On Oct 22, 2:43*pm, wrote:
On Oct 22, 2:19*pm, wrote:





On Oct 22, 1:54*pm, wrote:

On Oct 22, 1:17*pm, wrote:

On Oct 22, 12:25*pm, "Eisboch" wrote:

wrote in message

...
On Oct 22, 11:50 am, "Eisboch" wrote:

Here's something that will make you sick .....

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/money/index.html

Eisboch

Take big business out of the equation and those numbers fall a lot.

On Oct 22, 2:46*pm, wrote:
On Oct 22, 2:43*pm, wrote:





On Oct 22, 2:19*pm, wrote:

On Oct 22, 1:54*pm, wrote:

On Oct 22, 1:17*pm, wrote:

On Oct 22, 12:25*pm, "Eisboch" wrote:

wrote in message

...
On Oct 22, 11:50 am, "Eisboch" wrote:

Here's something that will make you sick .....

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/money/index.html

Eisboch

Take big business out of the equation and those numbers fall a lot.
Make all contributions go directly to the candidates. *Eliminate
corporate contributions. *Require any contributions to other groups,
like the rnc and dnc, be limited in use to issue advertising only with
no mention of any candidates by name. *Then you are just left with
direct campaign funding coming from individuals that support the
candidate.

--------------------------------------

Are you suggesting that big business/corporations are supporting Obama over
McCain by more than 2 to 1?

Eisboch

No. *The general public is supporting Obama over McCain 2 to 1. *The
real Joe the plumbers. *Direct contributions to a candidate are
limited to $2,300.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, that's why Obama won't release the lists of donors.. for all we
know, forigen governments might be supplying that cash like the
millions the Chinese military gave Clinton.. Which was of course
returned "after" the election...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bush has borrowed more money from China that anyone ever before.
Therefore, we, as a country are severely indebted to them. Is that
okay with you?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

3 million dollars was illegally donated to the Clinton campaign by the
Chinese Military, not the Chinese Govt, three weeks before the
election and used to flood the west coast with commercial time. The
money was returned after the election with an apology.. That is a lot
different than GW "borrowing" from the Chinese Govt with the approval
of the congress..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So being indebted to the Chinese is okay with you if Congress approves
of it?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We are talking about illegal campaign contributions here, which the
Clintons certainly did. It is illegal for foreign govts to give money
to a political candidate here. The suggestion is that George Soros or
another foreign entity may be flooding the Obama campaign in a similar
illegal manner. Harry can put out any numbers he wants about what
"has" been released, but it's what has not that should be of concern...

wrote:
On Oct 22, 2:46 pm, wrote:

We are talking about illegal campaign contributions here, which the
Clintons certainly did. It is illegal for foreign govts to give money
to a political candidate here. The suggestion is that George Soros or
another foreign entity may be flooding the Obama campaign in a similar
illegal manner. Harry can put out any numbers he wants about what
"has" been released, but it's what has not that should be of concern...


No one gives a **** about your Limbaugh-FauxNews-RightWing Bull****
opinions.

The suggestion is...


snerk

On Oct 22, 3:01*pm, Boater wrote:
wrote:
On Oct 22, 2:46 pm, wrote:

We are talking about illegal campaign contributions here, which the
Clintons certainly did. It is illegal for foreign govts to give money
to a political candidate here. The suggestion is that George Soros or
another foreign entity may be flooding the Obama campaign in a similar
illegal manner. Harry can put out any numbers he wants about what
"has" been released, but it's what has not that should be of concern...

No one gives a **** about your Limbaugh-FauxNews-RightWing Bull****
opinions.

The suggestion is...

*snerk

You are not being addressed. Everyone here, Repub, Dem, Indy, all know
you are a liar and incapable of serious debate.. But you sure are good
at deflection...

On Oct 22, 6:32*pm, Boater wrote:
JimH wrote:
On Oct 22, 11:38 am, wrote:
On Oct 22, 10:28 am, "Eisboch" wrote:

"jamesgangnc" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
news:E7CdnbwYGqq_s2LVnZ2dnUVZ_orinZ2d@giganews .com...
"BAR" wrote in message
news:gMqdnRnwBaPHsWLVnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@giganew s.com...
wrote:
On Oct 21, 10:06 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:19:27 -0400, Boater
wrote:
RNC appears to shell out $150K for Palin fashion
By JEANNE CUMMINGS
The Republican National Committee appears to have spent more than
$150,000 to clothe and accessorize vice presidential candidate Sarah
Palin and her family since her surprise pick by John McCain in late
August.
Elections have become beauty contests anyway. Why wouldn't we expect
wardrobe expenses? Palin is new, she hasn't had the chance to
accumulate a closet full of clothes. You don't wear Prada at the
Wasilla Wall-Mart
If that's true, McCain is in trouble!!! His smile is freaky and scary!
It is a campaign expense. Perfectly acceptable.
Isn't it amazing what the pundits will pick up on ..... and the media
goes nuts with.
Who cares? *It's money to be used in the course of running for office.
Eisboch
You miss the point. *The point is that it is another example of faulty
decision making. *You going to be ok with these sorts of decisions if she
was in office? *Do the ends justfy the means for you? *Or do you think
it's important to also do the right thing? *Cause from where I sit that
does not appear to be how McCain/Palin are operating their campaign and it
would be foolish to think they will do differently in office.
She's not an Obama multi-millionaire, a McCain multi-millionaire or even a
Hillary Clinton multi-millionaire who can all afford to buy their own
expensive suits and outfits.
I really don't think 150k of campaign funds spent on clothes during a
national campaign is a big deal. *It's a tiny, tiny fraction of the overall
costs.
Eisboch- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So poor choices are ok as long as they are cheap? *Think that was the
rational? *Looks to me like all she wears are various pants suits and
from a distance the Kohls ones are probably just as good. *Seems like
she doesn't miss a chance to hit the state of Alaska up for anything
either, no matter how questionable. *Just continues to be more
examples of poor decision making.

For real, you really are comfortable with her as the "backup" for the
president? *Cause that scares the crap outta me.

What experience does Obama have that qualifies him to be
POTUS???????? * *He is the one running for the POTUS.........Sarah is
running for VP. *;-)

What experience does McCain have that is relevant to being president?
Worse, McCain has bad judgment and a short temper. He's like Bush, but
older. No thanks.

Better yet..........what experience does Obama have that is relevant
to being president?

JimH wrote:
On Oct 22, 6:32 pm, Boater wrote:
JimH wrote:
On Oct 22, 11:38 am, wrote:
On Oct 22, 10:28 am, "Eisboch" wrote:
"jamesgangnc" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"BAR" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Oct 21, 10:06 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:19:27 -0400, Boater
wrote:
RNC appears to shell out $150K for Palin fashion
By JEANNE CUMMINGS
The Republican National Committee appears to have spent more than
$150,000 to clothe and accessorize vice presidential candidate Sarah
Palin and her family since her surprise pick by John McCain in late
August.
Elections have become beauty contests anyway. Why wouldn't we expect
wardrobe expenses? Palin is new, she hasn't had the chance to
accumulate a closet full of clothes. You don't wear Prada at the
Wasilla Wall-Mart
If that's true, McCain is in trouble!!! His smile is freaky and scary!
It is a campaign expense. Perfectly acceptable.
Isn't it amazing what the pundits will pick up on ..... and the media
goes nuts with.
Who cares? It's money to be used in the course of running for office.
Eisboch
You miss the point. The point is that it is another example of faulty
decision making. You going to be ok with these sorts of decisions if she
was in office? Do the ends justfy the means for you? Or do you think
it's important to also do the right thing? Cause from where I sit that
does not appear to be how McCain/Palin are operating their campaign and it
would be foolish to think they will do differently in office.
She's not an Obama multi-millionaire, a McCain multi-millionaire or even a
Hillary Clinton multi-millionaire who can all afford to buy their own
expensive suits and outfits.
I really don't think 150k of campaign funds spent on clothes during a
national campaign is a big deal. It's a tiny, tiny fraction of the overall
costs.
Eisboch- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So poor choices are ok as long as they are cheap? Think that was the
rational? Looks to me like all she wears are various pants suits and
from a distance the Kohls ones are probably just as good. Seems like
she doesn't miss a chance to hit the state of Alaska up for anything
either, no matter how questionable. Just continues to be more
examples of poor decision making.
For real, you really are comfortable with her as the "backup" for the
president? Cause that scares the crap outta me.
What experience does Obama have that qualifies him to be
POTUS???????? He is the one running for the POTUS.........Sarah is
running for VP. ;-)
What experience does McCain have that is relevant to being president?
Worse, McCain has bad judgment and a short temper. He's like Bush, but
older. No thanks.

Better yet..........what experience does Obama have that is relevant
to being president?


What experience does McCain have that is relevant to being president?

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:45:04 -0400, Boater
wrote:

JimH wrote:
On Oct 22, 6:32 pm, Boater wrote:
JimH wrote:
On Oct 22, 11:38 am, wrote:
On Oct 22, 10:28 am, "Eisboch" wrote:
"jamesgangnc" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"BAR" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Oct 21, 10:06 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:19:27 -0400, Boater
wrote:
RNC appears to shell out $150K for Palin fashion
By JEANNE CUMMINGS
The Republican National Committee appears to have spent more than
$150,000 to clothe and accessorize vice presidential candidate Sarah
Palin and her family since her surprise pick by John McCain in late
August.
Elections have become beauty contests anyway. Why wouldn't we expect
wardrobe expenses? Palin is new, she hasn't had the chance to
accumulate a closet full of clothes. You don't wear Prada at the
Wasilla Wall-Mart
If that's true, McCain is in trouble!!! His smile is freaky and scary!
It is a campaign expense. Perfectly acceptable.
Isn't it amazing what the pundits will pick up on ..... and the media
goes nuts with.
Who cares? It's money to be used in the course of running for office.
Eisboch
You miss the point. The point is that it is another example of faulty
decision making. You going to be ok with these sorts of decisions if she
was in office? Do the ends justfy the means for you? Or do you think
it's important to also do the right thing? Cause from where I sit that
does not appear to be how McCain/Palin are operating their campaign and it
would be foolish to think they will do differently in office.
She's not an Obama multi-millionaire, a McCain multi-millionaire or even a
Hillary Clinton multi-millionaire who can all afford to buy their own
expensive suits and outfits.
I really don't think 150k of campaign funds spent on clothes during a
national campaign is a big deal. It's a tiny, tiny fraction of the overall
costs.
Eisboch- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So poor choices are ok as long as they are cheap? Think that was the
rational? Looks to me like all she wears are various pants suits and
from a distance the Kohls ones are probably just as good. Seems like
she doesn't miss a chance to hit the state of Alaska up for anything
either, no matter how questionable. Just continues to be more
examples of poor decision making.
For real, you really are comfortable with her as the "backup" for the
president? Cause that scares the crap outta me.
What experience does Obama have that qualifies him to be
POTUS???????? He is the one running for the POTUS.........Sarah is
running for VP. ;-)
What experience does McCain have that is relevant to being president?
Worse, McCain has bad judgment and a short temper. He's like Bush, but
older. No thanks.

Better yet..........what experience does Obama have that is relevant
to being president?


What experience does McCain have that is relevant to being president?

A whole lot more than Nobama has.

Why the libs are making a deal of Sarah's experience is beyond me
considering that she has more executive experience than Nobama
has.......and Nobama is the one running at the top of the ticket.

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:52:24 -0400, JimH wrote:



Why the libs are making a deal of Sarah's experience is beyond me
considering that she has more executive experience than Nobama
has.......and Nobama is the one running at the top of the ticket.

I'm not a lib, and I liked Sarah's "coming out" speech.
I saw her positive values, and was willing to give her a chance.
Thought McCain might have struck a brilliant stroke.
She had her chance to say something intelligent, and show she
can actually think.
She can't.
Nothing but the same bull**** talking points over and over and over
and over and over.
She's basically brain dead in regards to thinking and being a problem
solver.
And I think McCain is too. Same old bull**** over and over and over.
Too bad.
Republicans might have had a better chance with Huckabee or Romney,
who are both smarter than John "Barry Goldwater" McCain.
I liked Huckabee. Most decent guy of them all.

--Vic

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:11:37 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:52:24 -0400, JimH wrote:



Why the libs are making a deal of Sarah's experience is beyond me
considering that she has more executive experience than Nobama
has.......and Nobama is the one running at the top of the ticket.

I'm not a lib, and I liked Sarah's "coming out" speech.
I saw her positive values, and was willing to give her a chance.
Thought McCain might have struck a brilliant stroke.
She had her chance to say something intelligent, and show she
can actually think.
She can't.
Nothing but the same bull**** talking points over and over and over
and over and over.
She's basically brain dead in regards to thinking and being a problem
solver.
And I think McCain is too. Same old bull**** over and over and over.
Too bad.
Republicans might have had a better chance with Huckabee or Romney,
who are both smarter than John "Barry Goldwater" McCain.
I liked Huckabee. Most decent guy of them all.

--Vic

Sarah is not braindead and is not running at the top of the ticket.

How is Obama more experienced to be POTUS than Palin (who is running
as VP)?

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 19:22:15 -0400, JimH wrote:



I'm not a lib, and I liked Sarah's "coming out" speech.
I saw her positive values, and was willing to give her a chance.
Thought McCain might have struck a brilliant stroke.
She had her chance to say something intelligent, and show she
can actually think.
She can't.
Nothing but the same bull**** talking points over and over and over
and over and over.
She's basically brain dead in regards to thinking and being a problem
solver.
And I think McCain is too. Same old bull**** over and over and over.
Too bad.
Republicans might have had a better chance with Huckabee or Romney,
who are both smarter than John "Barry Goldwater" McCain.
I liked Huckabee. Most decent guy of them all.

--Vic

Sarah is not braindead and is not running at the top of the ticket.

How is Obama more experienced to be POTUS than Palin (who is running
as VP)?

Hey, nobody is experienced at being Prez until it happens.
I don't care about that. They can recruit experienced brains.
But if McCain keels over I'd have to listen to her nagging for four
years.
That wouldn't be prudent.

--Vic