Shawn Hirn wrote:
In article ,
George wrote:

Don't know, there are more people in the middle than you think. The best
thing that happened to McCain is having Limbaugh declare that it will be
the death of the Republican party. There are many people who sit a
little right of center who don't care for the full bore anything is OK
as long as a couple greedy reach guys profit from it system who find
McCain attractive. And of the thinking voters I know (not the I only
drink red or blue Koolaid people) they have said they would never
consider voting for Hillary if she should get the nomination.


Oh, but I agree. McCain; however, is a bit too far to the right on some
very important issues than Obama and Clinton. Clinton or Obama will win
just on health care alone. More and more people are getting scared that
they will be cut off from employer-provided medical insurance. Even
those with good employer-provided medical insurance are finding their
co-pays going up and/or their employers requiring increased
contributions from employees.

Its the economy stupid and McCain loses big time in that area.

I'm one of those right-of-center people who is disgusted by the actions
of the right wing. I won't vote for McCain simply because he impressed
me with his "agents of intolerance" rhetoric in the last round of
primaries but this past year he has been cozying up to the religious
right in a blatant attempt to get more votes.

I think he's really still the old "agents of intolerance" guy inside but
I have a hard time voting for someone with no convictions and/or without
the spine to stand up and say what he really thinks.

Yes, I know that excludes just about all politicians.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

In article ,
Nate Nagel wrote:

Shawn Hirn wrote:
In article ,
George wrote:

Don't know, there are more people in the middle than you think. The best
thing that happened to McCain is having Limbaugh declare that it will be
the death of the Republican party. There are many people who sit a
little right of center who don't care for the full bore anything is OK
as long as a couple greedy reach guys profit from it system who find
McCain attractive. And of the thinking voters I know (not the I only
drink red or blue Koolaid people) they have said they would never
consider voting for Hillary if she should get the nomination.


Oh, but I agree. McCain; however, is a bit too far to the right on some
very important issues than Obama and Clinton. Clinton or Obama will win
just on health care alone. More and more people are getting scared that
they will be cut off from employer-provided medical insurance. Even
those with good employer-provided medical insurance are finding their
co-pays going up and/or their employers requiring increased
contributions from employees.

Its the economy stupid and McCain loses big time in that area.

I'm one of those right-of-center people who is disgusted by the actions
of the right wing. I won't vote for McCain simply because he impressed
me with his "agents of intolerance" rhetoric in the last round of
primaries but this past year he has been cozying up to the religious
right in a blatant attempt to get more votes.

I think he's really still the old "agents of intolerance" guy inside but
I have a hard time voting for someone with no convictions and/or without
the spine to stand up and say what he really thinks.

Yes, I know that excludes just about all politicians.

I think you have a lot of company in your attitude. I also think the far
religious right isn't as powerful within the Democratic party as they
were when Bush ran for office four years ago. If they are still such a
strong force, Huckabee would be doing a lot better in the primaries.

McCain is a bad taste in the mouths of the religious right, but he's
also too far right for most Democrats, so he won't get too many liberal
votes this November. On the other hand, the Democratic candidate is
likely to appeal to a lot more voters and have ****ed off far fewer
people than the Republicans, so although I have no idea who the
Democratic nominee will be, I feel virtually certain that whomever it is
will be our next president. We will break history in November by
electing either our first black president or our first female president,
and that fact alone will spur more people to vote, and more to vote D.

Nate Nagel wrote:


I'm one of those right-of-center people who is disgusted by the
actions of the right wing. I won't vote for McCain simply because he
impressed me with his "agents of intolerance" rhetoric in the last
round of primaries but this past year he has been cozying up to the
religious right in a blatant attempt to get more votes.

I think he's really still the old "agents of intolerance" guy inside
but I have a hard time voting for someone with no convictions and/or
without the spine to stand up and say what he really thinks.


So you want another Bush? Me too.

Ah, but all your concerns pale into insignificance compared to security.
Look what recent presidents have done when faced with aggression:

When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, Carter(D) cancelled the Olympics.
When Muslims did some nasties, Clinton(D) bombed an aspirin factory.
When Iraq invaded Kuwait, Bush 1(R) bombed 'em back to the stone age.
When Iraq just sat there, doing nothing, Bush 2(R), invaded, secured their
leader, killed his children, evicted him from his home, exiled his family,
confiscated his funds, and, eventually, had him hanged.

Now, which of the candidates still in the hunt do we believe is more
blood-thirsty? Who do we think can hate more intensely? Who is it that is
not disgusted by seeing body parts of our enemies strewn to the four
corners? Who would have the no regrets over the families of terrorists
destined to wander the plains, leaving bloody footprints in the snow, while
the lamentations of the widows and the cries of the children mix with the
foul north winds?

Well, aside from me, there's probably only one of the four national
candidates.

HeyBub wrote:

Nate Nagel wrote:


I'm one of those right-of-center people who is disgusted by the
actions of the right wing. I won't vote for McCain simply because he
impressed me with his "agents of intolerance" rhetoric in the last
round of primaries but this past year he has been cozying up to the
religious right in a blatant attempt to get more votes.

I think he's really still the old "agents of intolerance" guy inside
but I have a hard time voting for someone with no convictions and/or
without the spine to stand up and say what he really thinks.



So you want another Bush? Me too.

Ah, but all your concerns pale into insignificance compared to security.
Look what recent presidents have done when faced with aggression:

When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, Carter(D) cancelled the Olympics.
When Muslims did some nasties, Clinton(D) bombed an aspirin factory.
When Iraq invaded Kuwait, Bush 1(R) bombed 'em back to the stone age.
When Iraq just sat there, doing nothing, Bush 2(R), invaded, secured their
leader, killed his children, evicted him from his home, exiled his family,
confiscated his funds, and, eventually, had him hanged.

Now, which of the candidates still in the hunt do we believe is more
blood-thirsty? Who do we think can hate more intensely? Who is it that is
not disgusted by seeing body parts of our enemies strewn to the four
corners? Who would have the no regrets over the families of terrorists
destined to wander the plains, leaving bloody footprints in the snow, while
the lamentations of the widows and the cries of the children mix with the
foul north winds?

Kinda makes you wonder how they call themselves Christians.


Well, aside from me, there's probably only one of the four national
candidates.





--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

CJT wrote:
Now, which of the candidates still in the hunt do we believe is more
blood-thirsty? Who do we think can hate more intensely? Who is it
that is not disgusted by seeing body parts of our enemies strewn to
the four corners? Who would have the no regrets over the families of
terrorists destined to wander the plains, leaving bloody footprints
in the snow, while the lamentations of the widows and the cries of
the children mix with the foul north winds?

Kinda makes you wonder how they call themselves Christians.


Shame on you! We are a pluralistic nation with no religious qualifying test
for our government employees. Check your beliefs at the door of the Warrior
Wing. Hillary said the military requires a "suspension of disbelief." That's
not true. We want, if necessary, a suspension of BELIEF (plus someone who
enjoys a job well done as he disembowels the enemy).

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

CJT wrote:
Now, which of the candidates still in the hunt do we believe is more
blood-thirsty? Who do we think can hate more intensely? Who is it
that is not disgusted by seeing body parts of our enemies strewn to
the four corners? Who would have the no regrets over the families of
terrorists destined to wander the plains, leaving bloody footprints
in the snow, while the lamentations of the widows and the cries of
the children mix with the foul north winds?

Kinda makes you wonder how they call themselves Christians.


Shame on you! We are a pluralistic nation with no religious qualifying test
for our government employees. Check your beliefs at the door of the Warrior
Wing. Hillary said the military requires a "suspension of disbelief." That's
not true. We want, if necessary, a suspension of BELIEF (plus someone who
enjoys a job well done as he disembowels the enemy).

And how Mr. Blood-n-Guts do we identify the enemy? Is it those
identified by an election stealing, draft dodging, mentally inferior
Commander in Chief or, do you just make it up as you go along?

My point is that the tax payers who pay for your "services" want PEACE
so we can raise our kids, keep our jobs, and watch Super Bowl on 40"
flat screens. Your life style makes it hard to go get the beer.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

Billy wrote
HeyBub wrote
CJT wrote

Now, which of the candidates still in the hunt do we believe is
more blood-thirsty? Who do we think can hate more intensely?
Who is it that is not disgusted by seeing body parts of our enemies
strewn to the four corners? Who would have the no regrets over
the families of terrorists destined to wander the plains, leaving
bloody footprints in the snow, while the lamentations of the
widows and the cries of the children mix with the foul north winds?

Kinda makes you wonder how they call themselves Christians.

Shame on you! We are a pluralistic nation with no religious
qualifying test for our government employees. Check your beliefs at
the door of the Warrior Wing. Hillary said the military requires a
"suspension of disbelief." That's not true. We want, if necessary, a
suspension of BELIEF (plus someone who enjoys a job well done as he
disembowels the enemy).

And how Mr. Blood-n-Guts do we identify the enemy? Is it those
identified by an election stealing, draft dodging, mentally inferior
Commander in Chief or, do you just make it up as you go along?

My point is that the tax payers who pay for your "services" want PEACE so we
can raise our kids, keep our jobs, and watch Super Bowl on 40" flat screens.

They also wanted some action in response to 9/11 and
without those prepared to do that sort of thing, the US
wouldnt have been able to do anything about Afghanistan etc.

Your life style makes it hard to go get the beer.

And your mentality makes it hard to ensure that 9/11 wont be repeated.

You wont care about the beer if some terrorists manage to let off a dirty nuke in the US, stupid.

On Feb 4, 3:03*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:

They also wanted some action in response to 9/11 and
without those prepared to do that sort of thing, the US
wouldnt have been able to do anything about Afghanistan etc.

the etc. being Iraq? really good response to 9/11 that was. sure has
solved the problem. hey, how's Bush's plan of "smokin' 'im out" ('im
being bin Laden) going? haven't heard much about it lately.

Well, we showed the world. You mess with us, and we will attack
somebody who sort of reminds us of you (since we're not too good with
races and languages and that foreign stuff), who we also don't like.

It's like that scene in over the top crime movies, where the head bad
guy tries to threaten the hero, by shooting one of his own men "You
see what I'm capable of? I wasn't even mad at him, imagine what I will
do to you".

Billy wrote:

My point is that the tax payers who pay for your "services" want PEACE
so we can raise our kids, keep our jobs, and watch Super Bowl on 40"
flat screens. Your life style makes it hard to go get the beer.

Every dictator on Earth wants 'Peace'. They love the concept of peace. They
do anything to their subjects that is needed to be done in order to keep
peace.

Americans want what this country was founded on: FREEDOM.

Dave Bugg wrote:

Americans want what this country was founded on: FREEDOM.

No, we don't. Even most Ron Paul supporters are satisfied by that
illuson of freedom known as material comfort false security. If most
Americans really wanted freedom, the Patriot Act never would have
become law.

On Feb 4, 3:05*pm, "Dave Bugg" wrote:

Americans want what this country was founded on: FREEDOM.

this country was founded on the freedom of religious nuts to oppress
people of very slightly different religions, which they couldn't do at
home.

In article
,
Billy wrote:


And how Mr. Blood-n-Guts do we identify the enemy? Is it those
identified by an election stealing, draft dodging, mentally inferior
Commander in Chief or, do you just make it up as you go along?


From the above list, the making it up as you go along seems to be
working pretty well for you...

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article
,
Billy wrote:


And how Mr. Blood-n-Guts do we identify the enemy? Is it those
identified by an election stealing, draft dodging, mentally inferior
Commander in Chief or, do you just make it up as you go along?


From the above list, the making it up as you go along seems to be
working pretty well for you...

LOL!!! Another case of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

CJT wrote:
Now, which of the candidates still in the hunt do we believe is more
blood-thirsty? Who do we think can hate more intensely? Who is it
that is not disgusted by seeing body parts of our enemies strewn to
the four corners? Who would have the no regrets over the families of
terrorists destined to wander the plains, leaving bloody footprints
in the snow, while the lamentations of the widows and the cries of
the children mix with the foul north winds?

Kinda makes you wonder how they call themselves Christians.


Shame on you! We are a pluralistic nation with no religious qualifying test
for our government employees. Check your beliefs at the door of the Warrior
Wing. Hillary said the military requires a "suspension of disbelief." That's
not true. We want, if necessary, a suspension of BELIEF (plus someone who
enjoys a job well done as he disembowels the enemy).

Really? How many non-Christians have served as president? How many
atheists are serving in congress or have ever served as president? Where
elections are concerned, we Americans are very prejudiced toward
Christians?