Tom Tancredo
in [Golf]
|
From: BAR on 10 Feb 2010 07:03 In article <km44n5177qlfdklhs4tgpg0ocujrqgmrc5(a)4ax.com>, bknight(a)conramp.net says... > > On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:31:32 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> > wrote: > > >On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 18:54:29 -0600, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: > > > > >>You know this for sure, right? Just more ultra-right babbling. > >> > >>BK > > > >The Senate passed a health care bill which taxed all high end health > >care programs to help pay for the expansion of Medicaid and the > >subsidies for lower income people to buy insurance. > > > >In the secret meetings to reconcile the bill with the House version, > >the unions were given an exemption from the tax. Do you think that > >Obama came up with that idea himself? > > > 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. Jack, Bobby is just upset that his apple cart has been turned over by the light of truth and sunshine. The current occupant of the White House is in the pocket of the Unions and everyone can see it. The Democrats silently cheer and and the Republicans publicly denounce it and the Independents are finding out that that all of Obama's talk about transparency is just that talk. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/us/politics/31visitor.html Just keep challenging Bobby he will get so upset that he may explode.
From: BAR on 10 Feb 2010 07:07 In article <4b722746$0$30937$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > 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. Why? Are you going to be registered to vote by ACORN? Are you going to help someone meet their daily quota numerous times?
From: BAR on 10 Feb 2010 07:13 In article <wclark2-D9946E.06591310022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > 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. The Tea Party is a movement and not a political party. All attempts to organize the movement are doomed to failure. The Tea Party is a true voice of the people that does not need to be nor should it be interpreted by a steering committee, executive committee or other such head.
From: BAR on 10 Feb 2010 07:14 In article <wclark2-544D01.07001110022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > 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. The true character of Billy Clark shows through again.
From: bknight on 10 Feb 2010 07:27
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 07:03:02 -0500, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: >In article <km44n5177qlfdklhs4tgpg0ocujrqgmrc5(a)4ax.com>, >bknight(a)conramp.net says... >> >> On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:31:32 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> >> wrote: >> >> >On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 18:54:29 -0600, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: >> > >> >> >>You know this for sure, right? Just more ultra-right babbling. >> >> >> >>BK >> > >> >The Senate passed a health care bill which taxed all high end health >> >care programs to help pay for the expansion of Medicaid and the >> >subsidies for lower income people to buy insurance. >> > >> >In the secret meetings to reconcile the bill with the House version, >> >the unions were given an exemption from the tax. Do you think that >> >Obama came up with that idea himself? >> >> >> 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. > >Jack, Bobby is just upset that his apple cart has been turned over by >the light of truth and sunshine. The current occupant of the White House >is in the pocket of the Unions and everyone can see it. The Democrats >silently cheer and and the Republicans publicly denounce it and the >Independents are finding out that that all of Obama's talk about >transparency is just that talk. > >http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/us/politics/31visitor.html > >Just keep challenging Bobby he will get so upset that he may explode. LOL Neither you nor Hollis is a challenge to anyone, on any level. BK |