Support Sharon Angle
in [Golf]
|
From: William Clark on 22 Jul 2010 21:21 In article <2j5h46hv28unitor6bdvafuee52lsrj0mn(a)4ax.com>, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:52:58 -0400, William Clark > <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote: > > >In article <alangbaker-34B705.09242522072010(a)news.shawcable.com>, > > >"GoP voter fraud" gives you 216,000 hits, and "Republican voter fraud" > >returns 2,120,000. So the Republicans are almost twenty times as bad as > >the Democrats. Oh, dear :-) > > The GOP is the Republican party Bill. > > BK Yes, but they give you different responses in Google. And I am comparing the number of hits with those for "Ohio voter fraud" that Mike was so enamoured with. Which just goes to show how smart Google is (and those that depend on it for "opinions").
From: William Clark on 22 Jul 2010 21:22 In article <8arh3eFpobU2(a)mid.individual.net>, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message > news:clark-60A856.13525822072010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > In article <alangbaker-34B705.09242522072010(a)news.shawcable.com>, > > Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote: > > > >> In article <8ar4bpFansU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > >> "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> > >> > "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message > >> > news:wclark2-504ECB.20542221072010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > >> > > In article <alangbaker-2DA1B4.17464721072010(a)news.shawcable.com>, > >> > > Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> In article <8aot2iFtihU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > >> > >> "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in > >> > >> > message > >> > >> > news:clark-C91EB8.14105621072010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > >> > >> > > In article <8aojjaF2atU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > >> > >> > > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >> "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in > >> > >> > >> message > >> > >> > >> news:wclark2-37FA25.21090720072010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.ed > >> > >> > >> u.. > >> > >> > >> . > >> > >> > >> > In article <MPG.26b002fd77ab853398a140(a)news.giganews.com>, > >> > >> > >> > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> >> In article > >> > >> > >> >> <wclark2-501CEE.17564620072010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > >> > >> > >> >> state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > >> > >> > >> >> > > > What in God's name are you talking about? > >> > >> > >> >> > > > "Embarrassing" > >> > >> > >> >> > > > has > >> > >> > >> >> > > > nothing to > >> > >> > >> >> > > > do with it - he's a poor candidate. Period. Something > >> > >> > >> >> > > > that > >> > >> > >> >> > > > you > >> > >> > >> >> > > > could > >> > >> > >> >> > > > never be man enough to admit about Eskimo Barbie, but > >> > >> > >> >> > > > that's > >> > >> > >> >> > > > the > >> > >> > >> >> > > > difference between you wingnuts and those with an IQ. > >> > >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> > >> >> > > He is the choice of the Democrats in South Carolina to > >> > >> > >> >> > > be > >> > >> > >> >> > > their > >> > >> > >> >> > > candidate for Senator in the general election. Good or > >> > >> > >> >> > > poor > >> > >> > >> >> > > candidate > >> > >> > >> >> > > won't be determined until after the election. > >> > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> > >> >> > Yes, and Republicans in the same state elected Mark > >> > >> > >> >> > Sanford > >> > >> > >> >> > for > >> > >> > >> >> > their > >> > >> > >> >> > Governor. Do you see a pattern here between South > >> > >> > >> >> > Carolinians > >> > >> > >> >> > and > >> > >> > >> >> > their > >> > >> > >> >> > ability to handle elections like adults? > >> > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> Now you are disparaging the entire state of South Carolina. > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > Well, it does seem that they could do with adult supervision > >> > >> > >> > when > >> > >> > >> > it > >> > >> > >> > comes to their politics. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Same could be said about the voter fraud morons in Ohio. > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > Cite, please? > >> > >> > > >> > >> > We've been over this before Billy boy. Do your own research for > >> > >> > once > >> > >> > in > >> > >> > your > >> > >> > life. > >> > >> > >> > >> Run away, Mike! > >> > > > >> > > Indeed - he has no cite; it's just empty blather. > >> > > > >> > > Caught with the old trousers down, I'm afraid, Mikey! > >> > > >> > http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2007/11/05/Probation-given-in-recount-rigging > >> > -ca > >> > se > >> > /UPI-76281194312570/ > >> > > >> > Googling Ohio voter fraud only returns 127,000 hits. > >> > >> Googling "Bush lied" returns 3,600,000 hits. What does that prove? > > > > "GoP voter fraud" gives you 216,000 hits, and "Republican voter fraud" > > returns 2,120,000. So the Republicans are almost twenty times as bad as > > the Democrats. Oh, dear :-) > > No, it only shows the moonbats like to type. Good, so you admit your original claim and "cite" was BS. Now try giving an actual cite, please.
From: William Clark on 22 Jul 2010 21:22 In article <alangbaker-4090E4.11375022072010(a)news.shawcable.com>, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote: > In article <8arh3eFpobU2(a)mid.individual.net>, > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message > > news:clark-60A856.13525822072010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > > In article <alangbaker-34B705.09242522072010(a)news.shawcable.com>, > > > Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote: > > > > > >> In article <8ar4bpFansU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > > >> "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> > "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message > > >> > news:wclark2-504ECB.20542221072010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > >> > > In article <alangbaker-2DA1B4.17464721072010(a)news.shawcable.com>, > > >> > > Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > >> In article <8aot2iFtihU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > > >> > >> "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in > > >> > >> > message > > >> > >> > news:clark-C91EB8.14105621072010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu.. > > >> > >> > . > > >> > >> > > In article <8aojjaF2atU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > > >> > >> > > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in > > >> > >> > >> message > > >> > >> > >> news:wclark2-37FA25.21090720072010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state. > > >> > >> > >> ed > > >> > >> > >> u.. > > >> > >> > >> . > > >> > >> > >> > In article <MPG.26b002fd77ab853398a140(a)news.giganews.com>, > > >> > >> > >> > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >> >> In article > > >> > >> > >> >> <wclark2-501CEE.17564620072010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > > >> > >> > >> >> state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > >> > >> > >> >> > > > What in God's name are you talking about? > > >> > >> > >> >> > > > "Embarrassing" > > >> > >> > >> >> > > > has > > >> > >> > >> >> > > > nothing to > > >> > >> > >> >> > > > do with it - he's a poor candidate. Period. Something > > >> > >> > >> >> > > > that > > >> > >> > >> >> > > > you > > >> > >> > >> >> > > > could > > >> > >> > >> >> > > > never be man enough to admit about Eskimo Barbie, but > > >> > >> > >> >> > > > that's > > >> > >> > >> >> > > > the > > >> > >> > >> >> > > > difference between you wingnuts and those with an IQ. > > >> > >> > >> >> > > > > >> > >> > >> >> > > He is the choice of the Democrats in South Carolina to > > >> > >> > >> >> > > be > > >> > >> > >> >> > > their > > >> > >> > >> >> > > candidate for Senator in the general election. Good or > > >> > >> > >> >> > > poor > > >> > >> > >> >> > > candidate > > >> > >> > >> >> > > won't be determined until after the election. > > >> > >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> > >> >> > Yes, and Republicans in the same state elected Mark > > >> > >> > >> >> > Sanford > > >> > >> > >> >> > for > > >> > >> > >> >> > their > > >> > >> > >> >> > Governor. Do you see a pattern here between South > > >> > >> > >> >> > Carolinians > > >> > >> > >> >> > and > > >> > >> > >> >> > their > > >> > >> > >> >> > ability to handle elections like adults? > > >> > >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> > >> >> Now you are disparaging the entire state of South Carolina. > > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > Well, it does seem that they could do with adult supervision > > >> > >> > >> > when > > >> > >> > >> > it > > >> > >> > >> > comes to their politics. > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> Same could be said about the voter fraud morons in Ohio. > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Cite, please? > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > We've been over this before Billy boy. Do your own research for > > >> > >> > once > > >> > >> > in > > >> > >> > your > > >> > >> > life. > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Run away, Mike! > > >> > > > > >> > > Indeed - he has no cite; it's just empty blather. > > >> > > > > >> > > Caught with the old trousers down, I'm afraid, Mikey! > > >> > > > >> > http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2007/11/05/Probation-given-in-recount-riggi > > >> > ng > > >> > -ca > > >> > se > > >> > /UPI-76281194312570/ > > >> > > > >> > Googling Ohio voter fraud only returns 127,000 hits. > > >> > > >> Googling "Bush lied" returns 3,600,000 hits. What does that prove? > > > > > > "GoP voter fraud" gives you 216,000 hits, and "Republican voter fraud" > > > returns 2,120,000. So the Republicans are almost twenty times as bad as > > > the Democrats. Oh, dear :-) > > > > No, it only shows the moonbats like to type. > > But not when you Google, is that it? Bingo!
From: William Clark on 22 Jul 2010 21:25 In article <8arstsF33vU1(a)mid.individual.net>, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > <bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message > news:6teh46lub9c8d66b00erj2obavr1vc1qsp(a)4ax.com... > > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:12:40 -0500, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> > > wrote: > > > >> > >><bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message > >>news:k46h46tkt4v0j0c7mfi72hjuqnv4idf4as(a)4ax.com... > >>> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:30:09 -0700 (PDT), "John B." > >>> <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>>On Jul 22, 1:02 pm, "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...(a)aol.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>>> Well, my opinion is that removing Saddam was a good thing for the > >>>>> region. > >>>>> The timing is debatable but I believe we would have had to do it > >>>>> eventually > >>>>> anyway. I think Saddam did indeed have WMDs, but they were moved > >>>>> elsewhere > >>>>> before the invasion. > >>>> > >>>>A good thing for the region? So, we went to war there to make life > >>>>better for Iran and Syria? Where do you suppose the WMD was moved to? > >>> > >>> A better question is where was our CIA spy planes when they were > >>> moving all of this equipment? There were no WMDS. > >>> > >>> BK > >> > >>The truck convoys were photographed by satellite in 2002. > >> > > There were reports of such to Syria, but never confirmed by our > > intelligence sources. There were no WMDS. > > > > BK > > They were confirmed. Cite, please. And this time not Google hits, please. There were NO WMDs.
From: Alan Baker on 22 Jul 2010 23:01
On Jul 22, 12:20 pm, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > news:alangbaker-0E2AA9.09351722072010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > > > > Armitage wasn't a Clinton appointee. > > > He served as an aide to Senator Bob Dole, a foreign policy advisor to > > Ronald Reagan, was promoted to Deputy Assistant of Defence for Asia and > > then further promoted to Assistant Secretary of Defence for > > International Security Policy by his administration. > > > In 1993 -- when Clinton was president, he entered the private sector... > > > ...where he remained until George W. Bush's presidency. > > > So not only is your smoke screen rather obvious, it's just plain wrong. > > Armitage served in the Clinton State Department until May 1993. So you acknowledge he wasn't a Clinton appointee. He was there when Clinton arrive and didn't lose his job immediately. He worked for Republicans, got his government job and promotions from Republicans, was re-hired by Republicans. In what way does that make him a "Clinton appointee" when he outed Valerie Plame? Were you lying our just ignorant when you made your earlier claim? |