Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / November 2008

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

{OT} Barack Obama forced to deny abandoning 'change' amid insider appointments

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
dbu' - 27 Nov 2008 00:58 GMT
LOL

<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections
/article5239776.ece>

"Barack Obama defended his decision to pack his new Cabinet with veteran
Washington insiders and former Clinton officials yesterday after a
campaign in which he promised change. "
Signature


"It's deja vu all over again"
Yogi Berra

Hachiroku ハチロク - 27 Nov 2008 01:23 GMT
> LOL
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Washington insiders and former Clinton officials yesterday after a
> campaign in which he promised change. "

"The change comes from me."
Scott  in  Florida - 27 Nov 2008 02:51 GMT
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 20:23:57 -0500, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@e86.GTS>
wrote:

>> LOL
>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>"The change comes from me."

How the HELL could ANYBODY vote for that FOOL?

gawd....

Signature


Scott in Florida

badgolferman - 27 Nov 2008 01:44 GMT
> LOL

<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections
> /article5239776.ece>
>
> "Barack Obama defended his decision to pack his new Cabinet with
> veteran Washington insiders and former Clinton officials yesterday
> after a campaign in which he promised change. "

I hate to say "I told you so" but....

What do you think his supporters are thinking now?  Do they feel like
jackasses or what?  He's not even in office yet and is already breaking
all his promises!  This must be some sort of record for a politician.

Signature

"Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially
denied." ~ Otto Von Bismark

Conscience - 27 Nov 2008 02:56 GMT
>> LOL
>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> jackasses or what?  He's not even in office yet and is already breaking
> all his promises!  This must be some sort of record for a politician.

Priceless entertainment.
dbu' - 27 Nov 2008 09:46 GMT
> > LOL
> >
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> jackasses or what?  He's not even in office yet and is already breaking
> all his promises!  This must be some sort of record for a politician.

The fact that he's retaining Gates as defense secretary tells us he's
not getting out of Iraq any time soon.  Must be a disappointment to
many.  I hope those who protested Bush and the Iraq problem will protest
just as hard against obama now.
Signature


"It's deja vu all over again"
Yogi Berra

badgolferman - 27 Nov 2008 12:29 GMT
> > > LOL

<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections
> > > /article5239776.ece>
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> many.  I hope those who protested Bush and the Iraq problem will
> protest just as hard against obama now.

Not a chance.  That would make them look stupid.
Scott  in  Florida - 27 Nov 2008 15:16 GMT
>> > > LOL
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
>Not a chance.  That would make them look stupid.

Barry look stupid?

Hell he already does.....

What happened to 'change'?

Signature


Scott in Florida

JoeSpareBedroom - 27 Nov 2008 14:54 GMT
>> > LOL
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> many.  I hope those who protested Bush and the Iraq problem will protest
> just as hard against obama now.

He's retaining Gates because Gates is doing the job right, unlike Rumsfeld,
and because a certain amount of continuity at DoD is a really good idea at
the moment. You missed these ideas.
Scott  in  Florida - 27 Nov 2008 15:17 GMT
>>> > LOL
>>> >
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>and because a certain amount of continuity at DoD is a really good idea at
>the moment. You missed these ideas.

ROFLMAO

The 'inspiration' will come from Barry......

ROFLMAO

Signature


Scott in Florida

JoeSpareBedroom - 27 Nov 2008 15:31 GMT
>>>> > LOL
>>>> >
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
> Scott in Florida

Lack of coherent response noted yet again.
Scott  in  Florida - 27 Nov 2008 15:48 GMT
>>>>> > LOL
>>>>> >
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
>Lack of coherent response noted yet again.

Agreed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Barry has none.....

Signature


Scott in Florida

badgolferman - 27 Nov 2008 17:06 GMT
> >>> "Barack Obama defended his decision to pack his new Cabinet with
> >>> veteran Washington insiders and former Clinton officials yesterday
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> Rumsfeld, and because a certain amount of continuity at DoD is a
> really good idea at the moment. You missed these ideas.

You seem to be missing the point.  The campaign rhetoric of "change"
has been cast aside by Obama's actions of bringing back all the Clinton
insiders.  Gates is non-issue in this case.

Signature

"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." ~
Winston Churchill

JoeSpareBedroom - 27 Nov 2008 17:18 GMT
>> >>> "Barack Obama defended his decision to pack his new Cabinet with
>> >>> veteran Washington insiders and former Clinton officials yesterday
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> has been cast aside by Obama's actions of bringing back all the Clinton
> insiders.  Gates is non-issue in this case.

During his campaign, did Obama say he would not hire anyone with previous
experience in other administrations?
Mark A - 27 Nov 2008 18:33 GMT
> He's retaining Gates because Gates is doing the job right, unlike
> Rumsfeld, and because a certain amount of continuity at DoD is a really
> good idea at the moment. You missed these ideas.

I don't recall Obama every saying during the campaign that the war is going
well, and Bush is doing a good job ever since Gates took over at DOD. He may
be implying that now, but he said the exact opposite during the campaign.

And no, we did miss that.
JoeSpareBedroom - 27 Nov 2008 18:36 GMT
>> He's retaining Gates because Gates is doing the job right, unlike
>> Rumsfeld, and because a certain amount of continuity at DoD is a really
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> And no, we did miss that.

Above, I used the words "the job". Please review what the secretary of
defense does and does not do. Then, all will be clear to you.
Mark A - 27 Nov 2008 18:52 GMT
> Above, I used the words "the job". Please review what the secretary of
> defense does and does not do. Then, all will be clear to you.

If Gates did not support the effort in Iraq (even if he was critical of
Rumsfeld tactics), he would not have accepted the job in the Bush
Administration at DOD. He must have gotten some guarantee that Obama will
not cut and run if he agreed to stay on.

Do you think Obama would have ever even have gotten the Democratic
nomination if he announced that he was keeping Gates?
JoeSpareBedroom - 27 Nov 2008 18:58 GMT
>> Above, I used the words "the job". Please review what the secretary of
>> defense does and does not do. Then, all will be clear to you.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Administration at DOD. He must have gotten some guarantee that Obama will
> not cut and run if he agreed to stay on.

There wasn't much Gates needed to do to impress people. To do better than
Rumsfeld, he needed only to stop lying, stop talking like Dr. Strangelove,
and pay attention to his generals. He has done all three things.

As far as running the war differently, there wasn't a lot he could change
since the war itself had begun to determine policy, as all wars do.

> Do you think Obama would have ever even have gotten the Democratic
> nomination if he announced that he was keeping Gates?

Absolutely. Why not? I don't recall any major complaints from Democrats when
Gates was first installed. Do you remember any? Gates is highly regarded all
around, which is why George H.W. Bush chose him.
Mark A - 27 Nov 2008 19:12 GMT
> There wasn't much Gates needed to do to impress people. To do better than
> Rumsfeld, he needed only to stop lying, stop talking like Dr. Strangelove,
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> when Gates was first installed. Do you remember any? Gates is highly
> regarded all around, which is why George H.W. Bush chose him.

Gates supported the war, although he didn't support Rumsfeld tactics (which
is easy for all of to say in hindsight). Obama was given the nomination, and
to an extent won the general election, because he advocated a rapid
unilateral pullout from Iraq. Gates does not support that.

"Democrats" who think Gates is doing a good job are not the core Obama base.
Those people were Hilary voters. Obama supporters wanted the US out of Iraq
immediately, and unilaterally. If you think the Obama "highly regarded"
Gates during the campaign, you are on drugs.

Rumsfeld's ideas about how to conduct the war did not resemble Dr.
Strangelove, and his miscalculations did not involve lying. He just
underestimated the insurgency, and vastly overestimated the ability of
Iraqi's to rebuild their own country. Demonizing him for these
miscalculations in tactics is not very constructive.

Obama is a very smart man. He has fooled a lot of people into getting
himself elected. Now, I can't complain too much, as he moves rapidly to the
center, and closer to my views, but I do find it ironic that so many people
got duped on his anti-war stand (especially since Bush has signed an
agreement to withdraw anyway).
JoeSpareBedroom - 27 Nov 2008 19:36 GMT
>> There wasn't much Gates needed to do to impress people. To do better than
>> Rumsfeld, he needed only to stop lying, stop talking like Dr.
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> advocated a rapid unilateral pullout from Iraq. Gates does not support
> that.

And yet he's being kept on board because of who he is, not because he agrees
or disagrees to any particular extent with Obama's ideas. Isn't that
interesting?

> "Democrats" who think Gates is doing a good job are not the core Obama
> base. Those people were Hilary voters. Obama supporters wanted the US out
> of Iraq immediately, and unilaterally. If you think the Obama "highly
> regarded" Gates during the campaign, you are on drugs.

I doubt that many voters from either party have clue #1 about Gates'
background.

> Rumsfeld's ideas about how to conduct the war did not resemble Dr.
> Strangelove, and his miscalculations did not involve lying. He just
> underestimated the insurgency, and vastly overestimated the ability of
> Iraqi's to rebuild their own country. Demonizing him for these
> miscalculations in tactics is not very constructive.

Why not? His generals demonized him, as was correct. Rumsfeld was
incompetent. That's why he "resigned".
Mark A - 27 Nov 2008 20:06 GMT
> And yet he's being kept on board because of who he is, not because he
> agrees or disagrees to any particular extent with Obama's ideas. Isn't
> that interesting?

No, he is staying on because Obama convinced him that all that campaign
rhetoric was BS and there will be no major change in US policy. Given that
the Iraqi parliament just ratified the agreement regarding US troop
pull-backs and eventual withdrawal, all that Obama rhetoric during the
campaign (including when he blasted Hilary for her support of the invasion)
is a moot point.

> I doubt that many voters from either party have clue #1 about Gates'
> background.

Long time CIA employee and former director of CIA. Secretary of Defense
under Bush. I don't think a single Obama supporter would have guessed that
he would keep Gates on. But these people are part of a religious movement,
and Obama is the cult leader, so there is not much critical thinking going
on.

> Why not? His generals demonized him, as was correct. Rumsfeld was
> incompetent. That's why he "resigned".

Incompetent is not the same as lying (as you claimed). But I don't know
anyone in the DOD thought he was incompetent anyway (he was generally
regarded as extremely smart and an excellent manager) but he made some
assumptions about Iraq that turned out in hindsight to be wrong (not many
complained about Rumsfeld when US troops captured Bagdad two weeks after the
invasion). Even the "best and the brightest" make bonehead decisions, as we
found out by trusting the Kennedy/Johnson foreign policy advisors during the
Vietnam War.
JoeSpareBedroom - 27 Nov 2008 20:13 GMT
>> And yet he's being kept on board because of who he is, not because he
>> agrees or disagrees to any particular extent with Obama's ideas. Isn't
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> as we found out by trusting the Kennedy/Johnson foreign policy advisors
> during the Vietnam War.

OK. Rumsfeld "retired" because his favorite dry cleaner went out of business
and he was out of clean suits.
Mark A - 27 Nov 2008 20:26 GMT
> OK. Rumsfeld "retired" because his favorite dry cleaner went out of
> business and he was out of clean suits.

Rumsfeld was asked to resign (fired) because someone had to take the blame
for his failed policies, even if they had been corrected (which is
admittedly debatable). He was not fired for lying or because he was
incompetent. Foreign policy and military strategy is not mathematics or
computer programming. It takes more than intelligence and more than
competence to get it right.

This is especially true in this case, where Rumsfeld tried to do more with
less (fewer troops than were actually needed) partly because of extreme
political pressure from former US allies and Democrats to reduce US military
presence as soon as possible.
JoeSpareBedroom - 27 Nov 2008 20:28 GMT
>> OK. Rumsfeld "retired" because his favorite dry cleaner went out of
>> business and he was out of clean suits.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> political pressure from former US allies and Democrats to reduce US
> military presence as soon as possible.

He may not have been fired for lying, but his lies weren't very well hidden,
which made him an embarrassment.
Conscience - 27 Nov 2008 20:21 GMT
>  But these people are part of a religious movement, and Obama is the
> cult leader, so there is not much critical thinking going on.

And these cult-followers fall into two categories.  Those who somewhat
realize their membership, and those who blindly deny the cult's
existence.
JoeSpareBedroom - 27 Nov 2008 20:27 GMT
>>  But these people are part of a religious movement, and Obama is the cult
>> leader, so there is not much critical thinking going on.
>
> And these cult-followers fall into two categories.  Those who somewhat
> realize their membership, and those who blindly deny the cult's existence.

It's beginning to sound like there's a cult which consists of those who
obsess about the other cult.

By the way, we're talking about Gates & Rumsfeld at the moment. Any thought
on why Rumsfeld "resigned" (in quotes because he was really fired), and why
Gates is being kept on board?
Mark A - 27 Nov 2008 20:30 GMT
> By the way, we're talking about Gates & Rumsfeld at the moment. Any
> thought on why Rumsfeld "resigned" (in quotes because he was really
> fired), and why Gates is being kept on board?

No one is suggesting that Rumsfeld was not asked to resign. He was asked to
resign, so effectively he was fired.

But that does not make him a liar or incompetent.
JoeSpareBedroom - 27 Nov 2008 20:34 GMT
>> By the way, we're talking about Gates & Rumsfeld at the moment. Any
>> thought on why Rumsfeld "resigned" (in quotes because he was really
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> But that does not make him a liar or incompetent.

Your words are literally correct. The fact that he was fired does not make
him a liar or incompetent. The firing came AFTER it was clear that he was a
liar and incompetent.

Get the timing right and your comments will make more sense.
Mark A - 27 Nov 2008 20:38 GMT
> Your words are literally correct. The fact that he was fired does not make
> him a liar or incompetent. The firing came AFTER it was clear that he was
> a liar and incompetent.
>
> Get the timing right and your comments will make more sense.

The results would have been the same if Gates had started out as Secretary
of Defense in 2001 instead of Rumsfeld.

Speaking of incompetent, is there not a single Democrat in the entire
country who is competent enough to be Secretary of Defense? Apparently not,
or at least Obama is so incompetent that he needs another year to find that
person.
JoeSpareBedroom - 27 Nov 2008 21:27 GMT
>> Your words are literally correct. The fact that he was fired does not
>> make him a liar or incompetent. The firing came AFTER it was clear that
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> The results would have been the same if Gates had started out as Secretary
> of Defense in 2001 instead of Rumsfeld.

You can't make that statement with any accuracy. You will now disagree. But,
with Gates' long history with the CIA, it's possible he would've interpreted
intelligence much differently than Rumsfeld did. Whether anyone would've
listened is another story, considering that the war in Iraq was a personal
crusade for certain people.

> Speaking of incompetent, is there not a single Democrat in the entire
> country who is competent enough to be Secretary of Defense? Apparently
> not, or at least Obama is so incompetent that he needs another year to
> find that person.

Gates was not chosen because of his political leanings. I doubt his
replacement would've been chosen that way.
Mark A - 28 Nov 2008 02:16 GMT
> You can't make that statement with any accuracy. You will now disagree.
> But, with Gates' long history with the CIA, it's possible he would've
> interpreted intelligence much differently than Rumsfeld did. Whether
> anyone would've listened is another story, considering that the war in
> Iraq was a personal crusade for certain people.

Here is what Bob Woodward says about that (Washington Post reporter who
broke the Watergate Scandal during the Nixon years):

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- About two weeks before deciding to invade Iraq,
President Bush was told by CIA Director George Tenet there was a "slam dunk
case" that dictator Saddam Hussein had unconventional weapons, according to
a new book by Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward.

That declaration was "very important" in his decision making, according to
"Plan of Attack," which is being excerpted this week in The Post.

Bush also made his decision to go to war without consulting Vice President
Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld or Secretary of State
Colin Powell, Woodward's book says.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/18/woodward.book/

So Rumsfeld had nothing to do with it.
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Nov 2008 06:21 GMT
>> You can't make that statement with any accuracy. You will now disagree.
>> But, with Gates' long history with the CIA, it's possible he would've
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> So Rumsfeld had nothing to do with it.

And that may be the problem. Would Gates have believed the information he
was being given?
Mark A - 28 Nov 2008 06:43 GMT
> And that may be the problem. Would Gates have believed the information he
> was being given?

I assume you mean if he were director of the CIA? I would guess that he
would have. For almost every situation you typically have 80% of the
analysts who believe one thing, and 20% who believe the opposite. There was
a lot of noise made about the fact that some in the CIA disagreed with the
evaluation that Saddam had WMD, but that is the case for every issue (there
are always some who take the contrary position on every issue, even in the
CIA).

One thing that would have been difficult for Gates to get away from, is that
we now know that Saddam WANTED everyone to believe he had WMD, because he
thought that protected him against Iran and other enemies. He even led his
troops to believe he had WMD. And we know for certain that he had WMD at one
time. So I think if 80% of your analysts tell you Iraq had WMD, it is hard
to go against that without some sort of other reason to not believe them.

Keep in mind also that George Tenet, who told Bush that the case for WMD in
Iraq was a "slam dunk," was appointed by Bill Clinton. It is inconceivable
that he told Bush that when he actually thought the opposite was true.
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Nov 2008 06:53 GMT
>> And that may be the problem. Would Gates have believed the information he
>> was being given?
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> inconceivable that he told Bush that when he actually thought the opposite
> was true.

You assume wrong. I mean if Gates was running DoD. Start over.
Mark A - 28 Nov 2008 07:09 GMT
> You assume wrong. I mean if Gates was running DoD. Start over.

If someone is outside the CIA (in DOD for example), and the CIA director
says it is a "slam dunk that Iraq has WMD", I doubt anyone outside the CIA
would question that. The Secretary of Defense is not going to go behind the
back of the CIA director and start conducting his own investigation by
interviewing individual CIA analysts, even if he was CIA director himself at
one time.

But the bottom line is that the secretary of Defense does not decide whether
the US goes to war, and as already documented by Bob Woodward, Rumsfeld was
not consulted on the matter, so I doubt Gates would have been consulted
either. Since the DOD had no troops in Iraq before the invasion, they
certainly had no intelligence of their own to counter what Tenet claimed.

Now if Tenet said "he believed that Iraq had WMD, but was only 80% sure,"
instead of saying it was a "slam dunk," (as he did say to Bush) that is a
another matter. If that had happened, I personally doubt that Bush would
have approved the invasion, unless a lot more analysis was done on the
matter (instead, Bush invaded Iraq 2 weeks after Tenet told him that it was
a slam dunk).
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Nov 2008 07:20 GMT
>> You assume wrong. I mean if Gates was running DoD. Start over.
>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> matter (instead, Bush invaded Iraq 2 weeks after Tenet told him that it
> was a slam dunk).

Just saw your response to my question about which, if any books you've read
recently. I suggest you get your hands on a copy of "From The Shadows" by
none other than Robert Gates.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/From-the-Shadows/Robert-Gates/e/9781416543367

Obviously, the secretary of defense would not be likely to go behind the
DCI's back to talk to an analyst. He doesn't have to. It's not at all
unusual for the SoD of the president himself to meet with analysts. If you
read much of anything about the inner workings of our government, you would
know this already.
Mark A - 28 Nov 2008 07:41 GMT
> Just saw your response to my question about which, if any books you've
> read recently. I suggest you get your hands on a copy of "From The
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> read much of anything about the inner workings of our government, you
> would know this already.

They might talk to individual analysts in the CIA if the CIA directory
thought it was a good idea. The president could demand it, but not the
Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of Defense would obviously talk to DOD
intelligence agents, but they didn't have much info on Iraq before the
invasion since they were not on the ground there yet.

One of the results of the 9/11 commission was to centralize intelligence in
the CIA, so there are not as many other intelligence officers in DOD as
there used to be.
Conscience - 27 Nov 2008 20:36 GMT
>>> But these people are part of a religious movement, and Obama is the cult
>>> leader, so there is not much critical thinking going on.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> It's beginning to sound like there's a cult which consists of those who
> obsess about the other cult.

Nah.  Cults come and go.

Always.

> By the way, we're talking about Gates & Rumsfeld at the moment. Any thought
> on why Rumsfeld "resigned" (in quotes because he was really fired), and why
> Gates is being kept on board?

Rumsfeld resigned for a very common reason.  He knows too much.

Gates is an advocate, even if behind-the-scenes, of dialogue with Iran
to help get us out of the mess in Iraq.  The powers-that-be then get to
rattle their sabers in public, while covertly negotiating deals that
suit everyone's needs.

IOW, business and politics as usual.  All the while the cult members
think their newly-crowned Messiah is actually going to do sh.t.
Jeff - 28 Nov 2008 02:34 GMT
> > There wasn't much Gates needed to do to impress people. To do better than
> > Rumsfeld, he needed only to stop lying, stop talking like Dr. Strangelove,
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> immediately, and unilaterally. If you think the Obama "highly regarded"
> Gates during the campaign, you are on drugs.

Actually, Obama's position on the war was that we get out in an
orderly fashion.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

> Rumsfeld's ideas about how to conduct the war did not resemble Dr.
> Strangelove, and his miscalculations did not involve lying. He just
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> got duped on his anti-war stand (especially since Bush has signed an
> agreement to withdraw anyway).

Yet there is a large difference between someone who wanted to go into
Iraq in the first place (McCain) and someone who wanted to stay out
(Obama). I would much rather have someone who had the judgment not to
want to go in the first place at the helm rather than someone who
wanted to go in in the beginning.

jeff
Mark A - 28 Nov 2008 02:46 GMT
> Actually, Obama's position on the war was that we get out in an
> orderly fashion.
>
> http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

Give me an f'ing break.

Gates took office as Secretary of Defense about 2 years ago, right when
Obama started his presidential run. Obama has consistently criticized Bush's
administration for the war in Iraq and never once did he saying anything
complementary about Gates until he was elected.
Jeff - 28 Nov 2008 03:55 GMT
> > Actually, Obama's position on the war was that we get out in an
> > orderly fashion.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> administration for the war in Iraq and never once did he saying anything
> complementary about Gates until he was elected.

Obama voted for Gates's nomination, as did 95% of the members of the
Senate (2 voted against Gates him; 3 Senators did not vote nor did, of
course, Cheney - he only votes in ties).

Until Obama was elected, what did he say about Gates? I didn't find
anything, good or bad.

Jeff
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Nov 2008 06:23 GMT
>> Actually, Obama's position on the war was that we get out in an
>> orderly fashion.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Bush's administration for the war in Iraq and never once did he saying
> anything complementary about Gates until he was elected.

See Jeff's facts, something you should become more friendly with in the
future.

And, I don't recall McCain saying anything one way or the other about Gates
during his campaign. I don't recall anyone asking him about Gates. Do you?

Is that the type of question you expected to be asked of the candidates?
"Hey..while we're on the subject of immigration, how about that Gates
fella?"
Mark A - 28 Nov 2008 06:53 GMT
> See Jeff's facts, something you should become more friendly with in the
> future.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> "Hey..while we're on the subject of immigration, how about that Gates
> fella?"

Those are not necessarily "facts," since we don't know when that webpage was
last changed.

Obama clearly ran against the Bush Administration policy in Iraq, mostly
after Gates took over DOD in 2006. I don't think Obama said anything about
any of the other cabinet members either, but it is very unusual to hold over
a cabinet member when a new president takes office from a different
political party (CIA and FBI are not cabinet members, but DOD is).

Given that Obama initially centered his entire campaign around the issue of
Iraq (even when lambasting Hilary about her vote for the invasion), it is
exceptionally unusual that Obama would keep Gates at DOD, even for a short
time. I don't think he would have been nominated, much less elected, if he
had announced that he would keep Gates 1 year ago.
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Nov 2008 06:59 GMT
>> See Jeff's facts, something you should become more friendly with in the
>> future.
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> short time. I don't think he would have been nominated, much less elected,
> if he had announced that he would keep Gates 1 year ago.

About the only thing I can agree with in your last paragraph, beginning with
"Given that Obama...." is your use of the words "I don't think".

What are the last three books you read, and in what time period did you read
them? Past month? Week? Three months? Year?
Mark A - 28 Nov 2008 07:14 GMT
> What are the last three books you read, and in what time period did you
> read them? Past month? Week? Three months? Year?

I don't think you are in any position to question my intelligence, guitar
boy. I scored 31 out of 33 on the civics test, and I took it rather quickly.
Actually it was 31/32 since they fubared the Gettysburg address quote.
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Nov 2008 07:17 GMT
>> What are the last three books you read, and in what time period did you
>> read them? Past month? Week? Three months? Year?
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> quickly. Actually it was 31/32 since they fubared the Gettysburg address
> quote.

That online civics test? That's your yardstick?
Mark A - 28 Nov 2008 07:29 GMT
> That online civics test? That's your yardstick?

I will take any general intelligence test you want, and compare my score
against yours. I will wager $100,000 that I will be beat you.
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Nov 2008 07:31 GMT
>> That online civics test? That's your yardstick?
>
> I will take any general intelligence test you want, and compare my score
> against yours. I will wager $100,000 that I will be beat you.

I don't understand why you're so defensive about answering this question:

What are the last three books you read, and in what time period did you read
them? Past month? Week? Three months? Year?

Please explain why you're so defensive about that question.
Mark A - 28 Nov 2008 07:48 GMT
> I don't understand why you're so defensive about answering this question:
>
> What are the last three books you read, and in what time period did you
> read them? Past month? Week? Three months? Year?
>
> Please explain why you're so defensive about that question.

My offer was not in response to your remark about what books I read, it was
in response to what you said about the civics quiz (which apparently you
scored poorly on).

What books I have read recently is really irrelevant to anything we are
discussing, and is none of our business, but it was not a political book, or
a book by a conservative commentator, if that is what you are asking. I
don't orders from anyone else, and I don't take orders from you.
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Nov 2008 07:57 GMT
>> I don't understand why you're so defensive about answering this question:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> was in response to what you said about the civics quiz (which apparently
> you scored poorly on).

I didn't bother with that quiz. The fact that you took the quiz and consider
it important leads to conclusions about you which are better left unspoken.

> What books I have read recently is really irrelevant to anything we are
> discussing, and is none of our business, but it was not a political book,
> or a book by a conservative commentator, if that is what you are asking. I
> don't orders from anyone else, and I don't take orders from you.

Trick question: When you think of the word "history", when do you think
"history" ends? Not "begins". I said "ends".
Mark A - 28 Nov 2008 14:59 GMT
> I didn't bother with that quiz. The fact that you took the quiz and
> consider it important leads to conclusions about you which are better left
> unspoken.

If you didn't bother taking the quiz, then how do you know it not a good
indicator of ones knowledge of government?

> Trick question: When you think of the word "history", when do you think
> "history" ends? Not "begins". I said "ends".

History will end when (and if) the universe stops expanding.
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Nov 2008 15:18 GMT
>> I didn't bother with that quiz. The fact that you took the quiz and
>> consider it important leads to conclusions about you which are better
>> left unspoken.
>
> If you didn't bother taking the quiz, then how do you know it not a good
> indicator of ones knowledge of government?

Because I just know these things. And, I'm 100% sure the quiz did not
address the subject of this discussion. You will now disagree, and will be
lying when you do.

>> Trick question: When you think of the word "history", when do you think
>> "history" ends? Not "begins". I said "ends".
>
> History will end when (and if) the universe stops expanding.
Mark A - 28 Nov 2008 16:24 GMT
> Because I just know these things. And, I'm 100% sure the quiz did not
> address the subject of this discussion. You will now disagree, and will be
> lying when you do.

I didn't say it addressed the subject of this discussion, but it is a good
test of general knowledge of US government, and to some degree, it also
tests intelligence.
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Nov 2008 17:07 GMT
>> Because I just know these things. And, I'm 100% sure the quiz did not
>> address the subject of this discussion. You will now disagree, and will
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> test of general knowledge of US government, and to some degree, it also
> tests intelligence.

The contents of the quiz bore absolutely no relationship to this discussion.
Therefore, it was a complete waste of time for you to mention it here.
Mark A - 28 Nov 2008 17:43 GMT
> The contents of the quiz bore absolutely no relationship to this
> discussion. Therefore, it was a complete waste of time for you to mention
> it here.

Wrong, it demonstrates one's knowledge of US government, which is the topic
here. Dealing with facts is a lot different than making stuff up as you go,
as is the norm with your posts.

I would bet big money that you went to that link and looked at the
questions, or even tried many of the questions, until you realized you level
of knowledge and intelligence is not up to the standards of this newsgroup.
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Nov 2008 17:46 GMT
>> The contents of the quiz bore absolutely no relationship to this
>> discussion. Therefore, it was a complete waste of time for you to mention
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> topic here. Dealing with facts is a lot different than making stuff up as
> you go, as is the norm with your posts.

Wrong. The quiz demonstrates knowledge of CERTAIN ASPECTS of U.S. government
which have absolutely NOTHING to do with the aspect we're are discussing
here.

> I would bet big money that you went to that link and looked at the
> questions, or even tried many of the questions, until you realized you
> level of knowledge and intelligence is not up to the standards of this
> newsgroup.

Bet your children and we'll have a deal. I peeked at the quiz in the midst
of a very busy day. I don't have time for games. Discussions are another
story.
badgolferman - 28 Nov 2008 17:48 GMT
>I peeked at the quiz in the midst of a very busy day. I don't have
>time for games. Discussions are another story.

Oh, the irony...
badgolferman - 28 Nov 2008 15:15 GMT
>Trick question: When you think of the word "history", when do you
>think "history" ends? Not "begins". I said "ends".

When I think of the word "history", the word "history" ends when you
finish writing the letter *y*.

Signature

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the - if he -
if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not - that is not the only
one thing. It means there is none. That was a completely true
statement." ~ Bill Clinton, August 1998

JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Nov 2008 15:18 GMT
>>Trick question: When you think of the word "history", when do you
>>think "history" ends? Not "begins". I said "ends".
>
> When I think of the word "history", the word "history" ends when you
> finish writing the letter *y*.

Close enough.
Mark A - 28 Nov 2008 16:26 GMT
>> When I think of the word "history", the word "history" ends when you
>> finish writing the letter *y*.
>
> Close enough.

OMG, where did you find that one, on the walls of a toilet stall?
badgolferman - 28 Nov 2008 16:31 GMT
>>>When I think of the word "history", the word "history" ends when
>>>you finish writing the letter y.
>>
>>Close enough.
>
>OMG, where did you find that one, on the walls of a toilet stall?

You haven't known JoeSpareBedroom long enough to know how his mind
works.  Try lowering your intelligence level a few notches and consider
yourself smart, then you will be able to predict his answers.

Signature

"I would like to take you seriously, but to do so would be an affront
to your intelligence." ~ George Bernard Shaw

JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Nov 2008 17:07 GMT
>>> When I think of the word "history", the word "history" ends when you
>>> finish writing the letter *y*.
>>
>> Close enough.
>
> OMG, where did you find that one, on the walls of a toilet stall?

I was about to follow up with more questions about your reading habits. But,
it's clear that it would be pointless to do so.
Scott  in  Florida - 29 Nov 2008 03:03 GMT
>> That online civics test? That's your yardstick?
>
>I will take any general intelligence test you want, and compare my score
>against yours. I will wager $100,000 that I will be beat you.

I won a half million dollars from the dufus, but he never paid.....

Signature


Scott in Florida

JoeSpareBedroom - 29 Nov 2008 03:50 GMT
>>> That online civics test? That's your yardstick?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Sot in Florida

You never showed up, you old pussy. You and your son or your imaginary
Chicago cop buddy were supposed to show up to collect, remember?

I remember.
dbu' - 29 Nov 2008 11:00 GMT
> >>> That online civics test? That's your yardstick?
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> I remember.

you weren't home, or hiding under your bed.
Signature


"It's deja vu all over again"
Yogi Berra

Scott  in  Florida - 29 Nov 2008 18:49 GMT
>>>> That online civics test? That's your yardstick?
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>I remember.

No you don't remember and you have not paid....

Signature


Scott in Florida

Jeff - 28 Nov 2008 12:00 GMT
> > See Jeff's facts, something you should become more friendly with in the
> > future.
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> time. I don't think he would have been nominated, much less elected, if he
> had announced that he would keep Gates 1 year ago.

True. However, Gates was highly recommended (95% of the senators voted
for him - Biden didn't vote at all in that vote, though). It is
unusual. Isn't doing something unusual that appears to be a good idea
a sign of change?

Jeff
Mark A - 28 Nov 2008 14:54 GMT
> True. However, Gates was highly recommended (95% of the senators voted
> for him - Biden didn't vote at all in that vote, though). It is
> unusual. Isn't doing something unusual that appears to be a good idea
> a sign of change?
>
> Jeff

I didn't say that appointing Gates was bad, but I am not a fervent Obama
supporter who believes the US should immediately and unilaterally withdraw
from Iraq (like many Obama supporters).

My contention is that had Obama announced he was keeping Gates one year ago,
he would not have received the Democratic nomination.

There are a lot of other very good cabinet secretaries in the Bush
administration, who also received a lot of votes in their senate
confirmation, who are not being kept around.
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Nov 2008 15:20 GMT
>> True. However, Gates was highly recommended (95% of the senators voted
>> for him - Biden didn't vote at all in that vote, though). It is
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> My contention is that had Obama announced he was keeping Gates one year
> ago, he would not have received the Democratic nomination.

Why not? Has Gates done anything contentious that would offend Obama
supporters? There is a word to describe members of EITHER POLITICAL PARTY
who would expect the war policy to be turned upside down overnight with the
hiring of a new SoD. The word is "fool", and they exist in both parties.
Mark A - 28 Nov 2008 16:28 GMT
> Why not? Has Gates done anything contentious that would offend Obama
> supporters? There is a word to describe members of EITHER POLITICAL PARTY
> who would expect the war policy to be turned upside down overnight with
> the hiring of a new SoD. The word is "fool", and they exist in both
> parties.

Well, yes, a lot of Obama supporters did think Obama would turn the policy
upside-down.

I will repeat--if Obama had announced one year ago that he intended to keep
Gates, he would not have received the Democratic notification for president.

Did you know that Obama is a smoker? The press hides these things really
well.
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Nov 2008 17:08 GMT
>> Why not? Has Gates done anything contentious that would offend Obama
>> supporters? There is a word to describe members of EITHER POLITICAL PARTY
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> keep Gates, he would not have received the Democratic notification for
> president.

You can only guess.

> Did you know that Obama is a smoker? The press hides these things really
> well.

Hidden in plain sight. It was all over the press.
Cathy F. - 28 Nov 2008 17:15 GMT
> Did you know that Obama is a smoker?

I thought he'd quit. Did he start up again?

>  The press hides these things really well.

??  It was in the news - quite a lot - that he was a smoker.

Cathy
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Nov 2008 17:22 GMT
>> Did you know that Obama is a smoker?
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Cathy

I'm thinking maybe Marky is like dbu: Does not read.
Mark A - 28 Nov 2008 17:50 GMT
> I'm thinking maybe Marky is like dbu: Does not read.

I did read about it, that he was at one time a smoker, but apparently that
is a lie because he didn't really quit. The press coverage of that was very
limited.

What I said is the press barely reported it, not that they never reported
it. I would bet that 75% of his supporters did not know that he smoked.
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Nov 2008 17:55 GMT
>> I'm thinking maybe Marky is like dbu: Does not read.
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> What I said is the press barely reported it, not that they never reported
> it. I would bet that 75% of his supporters did not know that he smoked.

GET

A

HOBBY
Mark A - 28 Nov 2008 17:48 GMT
> I thought he'd quit. Did he start up again?

Yes, he said the pressure of the campaign made him fall off the wagon. My
guess is that he never did really quit.

If McCain was a smoker, we would have never heard the end of the complaints
about how that is a terrible role model for young people and was a conflict
of interest with national health care and the tobacco lobby. We would have
heard about it every single day of the campaign.
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Nov 2008 17:51 GMT
>> I thought he'd quit. Did he start up again?
>
> Yes, he said the pressure of the campaign made him fall off the wagon. My
> guess is that he never did really quit.

You said the press hides things really well. How did YOU find out about it?

> If McCain was a smoker, we would have never heard the end of the
> complaints

No we wouldn't. You make a lot predictions based on your angry nature and
your bias.
Cathy F. - 28 Nov 2008 18:15 GMT
>> I thought he'd quit. Did he start up again?
>
> Yes, he said the pressure of the campaign made him fall off the wagon. My
> guess is that he never did really quit.

Your *guess*?  Worth how much? ;-P

Cathy

> If McCain was a smoker, we would have never heard the end of the
> complaints about how that is a terrible role model for young people and
> was a conflict of interest with national health care and the tobacco
> lobby. We would have heard about it every single day of the campaign.
Conscience - 28 Nov 2008 18:28 GMT
>>> I thought he'd quit. Did he start up again?
>>
>> Yes, he said the pressure of the campaign made him fall off the wagon. My
>> guess is that he never did really quit.
>
> Your *guess*?  Worth how much? ;-P

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1073211/Obama-admits-quit-smok
ing--cuts-slack-runs-president.html

Cathy F. - 28 Nov 2008 18:45 GMT
>>>> I thought he'd quit. Did he start up again?
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1073211/Obama-admits-quit-smok
ing--cuts-slack-runs-president.html

An article worth considerably more than someone's guess.

Cathy
Cathy F. - 28 Nov 2008 18:47 GMT
>>>>> I thought he'd quit. Did he start up again?
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> An article worth considerably more than someone's guess.

Hey, wait a sec - Mark A. said that his guess was that Obama never did quit
at all.  This says that he started up again.

Cathy

> Cathy
Conscience - 28 Nov 2008 19:22 GMT
>>>>>> I thought he'd quit. Did he start up again?
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>>>
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1073211/Obama-admits-quit-smok
ing--cuts-slack-runs-president.html

An

>> article worth considerably more than someone's guess.
>
> Hey, wait a sec - Mark A. said that his guess was that Obama never did quit
> at all.  This says that he started up again.

It does?
Cathy F. - 28 Nov 2008 20:11 GMT
>>>>>>> I thought he'd quit. Did he start up again?
>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> It does?

Yes.

Cathy
Conscience - 28 Nov 2008 20:19 GMT
>>>>>>>> I thought he'd quit. Did he start up again?
>>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1073211/Obama-admits-quit-smok
ing--cuts-slack-runs-president.html

An

article

>>>> worth considerably more than someone's guess.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Yes.

Okay, the closest I can find to your claim lies within the following:

"Quitting smoking didn't create 'huge withdrawal symptoms,' the
Illinois senator said, partly because he smoked only seven or eight
cigarettes a day at his peak."

But in context, particularly after reading the opening sentence, I find
nothing in the text that says he "started up again".  Indeed, the
entire article is merely him admitting that he never completely quit.  
Therefore, he couldn't not have "started up again".

I have a couple of friends who "quit smoking every day...between cigarettes".
Mark A - 28 Nov 2008 21:26 GMT
> Okay, the closest I can find to your claim lies within the following:
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> I have a couple of friends who "quit smoking every day...between
> cigarettes".

But you are talking to a cult member about the leader of the cult. No amount
of truth can overcome their belief.
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Nov 2008 21:31 GMT
>> Okay, the closest I can find to your claim lies within the following:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> But you are talking to a cult member about the leader of the cult. No
> amount of truth can overcome their belief.

You kids will never get it into your heads that many of us voted for Obama
not because he was any better than McCain, but because McCain insulted the
nation by choosing a flake as his running mate. Had McCain chosen an actual
person, I would've had a tough time choosing who to vote for.
Conscience - 28 Nov 2008 22:18 GMT
>>> Okay, the closest I can find to your claim lies within the following:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> nation by choosing a flake as his running mate. Had McCain chosen an actual
> person, I would've had a tough time choosing who to vote for.

Kids.  Funny.

I don't give a rat's a.s one way or another if he smokes or he quit.  
Just don't claim the article says what it doesn't.

That.  Is.  All.  And I don't even need to throw in a non sequitur about Biden.
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Nov 2008 22:23 GMT
>>>> Okay, the closest I can find to your claim lies within the following:
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> That.  Is.  All.  And I don't even need to throw in a non sequitur about
> Biden.

Heh. Speaking of cults, you should hear what many evangelists were told to
think about Obama vs McCain. Hilarious!
Conscience - 28 Nov 2008 22:26 GMT
> Heh. Speaking of cults, you should hear what many evangelists were told to
> think about Obama vs McCain. Hilarious!

Equally funny is what voters were told about Obama.  And they obviously
believed it.

Hilarious!!
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Nov 2008 22:35 GMT
>> Heh. Speaking of cults, you should hear what many evangelists were told
>> to
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Hilarious!!

See? Cults on both sides.
Conscience - 28 Nov 2008 22:40 GMT
>>> Heh. Speaking of cults, you should hear what many evangelists were told
>>> to
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> See? Cults on both sides.

Now we're talking semantics versus seminarians.  Your definition of a
cult, I'm certain, is far different than mine.
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Nov 2008 22:43 GMT
>>>> Heh. Speaking of cults, you should hear what many evangelists were told
>>>> to
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Now we're talking semantics versus seminarians.  Your definition of a
> cult, I'm certain, is far different than mine.

From an evangelist acquaintance: It's not appropriate to have anything but a
Christian in the White House.

Nobody's born with such a wacky idea. It's drilled into their heads.
badgolferman - 28 Nov 2008 22:48 GMT
> From an evangelist acquaintance: It's not appropriate to have
> anything but a Christian in the White House.

Well, I guess the streak is finally broken.
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Nov 2008 22:50 GMT
>> From an evangelist acquaintance: It's not appropriate to have
>> anything but a Christian in the White House.
>
> Well, I guess the streak is finally broken.

Would've been broken with McCain, too. He's as much of a Christian as the
stapler on my desk.
Conscience - 28 Nov 2008 23:07 GMT
> From an evangelist acquaintance: It's not appropriate to have anything but a
> Christian in the White House.
>
> Nobody's born with such a wacky idea. It's drilled into their heads.

Yeah, all those pesky Founding Fathers, writers of state constitutions,
and SCOTUS justices were just crazy nuts wanting that kind of nonsense:

First chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Jay, wrote:
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it
is the duty ... of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians
for their rulers." (1816)
William Penn
"Those who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants."
Justice David Brewer said this:
"This is a religious people. This is historically true. From the
discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single
voice making this affirmation ... We find everywhere a clear
recognition of the same truth ... These, and many other matters which
might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass
of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. (1892)
As recently as 1952 Justice William O. Douglas wrote:
"We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being."
Even liberal Supreme Court chief justice, Earl Warren, wrote in 1954:
"I believe no one can read the history of our country without realizing
that the Good Book and the spirit of the Savior have from the beginning
been our guiding geniuses ... Whether we look to the first Charter of
Virginia ... or to the Charter of New England ... or to the Charter of
Massachusetts Bay ... or to the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut ...
the same objective is present ... a Christian land governed by
Christian principles. I believe the entire Bill of Rights came into
being because of the knowledge our forefathers had of the Bible and
their belief in it: freedom of belief, of expression, of assembly, of
petition, the dignity of the individual, the sanctity of the home,
equal justice under law, and the reservation of powers to the people
... I like to believe we are living today in the spirit of the
Christian religion. I like also to believe that as long as we do so, no
great harm can come to our country."
- Delaware, Article 22: "Every person, who shall be chosen a
member of
either house, or appointed to any office or place of
trust shall...make
and subscribe the following declaration, to
wit: 'I, __________, do
profess faith in God the Father, and in
Jesus Christ, His only Son, and
in the Holy Ghost, one God,
blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge
the holy scriptures
of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine
inspiration.'"

- Pennsylvania, Frame of Government, Section 10: "And
each member
[of the legislature] before he takes his seat, shall make
and
subscribe the following declaration, viz: 'I do believe in one
God,
the creator and governour of the universe, the rewarder of
the good and
the punisher of the wicked, and I do acknowldedge
the scriptures of the
Old and new Testament to be given by divine
inspiration.'"

-
Massachusetts, Chapter VI, Article I: "[All persons elected
to State
office or to the Legislature must] make and
subscribe the following
declaration, viz. 'I, __________,
do declare, that I believe the
Christian religion, and have
firm persuasion of its truth.'"

- North
Carolina, Article XXXII: "No person, who shall deny
the being of God,
or the truth of the Protestant religion, or
the divine authority either
of the Old or New Testaments, or
who shall hold religious principles
incompatible with the
freedom and safety of the state, shall be capable
of holding
any office, or place of trust or profit in the
civil
department, within this state."

- Maryland, Article XXXV: "That
no other test or qualification
ought to be required...than such oath of
support and fidelity
to this state...and a declaration of a belief in
the Christian
religion."


- Vermont (1786), Frame of Government, Section 9: "And each
member [of
the legislature], before he takes his seat, shall
make and subscribe
the following declaration, viz: 'I do
believe in one God, the Creator
and Governor of the universe,
the rewarder of the good and punisher of
the wicked. And I do
acknowledge the scriptures of the old and new
testament to be
given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the
[Christian]
religion.' And no further or other religious test shall
ever,
hereafter, be required of any civil officer or magistrate in
this
State."

- Tennesee (1796), Article VIII, Section II: "No person who
denies
the being of God, or a future state of rewards and
punishments,
shall hold any office in the civil department of this
State."

JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Nov 2008 23:11 GMT
>> From an evangelist acquaintance: It's not appropriate to have anything
>> but a
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> their rulers." (1816)
> William Penn

Right. Wouldn't want any of them derned Jews running the country. Or
Buddhists, even if they do conduct their lives as honorably as you do.
Conscience - 28 Nov 2008 23:16 GMT
>>> From an evangelist acquaintance: It's not appropriate to have anything
>>> but a
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> Right. Wouldn't want any of them derned Jews running the country. Or
> Buddhists, even if they do conduct their lives as honorably as you do.

Nice gear switching, but you forgot the clutch.  I hate grinding noises
like that.

You said "Nobody's born with such a wacky idea.  It's drilled into
their heads."

I provided you with numerous examples of great minds in our history
that, according to you, are wacky.
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Nov 2008 23:28 GMT
>>>> From an evangelist acquaintance: It's not appropriate to have anything
>>>> but a
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> I provided you with numerous examples of great minds in our history that,
> according to you, are wacky.

They ARE wacky! (or were)  But, there are still people preaching the same
nonsense to large audiences ready to swallow it all.
Conscience - 28 Nov 2008 23:32 GMT
>>>> First chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Jay, wrote:
>>>> "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> They ARE wacky! (or were)  But, there are still people preaching the same
> nonsense to large audiences ready to swallow it all.

You, sir, have not earned the right to call the Founding Fathers wacky.
Until you can clearly demonstrate that your political acumen, logic,
and knowledge of the human condition is superior to that of any of
those I mentioned, you're just a usenet equivalent of "vaporware".

If you honestly think you have, then hubris has reached a new high.
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Nov 2008 23:37 GMT
>>>>> First chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Jay, wrote:
>>>>> "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
> If you honestly think you have, then hubris has reached a new high.

Then I need your opinion. Do you believe we should never elect Jews or
Buddhists (to name just two)?

If you believe that, please explain why.
Conscience - 28 Nov 2008 23:44 GMT
>>>> I provided you with numerous examples of great minds in our history
>>>> that,
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> If you believe that, please explain why.

No fair switching gears again.  What I believe or don't believe has
absolutely nothing to do with the Founding Fathers.  They didn't
consult me.

So it's them with whom you have to deal in your "wacky" assertion.  Not me.
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Nov 2008 23:58 GMT
>>>>> I provided you with numerous examples of great minds in our history
>>>>> that,
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> So it's them with whom you have to deal in your "wacky" assertion.  Not
> me.

You may recall that my original premise began with an evangelist who is
alive NOW. I don't give a flying f.ck what the founding fathers thought
about this.

"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits
employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national
origin;"

The law is the law. Any other view is treason.
Conscience - 29 Nov 2008 00:27 GMT
>>> Then I need your opinion. Do you believe we should never elect Jews or
>>> Buddhists (to name just two)?
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> alive NOW. I don't give a flying f.ck what the founding fathers thought
> about this.

Your statement was that ANYONE who thinks this could not have been born
with those thoughts.

You were wrong.  The FFs did not have those thoughts drilled into them.

> "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits
> employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national
> origin;"
>
> The law is the law. Any other view is treason.

The existence of this law has absolutely NOTHING to do with your
statement.  You made a claim what you have failed to defend in any way.

You were wrong.
JoeSpareBedroom - 29 Nov 2008 00:29 GMT
>>>> Then I need your opinion. Do you believe we should never elect Jews or
>>>> Buddhists (to name just two)?
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
> You were wrong.

OK. Take the discussion back to the current date.
Conscience - 29 Nov 2008 00:33 GMT
>>>>> Then I need your opinion. Do you believe we should never elect Jews or
>>>>> Buddhists (to name just two)?
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
> OK. Take the discussion back to the current date.

OK...what?
JoeSpareBedroom - 29 Nov 2008 00:45 GMT
>>>>>> Then I need your opinion. Do you believe we should never elect Jews
>>>>>> or
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
>
> OK...what?

What are your thoughts (if any) about things (evangelists) who claim to be
Americans, but have beliefs contrary to the law regarding discrimination
based on religion?
Conscience - 29 Nov 2008 00:47 GMT
>>>> The existence of this law has absolutely NOTHING to do with your
>>>> statement.  You made a claim what you have failed to defend in any way.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Americans, but have beliefs contrary to the law regarding discrimination
> based on religion?

Not acceptable.  OK...what?  Okay that you were wrong?  Let's hear it.

I'll answer your question after that.
JoeSpareBedroom - 29 Nov 2008 00:50 GMT
>>>>> The existence of this law has absolutely NOTHING to do with your
>>>>> statement.  You made a claim what you have failed to defend in any
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> I'll answer your question after that.

No dice.
Conscience - 29 Nov 2008 00:52 GMT
>>>>>> The existence of this law has absolutely NOTHING to do with your
>>>>>> statement.  You made a claim what you have failed to defend in any
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> No dice.

Didn't think so.
Cathy F. - 28 Nov 2008 22:52 GMT
>>> Okay, the closest I can find to your claim lies within the following:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> nation by choosing a flake as his running mate. Had McCain chosen an
> actual person, I would've had a tough time choosing who to vote for.

More to the point for me:  had McCain not changed his stances on a slew of
issues in the last several years...

Cathy
dbu' - 29 Nov 2008 00:42 GMT
> >>> Okay, the closest I can find to your claim lies within the following:
> >>>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> Cathy

........and what would that have meant to you?
Signature


"It's deja vu all over again"
Yogi Berra

Cathy F. - 29 Nov 2008 01:46 GMT
>> >>> Okay, the closest I can find to your claim lies within the following:
>> >>>
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>
> ........and what would that have meant to you?

Well, ummm... (rather than hitting dbu over the head with a sledgehammer)
would've meant a more difficult decision in choosing who to vote for (or
"for whom to vote" for those who don't like dangling prepositions; but Bill
Bryson says they;re okay, which is good enough for me!).

Cathy
Scott  in  Florida - 29 Nov 2008 03:22 GMT
>You kids will never get it into your heads that many of us voted for Obama
>not because he was any better than McCain, but because McCain insulted the
>nation by choosing a flake as his running mate. Had McCain chosen an actual
>person, I would've had a tough time choosing who to vote for.

BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are a f.cking liar.....

Signature


Scott in Florida

JoeSpareBedroom - 29 Nov 2008 03:50 GMT
>>You kids will never get it into your heads that many of us voted for Obama
>>not because he was any better than McCain, but because McCain insulted the
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Sot in Florida

Silly old sot.
Cathy F. - 28 Nov 2008 22:51 GMT
>> Okay, the closest I can find to your claim lies within the following:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> But you are talking to a cult member about the leader of the cult. No
> amount of truth can overcome their belief.

And you know me well... how??

Cathy
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Nov 2008 22:54 GMT
>>> Okay, the closest I can find to your claim lies within the following:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Cathy

You fit his templates. This kind agrees with me, and this kind does not.

Simple. Binary thinking. Not a lot of pesky variables to mess up his day.
dbu' - 29 Nov 2008 00:44 GMT
> >>> Okay, the closest I can find to your claim lies within the following:
> >>>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> Simple. Binary thinking. Not a lot of pesky variables to mess up his day.

What is a "templates" and how does it fit into this discussion?

What is "binary thinking"?  Please explain, in detail.
Signature


"It's deja vu all over again"
Yogi Berra

Conscience - 29 Nov 2008 00:46 GMT
> What is "binary thinking"?  Please explain, in detail.

There are only 10 kinds of people that understand binary.  Those that
do, and those that don't.
dbu' - 29 Nov 2008 01:16 GMT
> > What is "binary thinking"?  Please explain, in detail.
>
> There are only 10 kinds of people that understand binary.  Those that
> do, and those that don't.

I thought what's-his face could tell me, ah, in his own words.
Signature


"It's deja vu all over again"
Yogi Berra

Conscience - 29 Nov 2008 01:22 GMT
>>> What is "binary thinking"?  Please explain, in detail.
>>
>> There are only 10 kinds of people that understand binary.  Those that
>> do, and those that don't.
>
> I thought what's-his face could tell me, ah, in his own words.

Ah...okay.
JoeSpareBedroom - 29 Nov 2008 00:51 GMT
>> >>> Okay, the closest I can find to your claim lies within the following:
>> >>>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
> What is "binary thinking"?  Please explain, in detail.

You can find that via google.
Cathy F. - 29 Nov 2008 01:54 GMT
>>>>>>>>> I thought he'd quit. Did he start up again?
>>>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> senator said, partly because he smoked only seven or eight cigarettes a
> day at his peak."

Yes, that's the sentence. It comes as close to saying "I quit smoking" as
one can without saying, word-for-word, "I quit smoking."

Cathy

> But in context, particularly after reading the opening sentence, I find
> nothing in the text that says he "started up again".  Indeed, the entire
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> I have a couple of friends who "quit smoking every day...between
> cigarettes".
Conscience - 29 Nov 2008 03:34 GMT
>> Okay, the closest I can find to your claim lies within the following:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Yes, that's the sentence. It comes as close to saying "I quit smoking" as
> one can without saying, word-for-word, "I quit smoking."

If that interpretation satisfies you, go for it.
Mark A - 28 Nov 2008 21:24 GMT
> Hey, wait a sec - Mark A. said that his guess was that Obama never did
> quit at all.  This says that he started up again.
>
> Cathy

No, it doesn't say that. And even if Obama claimed he quit, he is lying,
unless his definition of quitting is just cutting back to one or two per
day.
Conscience - 28 Nov 2008 19:19 GMT
>>>>> I thought he'd quit. Did he start up again?
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1073211/Obama-admits-quit-smok
ing--cuts-slack-runs-president.html

An

> article worth considerably more than someone's guess.

True, assuming someone's guess wasn't based upon reading a similar article.
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Nov 2008 19:20 GMT
>>>>>> I thought he'd quit. Did he start up again?
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> True, assuming someone's guess wasn't based upon reading a similar
> article.

Mark never guesses. He makes firm predictions based apparently on tossing a
handful of elbow macaroni on the table and seeing which way most of them
face.
Mark A - 28 Nov 2008 21:34 GMT
> Mark never guesses. He makes firm predictions based apparently on tossing
> a handful of elbow macaroni on the table and seeing which way most of them
> face.

It was a guess, but it was a highly educated guess from an intelligent
person. That is something you have know knowledge of.
Mark A - 28 Nov 2008 21:33 GMT
> True, assuming someone's guess wasn't based upon reading a similar
> article.

That is exactly correct. In fact, the media claimed he quit, but Obama never
did say that exactly, so based on my experience with the media, my educated
guess is that the press (as usual) tried to make him better than he was.

Just like when Obama's aunt was found to be in the country illegally for a
long time, his "campaign" was quoted by the media saying Obama didn't now
anything about that. Obama did not say he knew nothing about it because the
media didn't ask him (or he didn't answer). That way, if it was later proven
that Obama did know about it, then he can just say his campaign worker
misspoke and he never said anything to the media about it one way or the
other.
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Nov 2008 21:57 GMT
>> True, assuming someone's guess wasn't based upon reading a similar
>> article.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> worker misspoke and he never said anything to the media about it one way
> or the other.

GET

A

HOBBY
Mark A - 28 Nov 2008 22:11 GMT
> GET
>
> A
>
> HOBBY

I told you before, I have a hobby. My hobby is exposing your ridiculous
posts.
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Nov 2008 22:15 GMT
>> GET
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> I told you before, I have a hobby. My hobby is exposing your ridiculous
> posts.

That's not a hobby. That's an obsession, and it's not healthy. Furthermore,
you're not very good at it.
Conscience - 28 Nov 2008 22:19 GMT
>>> GET
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> That's not a hobby. That's an obsession, and it's not healthy. Furthermore,
> you're not very good at it.

He apparently doesn't need to be.
Mark A - 28 Nov 2008 21:23 GMT
> An article worth considerably more than someone's guess.
>
> Cathy

It wasn't a wild guess. The press said he quit, not Obama himself.

Anyway, my guess is always worth more than yours.
Cathy F. - 28 Nov 2008 22:50 GMT
>> An article worth considerably more than someone's guess.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Anyway, my guess is always worth more than yours.

Yeah, right...  Don't ask for a dose of ego for your next b'day; seems to be
OTT already.

Cathy
Scott  in  Florida - 29 Nov 2008 03:15 GMT
>>>> I thought he'd quit. Did he start up again?
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1073211/Obama-admits-quit-smok
ing--cuts-slack-runs-president.html

Please don't confuse the Barry voters like Cathy and Joey with
facts.....

They didn't use facts to vote for Prez....

The used....

FEEEEEEEEEELINGSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Signature


Scott in Florida

Scott  in  Florida - 29 Nov 2008 03:09 GMT
>> Did you know that Obama is a smoker?
>
> I thought he'd quit. Did he start up again?

You thought he was telling the truth to you and you voted for him....

ROFL

Signature


Scott in Florida

Hachiroku ハチロク - 27 Nov 2008 15:08 GMT
>> > LOL
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> many.  I hope those who protested Bush and the Iraq problem will protest
> just as hard against obama now.

I heard today they are looking at another three years.
Scott  in  Florida - 27 Nov 2008 15:18 GMT
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 10:08:13 -0500, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@e86.GTS>
wrote:

>>> > LOL
>>> >
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
>I heard today they are looking at another three years.

What was Barry's promise?

ROFLMAO

What an empty suit the Dims elected......

Signature


Scott in Florida

Scott  in  Florida - 27 Nov 2008 15:16 GMT
>> > LOL
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>many.  I hope those who protested Bush and the Iraq problem will protest
>just as hard against obama now.

One competent person among a group of idiots.

Wouldn't you just LOVE to be Gates?

Signature


Scott in Florida

Jeff - 28 Nov 2008 02:25 GMT
> In article <xn0fy54sad66tll...@news.albasani.net>,
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> many.  I hope those who protested Bush and the Iraq problem will protest
> just as hard against obama now.

Gates came up with a plan to get us out of Iraq by a certain date.

IMHO, this was a good move by Obama. He can concentrate on other
important things like the economy, which Bush has ruined.

Jeff

> --
>
> "It's deja vu all over again"
> Yogi Berra
Scott  in  Florida - 29 Nov 2008 13:33 GMT
>Obama. He can concentrate on other
>important things like the economy, which Bush has ruined.

How did Bush ruin the economy....and how will Barry fix it?

Signature


Scott in Florida

Jeff - 27 Nov 2008 03:54 GMT
> LOL
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> "It's deja vu all over again"
> Yogi Berra

Actually, if you look more carefully and use your brain, you will see
that he is carefully selecting which former Clinton advisers to hire,
while not selecting others. In this time of great economic difficulty
(rather than McCain's 'the fundamentals of the economy are fine'), it
makes sense to put well-qualified people who have experience with
dealing with crises in place.

IMHO, he is doing a good job.

jeff
Scott  in  Florida - 27 Nov 2008 04:05 GMT
>> LOL
>>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
>jeff

ROFLMAO

In YOUR opinion....

Signature


Scott in Florida

Jeff - 28 Nov 2008 02:23 GMT
> >> LOL
>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> In YOUR opinion....

Gee, you think? Of course you don't think.

IMHO means either "In My Humble Opinion" or "In My Honest Opinion."
Obviously, it is *MY* opinion.

When you get a clue, please let us know. Also, you might want to let
us know where you bought it. Some of my students could use one.

Jeff

> --
>
>  Scott in Florida
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Nov 2008 06:30 GMT
>> >> LOL
>>
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
>
> Jeff

Sot can't obtain clues. They don't mix well with his seroquel.
Scott  in  Florida - 29 Nov 2008 13:34 GMT
>> >> LOL
>>
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>
>Jeff

You a teacher?

ROFLMAO

Signature


Scott in Florida

CharlesTheCurmudgeon - 29 Nov 2008 15:32 GMT
>>> >> LOL
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
>
> ROFLMAO

Apparently.  Only LIEberals are allowed to teach anymore, that's why my
sister-in-law's generation is so messed up (She turns 23 on Sunday. My
brother, her husband is 44.  Much as most of the people in this forum don't
want me to reproduce, they did.  And the Mother's Curse is working!)

Sir Charles the Curmudgeon
Jeff - 30 Nov 2008 16:57 GMT
> "Scott in Florida" <Mov...@outa.here> wrote in messagenews:n6h2j4pch61j7vc6rttsohqb4g0r6t8ice@4ax.com...
>
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
>
> Apparently.  Only LIEberals are allowed to teach anymore,

Really? Evidence please. BTW, they are called "liberals." Your name-
calling as much to discredit your argument as the facts.

Jeff

> that's why my
> sister-in-law's generation is so messed up (She turns 23 on Sunday. My
> brother, her husband is 44.  Much as most of the people in this forum don't
> want me to reproduce, they did.  And the Mother's Curse is working!)
>
> Sir Charles the Curmudgeon
Truckdude - 27 Nov 2008 20:51 GMT
>> LOL
>>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> jeff

Don't even worry about it.  Obama is not even in office yet.  The little old
ladies of the ng have to whine about something.   lol
Conscience - 27 Nov 2008 21:33 GMT
> Don't even worry about it.  Obama is not even in office yet.  The little old
> ladies of the ng have to whine about something.   lol

LOL, is right.  Nice preemptive spin.

I'm so looking forward to the justification of The Big O's conduct in
the near future.

Time to just sit back and wait.
Scott  in  Florida - 29 Nov 2008 13:35 GMT
>> Don't even worry about it.  Obama is not even in office yet.  The little old
>> ladies of the ng have to whine about something.   lol
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>Time to just sit back and wait.

Look what we get when the parties put up SENATORS for prez...

Gawd what losers.

Signature


Scott in Florida

larry moe 'n curly - 27 Nov 2008 10:27 GMT
> LOL
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Washington insiders and former Clinton officials yesterday after a
> campaign in which he promised change. "

A change from corruption and incompetence.

Why were you too stupid to vote for Obama?  Don't lie when answering.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 27 Nov 2008 15:07 GMT
>> LOL
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Why were you too stupid to vote for Obama?  Don't lie when answering.

Oh, yeah! All of Clinton's people were Top Notch!!! HAHAHAHA!
JoeSpareBedroom - 27 Nov 2008 15:16 GMT
>>> LOL
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Oh, yeah! All of Clinton's people were Top Notch!!! HAHAHAHA!

"Browny,you're doin' a great job!"

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
Scott  in  Florida - 27 Nov 2008 15:49 GMT
>>>> LOL
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
>HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

...........and Brownie is more competent than the whole lot of Barry's
suspects...

ROFLMAO

Signature


Scott in Florida

Scott  in  Florida - 27 Nov 2008 15:20 GMT
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 10:07:36 -0500, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@e86.GTS>
wrote:

>>> LOL
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
>Oh, yeah! All of Clinton's people were Top Notch!!! HAHAHAHA!

ROFLMAO

Why not get some of the people that Billy Bob Blow Job Klintoon
pardoned?

Old Home Week.....

Signature


Scott in Florida

Jeff - 28 Nov 2008 02:26 GMT
> >> LOL
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Oh, yeah! All of Clinton's people were Top Notch!!! HAHAHAHA!

Is he hiring *all* of Clinton's people or just some?

Jeff
Hachiroku ハチロク - 28 Nov 2008 03:55 GMT
>> >> LOL
>>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> Jeff

Just enough to make a mess...
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Nov 2008 06:31 GMT
>> On Nov 27, 10:07 am, Hachiroku ???? <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> Just enough to make a mess...

Trick question: How many hires are too many? You will fall for this question
even though you were warned about it.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 28 Nov 2008 13:21 GMT
>>> Is he hiring *all* of Clinton's people or just some?
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Trick question: How many hires are too many? You will fall for this question
> even though you were warned about it.

I'll answer when he's done making his picks...
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Nov 2008 14:10 GMT
>>>> Is he hiring *all* of Clinton's people or just some?
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> I'll answer when he's done making his picks...

You're already suggesting that he's picked too many bad ones, so somewhere
between zero and TODAY, there's a number you're thinking of.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 28 Nov 2008 16:36 GMT
>>>>> Is he hiring *all* of Clinton's people or just some?
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> You're already suggesting that he's picked too many bad ones, so somewhere
> between zero and TODAY, there's a number you're thinking of.

I don't want another Clinton administration. We already had that, and they
facilitated the move of jobs offshore.
Mike Hunter - 28 Nov 2008 19:03 GMT
Monica is coming back, as well.   When she heard Nobama wanted he back her
Jaw dropped.

> On Nov 27, 10:07 am, Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Jeff
Scott  in  Florida - 27 Nov 2008 15:19 GMT
>> LOL
>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>A change from corruption and incompetence.

With the idiots he is choosing?

ROFLMAO

>Why were you too stupid to vote for Obama?  Don't lie when answering.

The question *is*   'How could ANYONE be so STUPID to vote FOR Barry'

Signature


Scott in Florida

Hachiroku ハチロク - 27 Nov 2008 16:47 GMT
> Why were you too stupid to vote for Obama?  Don't lie when answering.

Because I *KNEW* we were going to get another Carter/Clinton
administration. It was fairly obvious that is was going to be the same old.
Change indeed.

Why were YOU too stupid to vote for McCain? The man has a career long
track record of going against his own party and crossing the aisle.
Mike Hunter - 28 Nov 2008 19:06 GMT
Crossing the aisle?   I did not know McCain was gay

> Why were YOU too stupid to vote for McCain? The man has a career long
> track record of going against his own party and crossing the aisle.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 28 Nov 2008 19:41 GMT
> Crossing the aisle?   I did not know McCain was gay

Must have been retarded for siding with Democrats...

>> Why were YOU too stupid to vote for McCain? The man has a career long
>> track record of going against his own party and crossing the aisle.
Mike Hunter - 28 Nov 2008 19:49 GMT
Apparently that one flew over you head  ;)

>> Crossing the aisle?   I did not know McCain was gay
>
> Must have been retarded for siding with Democrats...
>
>>> Why were YOU too stupid to vote for McCain? The man has a career long
>>> track record of going against his own party and crossing the aisle.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 28 Nov 2008 20:02 GMT
> Apparently that one flew over you head  ;)

No, I got it!  ;P

>>> Crossing the aisle?   I did not know McCain was gay
>>
>> Must have been retarded for siding with Democrats...
>>
>>>> Why were YOU too stupid to vote for McCain? The man has a career long
>>>> track record of going against his own party and crossing the aisle.
Jeff - 28 Nov 2008 23:51 GMT
> Crossing the aisle?   I did not know McCain was gay
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> > Why were YOU too stupid to vote for McCain? The man has a career long
> > track record of going against his own party and crossing the aisle.

What does crossing the aisle do with being gay?

You don't make sense.
JoeSpareBedroom - 27 Nov 2008 14:55 GMT
> LOL
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Washington insiders and former Clinton officials yesterday after a
> campaign in which he promised change. "

You wanted him to hire people with no experience, like Browneye who helped
during Katrina.
Scott  in  Florida - 27 Nov 2008 15:21 GMT
>> LOL
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>You wanted him to hire people with no experience, like Browneye who helped
>during Katrina.

Brownie is more competent than the whole gang Barry has chosen so
far....

Gates is the one exception....

Signature


Scott in Florida

Jeff - 28 Nov 2008 02:28 GMT
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 09:55:51 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
>  Scott in Florida

Why don't you tell us why a few of the people Obama hired are
incompetent. Give us some things that they did that were incompetent.
Considering that you claim "the whole gang" except Gates  is
incompetent, it shouldn't be hard for you to support your claim.

Jeff
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Nov 2008 06:34 GMT
>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 09:55:51 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
> Jeff

A couple of days back, he even thought Gates was inferior. Naturally, Sot
never backed up his claim when asked why he disliked Gates.

I suspect he dislikes Gates because he's not a comedian like Rumsfeld tried
to be: "Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war."
(Rumsfeld)
Scott  in  Florida - 29 Nov 2008 13:37 GMT
>Why don't you tell us why a few of the people Obama hired are
>incompetent.

If you need to ask........

Signature


Scott in Florida

JoeSpareBedroom - 29 Nov 2008 14:12 GMT
>>Why don't you tell us why a few of the people Obama hired are
>>incompetent.
>
> If you need to ask........
>
> Scott in Florida

We NEED to ask because nobody in this newsgroup can seem to explain it like
an adult. That includes you, you old pussy.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.