Tom Tancredo
in [Golf]
|
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 11 Feb 2010 16:34 On Feb 11, 4:13 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:21:44 -0800, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> > wrote: > > >> I would not count Obama out. You guys have underestimated him before. > > >His best chance at relection would occur if the Republicans take control, as > >they did in '94. Americans are largely uncomfortable with one party rule. > > >-Greg > > It's unlikely that the Republicans will gain majority in the Senate. > Gaining control of the House is more likely, but I wouldn't bet on it. If the dems keep it up, and it seems they will, this election could be historic...it could be the end of the dems. They don't have to do much to keep both houses, FWIW.
From: bknight on 11 Feb 2010 16:37 On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:02:23 -0500, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: >> >> Do you guys just not see these quotes, or just pass over them because >> >> they don't fit your stance? >> >> >> >> This was almost at the top of the story, and the anonymous official's >> >> quote, which only says that he's moving forward, was almost at the >> >> bottom. >> >> >> >Bobby, if he is not willing to start over on this it dosent matter one bit >> >what the Repubs have to offer! Obama just wants to look non-partisan when in >> >reality he is all partisan all the time. Unless you start over, you cannot >> >move forward. Period! >> > >> In the first place, "This is not starting over" came from an >> anonymous person. Secondly, you certainly can move forward without >> starting over. Think this one out. Find those areas where there is >> some agreement and go from there. Now, if there is absolutely no >> agreement anywhere, then find some. > >You are either sniffing, smoking or drinking something. > >You are believing the hype and PR spin. Unless the source is willing to >be named someone is putting out a feeler to see how the proposal will be >received. > Dummy, the fact that he remains anonymous is the key. There's no proof that it was said by an Obama official without being named. Could that be spin from the other side? You have such one sided vision about any of this. The anon said something absolutely diametrically opposite of Obama's statement. >Obama has no intention of listening to the Republican's ideas. It will >be a photo op and nothing more. > There you go again. You're so insane as to think that you know what Obama's, or anyone else's, intentions are. You can only guess, and usually are so far afield as to be laughable. >I can't believe your naivet�. > LOL. This from the most confused person around. Dismissing you is easy because you seldom make any sense at all. BK
From: bknight on 11 Feb 2010 16:41 On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:16:41 -0600, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > ><bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message >news:6fp8n51qh9jjlogikh7r51l72mn7ik89v2(a)4ax.com... >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:12:07 -0600, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> >> wrote: >> In the first place, "This is not starting over" came from an >> anonymous person. Secondly, you certainly can move forward without >> starting over. Think this one out. Find those areas where there is >> some agreement and go from there. Now, if there is absolutely no >> agreement anywhere, then find some. >> >> BAR wants this to be a game, but reasonable people shouldn't. >> >It is a game. And Obama is dealing. You mean find areas in the current bill >where there is agreement? He could barely get the Dems to agree to it let >alone the Repubs. > Its too important to be called a game. Now, lets see what you think is Obama's bill. He doesn't write bills. BK
From: bknight on 11 Feb 2010 16:42 On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:28:48 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: >On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:14:42 -0500, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > >>You keep talking about Bush as a simpleton. But, he was a twice elected >>governor of Texas and twice elected President of the US. If that is a >>simpleton in your books then Obama is a stunning dunce. > > >Besides there's objective data to show Bush to be of superior, to very >superior, intelligence. It's highly unlikely that Obama is that >smart. LOL. Bk
From: bknight on 11 Feb 2010 16:43
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:31:23 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: >On Feb 11, 11:21�am, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: >> In article <nta8n5p2g17si7haj18qn7kif0vi0k4...(a)4ax.com>, >> bkni...(a)conramp.net says... >> >> >> >> > On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:04:37 -0500, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: >> >> > >The TelePrompter "BS" hasn't been wiped off the table. Obama has a long >> > >way to go before he can claim to be weaned off of the TelePrompter. >> >> > Cripes Bert. �Didn't you see the whipping he gave the repub >> > congressmen, all off the cuff? >> >> In your dreams only. > >It was an absurd format. All Obama did was deny anything challenging, >and the questioner had no capacity to reply to the denial. If this is >the best Obama can do, he can't do much. I'd like to see him debate a >Sarah Palin, or someone who would come back and challenge his denials. >One question, one answer is a ridiculous format; certainly is in no >sense an exchange of ideas. You're kidding. Biden wasted Palin in debate, and he's a lightweight. She's a joke that is riding a wave of simple minds. BK |