Tom Tancredo
in [Golf]
|
From: BAR on 10 Feb 2010 06:39 In article <4b722885$0$30937$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:59:47 -0500, BAR wrote: > > In article <4b71f275$0$4941$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > >> On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 23:09:32 -0800, dene wrote: > >>> <bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message > >>> news:a2p1n551rk6l1347r88pr3qlrmrk7cbpsn(a)4ax.com... > >>>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 03:46:50 GMT, assimilate(a)borg.org wrote: > >>>>> On 8-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>> Jury is still out on Palin. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In what respect, Bill? > >>>>> > >>>>> she is still active and could serve in public office again. > >>>> > >>>> If the GOP has any possibility of winning in '12 it sure won't be > >>>> with her on the ticket. > >>> > >>> Agree....for now, but look how many dismissed Ronald Reagan as a B > >>> movie star. Somehow...he turned out ok. She could evolve into a > >>> serious contender but as it stands now, she has zippo chance of > >>> becoming our next President in 2012. > >> > >> That is very hard to imagine. Palin is a dull normal, unfit for high > >> office even as a Republican. I just can't see her fooling enough > >> voters to win a national election. > > > > Whom did you vote for in November of 2008 for POTUS? > > I win. No, you have an opinion and your opinion has no weight when push comes to shove.
From: William Clark on 10 Feb 2010 06:57 In article <4b72976f$0$12444$bbae4d71(a)news.suddenlink.net>, "Moderate" <sparky@_engineer_.com> wrote: > "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:b676f2ea-2c5e-40da-b895-7ed9c6ae2443(a)g27g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 9, 3:45 pm, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > news:e34e35e6-da6b-43e1-84a2-4f08e184fe62(a)v36g2000vbs.googlegroups.com... > > On Feb 8, 10:42 pm, assimil...(a)borg.org wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 8-Feb-2010, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > You don't know that. Neither do the Tea Partiers and neither do I. If > > > > Obama hadn't done the things he did to rescue the economy and end the > > > > recesssion (which has ended) we could be in a severe depression now. > > > > Nobody on the right seems to want to consider that. > > > > > As usual you show a less than stellar grasp on basic economics. Nothing > > > that > > > was done, with the exception of easing the liquidity problems of late > > > 09-early10 has done anything to keep us out of a depression. And much of > > > what was done was a wash at best. The single worst aspect of all this > > > "action" is that it has made businesses gun shy. They don't want to > > > invest > > > or hire when the loonies in DC could change the rules again in > > > midstream. > > > > > -- > > > bill-o > > > > So you're certain beyond any doubt that government intervention in the > > economy has had nothing to do with the growth in GDP in Q3 and Q4 of > > 2009 or with the drop in unemployment in January 2010? > > ***************************************************** > > > > I see you ignored my reply and now you want to move the goal posts. Tsk > > Tsk > > I didn't see your reply and I wasn't talking to you, anyway. > ******************************************** > > ... but you did move the goal posts. Gottcha. Did you have that punch line written on the palm of your hand?
From: William Clark on 10 Feb 2010 06:58 In article <9264n5l6besm20bkqla1b1fgmeqcglhgm9(a)4ax.com>, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:02:37 -0600, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: > > >You know Jack, I might be willing to discuss this with Mike, or > >Ketchum, or another conservative, but you, and a couple of others here > >are so inane with the ultra-right messages that I won't waste my time. > >Of all the posts that you've delivered here for instance the one about > >Palin possibly being elected president renders you certifiable insane. > > > >BK > > Right now, the polls show that she's the leading contender for the > Republican nomination. I'd gladly vote for her over Obama. Hand prompter and all. You're nuts.
From: William Clark on 10 Feb 2010 06:59 In article <4b722746$0$30937$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:46:19 -0600, bknight wrote: > > On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:39:17 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> > > wrote: > >>On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:02:37 -0600, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: > >> > >>>You know Jack, I might be willing to discuss this with Mike, or > >>>Ketchum, or another conservative, but you, and a couple of others > >>>here are so inane with the ultra-right messages that I won't waste my > >>>time. Of all the posts that you've delivered here for instance the > >>>one about Palin possibly being elected president renders you > >>>certifiable insane. > >> > >>Right now, the polls show that she's the leading contender for the > >>Republican nomination. I'd gladly vote for her over Obama. > > > > That figures. You have no common sense. > > I actually want Palin to get the Republican nomination. However, 2012 is > a long way away and there isn't much chance that she'd be able to fool > the true believers long enough to make it happen. It's too bad, because > she would have zero chance of winning the election. Fact is the TEA party convention drew far fewer people than anticipated, and even with Fox News cheerleading it for all it was worth, it was pretty much a bust for anyone other than the loony right rednecks.
From: William Clark on 10 Feb 2010 07:00
In article <67a4n5d10mqh038e6i2fco1jf511hkoguo(a)4ax.com>, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: > On 10 Feb 2010 03:25:58 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> > wrote: > > >On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:46:19 -0600, bknight wrote: > >> On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:39:17 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> > >> wrote: > >>>On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:02:37 -0600, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: > >>> > >>>>You know Jack, I might be willing to discuss this with Mike, or > >>>>Ketchum, or another conservative, but you, and a couple of others > >>>>here are so inane with the ultra-right messages that I won't waste my > >>>>time. Of all the posts that you've delivered here for instance the > >>>>one about Palin possibly being elected president renders you > >>>>certifiable insane. > >>> > >>>Right now, the polls show that she's the leading contender for the > >>>Republican nomination. I'd gladly vote for her over Obama. > >> > >> That figures. You have no common sense. > > > >I actually want Palin to get the Republican nomination. However, 2012 is > >a long way away and there isn't much chance that she'd be able to fool > >the true believers long enough to make it happen. It's too bad, because > >she would have zero chance of winning the election. > > I'm liking Scott Brown more and more. He's a thousand times more > qualified than Palin. If Obama isn't able to get things going better > I think he's the GOP's best shot. I'd vote for him. > > BK As long as he and his wife promise to keep their clothes on in public. Oh, and stop their daughter from getting in front of a microphone. |