCain knows this from real personal experience and thus might
work harder to avoid it. Knowing directly what it really is about
will allow him to make better decisions than those whose knowledge is
purely theory. Thus Harry is wrong, McCains war record is directly
and strongly applicable.

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:08:02 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

Neither do I.

That makes two of us.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:52:58 -0400, hk wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
wrote in message
...

Democrats always fall this cult of personality like they have done for
Obama..It is part of their pathology of wanting to be taken care of by
a father figure. Remember how many Dems thought papa Joe Stalin was
ok and they went into near depression when Krushev denounced him?
Remember how many Dems went gaga over Mao? They always do this
because the average Dem isnt smart enough to take care of himself so
they need an authority figure to tell them what to do.
No offense, but that is the biggest crop of crap I have seen posted here
in a long, long time.

If you want political cult of personality in this country, look no farther
than Ronald Reagan, and the efforts of Republicans to name every damned
thing everywhere after him.

How many Democrats thought Stalin was OK? How many went gaga over Mao? I'm
old enough and educated enough to remember both of those guys, and I
recall reading many times that Roosevelt, the leading Democrat of his
time, had nothing but disdain for Stalin. His successor, Harry S Truman,
had no use for Stalin, either.

What you posted is bull**** piled upon bull**** piled upon bull****.
heh, heh, heh.

Got to ya, huh?

Consider this. That's how many of us feel about a lot of your posts.
It didn't get to me.

Oh yes it did.

Tell me - when Hillary pulls off her coup and steals the nomination,
what spin will you be using then?


Wow. Now you are telling me how I feel. Funny stuff.

Hillary is not going to be the Dem nominee for POTUS. She certainly was
my preferred candidate. I voted for her in the primary. I'd love to see
her as the veep choice, but I think the odds are against her.

Apparently the choice has been made but not announced. Of the supposed
male frontrunners for veep, I like Biden best.

You think there is any chance McCain will pick Warmonger Joe Lieberman?

wrote:
On Aug 21, 9:13 pm, hk wrote:
BAR wrote:
hk wrote:
...do you own?
3?
4?
5?
6?
7?
John McCain, who said some months ago he didn't know much about the
economy, yesterday said he didn't know how many houses he owned, and
how many houses his wife owned.
(The answer for McCain and spouse is at least seven houses.)
I'm sure the millions of Americans who recently lost their houses, or
are about to, or are hoping they won't in the future, can identify
with the ultra-rich McCains and McCain's possible running mate, the
ultra-rich Mitt Romney.
John McCain, the man for the middle class. snerk
As it turns out John McCain doesn't own any houses and has built a wall
between his and his wife's finances. So, not knowing how many houses his
wife has is a good ethically speaking. But, you wouldn't understand that.
snerk

Just another example of how little McCain really knows about the world
around him.

A wise general once said that "It is good that war is hell because
otherwise we would grow fond of it" (paraphrase). Unlike Hillary and
Obimbo, McCain knows this from real personal experience and thus might
work harder to avoid it. Knowing directly what it really is about
will allow him to make better decisions than those whose knowledge is
purely theory. Thus Harry is wrong, McCains war record is directly
and strongly applicable.


Yeah, McCain was captured and tortured. What did he learn from that
experience? That torture is ok. Interesting that McCain was against
torturing prisoners until he was for it.

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:12:21 -0400, hk wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:38:39 -0400, hk wrote:

I don't think one day of McCain's military experience is relevant to the
job he is seeking.
You sure as hell did when Kerry was running.
Only in comparison to Bush's dangerous service with the Texas Air
National Guard, and Cheney and Rumsfeld's war mongering in the face of
non-service.

By itself, it has no relevance. What's relevant is having the smarts to
avoid wars or to find a way to extricate a country from an ongoing war.

So let me see if I understand you.

1 - By comparison, Kerry's military combat record was relevant becasue
Bush never saw combat and thus was the superior candidate.

2 - Kerry had military combat experience and the VP and SecDef at that
time didn't thus making him the superior candidate.

3 - Based on one and two, Kerry was the superior candidate because he
had more military experience than the Administration had.

4 - It was relevant then, but not relevant now.

I understand completely.

I know some farmers who would love to hire you to fertilize their
fields because their entire herd of cows aren't as full of what makes
the grass grow green as you are.

Both Kerry and Bush used their military records in their campaigns.
Compared to Bush's holiday with the TANG, Kerry's "military" record was
real. Bush's was b.s. In choosing a POTUS, though, I don't think
either's military record was relevant. Cheney and Rumsfeld were simply
war mongerers, and compared to their non-experience, Kerry's service was
relevant.

The point is, you really don't understand. Too abstract, I suppose.

There's abstract and then there abstractly obtuse.

You clearly specialize in the obtusely abstract.

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:20:07 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:08:02 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

Neither do I.

That makes two of us.

I had a radish, cucumber and three cheese brocolli spread sandwich on
hard rye today at the local lunch emporium - $4.95 with half sour
pickle spear and homemade kettle fried potato chips.

Complimentary sweet tea.

Can't beat it.

Get it - eggs - beat it- good sandwich?

Ok, sorry - that was obtuse.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:12:21 -0400, hk wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:38:39 -0400, hk wrote:

I don't think one day of McCain's military experience is relevant to the
job he is seeking.
You sure as hell did when Kerry was running.
Only in comparison to Bush's dangerous service with the Texas Air
National Guard, and Cheney and Rumsfeld's war mongering in the face of
non-service.

By itself, it has no relevance. What's relevant is having the smarts to
avoid wars or to find a way to extricate a country from an ongoing war.
So let me see if I understand you.

1 - By comparison, Kerry's military combat record was relevant becasue
Bush never saw combat and thus was the superior candidate.

2 - Kerry had military combat experience and the VP and SecDef at that
time didn't thus making him the superior candidate.

3 - Based on one and two, Kerry was the superior candidate because he
had more military experience than the Administration had.

4 - It was relevant then, but not relevant now.

I understand completely.

I know some farmers who would love to hire you to fertilize their
fields because their entire herd of cows aren't as full of what makes
the grass grow green as you are.
Both Kerry and Bush used their military records in their campaigns.
Compared to Bush's holiday with the TANG, Kerry's "military" record was
real. Bush's was b.s. In choosing a POTUS, though, I don't think
either's military record was relevant. Cheney and Rumsfeld were simply
war mongerers, and compared to their non-experience, Kerry's service was
relevant.

The point is, you really don't understand. Too abstract, I suppose.

There's abstract and then there abstractly obtuse.

You clearly specialize in the obtusely abstract.


I also specialize in moderating a section of a discussion board that has
thousands of daily contributors. You?

On Aug 21, 9:32 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:20:07 -0400, Wayne.B

wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:08:02 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

Neither do I.

That makes two of us.

I had a radish, cucumber and three cheese brocolli spread sandwich on
hard rye today at the local lunch emporium - $4.95 with half sour
pickle spear and homemade kettle fried potato chips.

Complimentary sweet tea.

Can't beat it.

Get it - eggs - beat it- good sandwich?

Ok, sorry - that was obtuse.

By the reasoning of HK (we gotta give him some slack, you know how
hard it is for those out of practice), Obama has no relevant
qualifications for pres.