From: BAR on
In article <ojt8n5lol2imbc91b57nic99fte7hojoki(a)4ax.com>,
bknight(a)conramp.net says...
>
> 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´┐Ż.
> >
> LOL. This from the most confused person around.
> Dismissing you is easy because you seldom make any sense at all.
>
> BK

I am just going to have to assume that you are drunk today. There is no
other reason that a sane person would believe the games being played in
DC at this time.

Go sit in the rocking chair, grab a blanket and watch the cars go by.




From: BAR on
In article <07u8n515ijcqcfmv4ao17a5bbusijjcrv0(a)4ax.com>,
bknight(a)conramp.net says...
>
> 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.

It is all about the next election cycle. It is all about screwing the
other side. It is all about protecting the turf you have and expanding
it.

Why couldn't the Democrats pass the health care bill when they
controlled the House, Senate and White House? It sure as hell wasn't
because of the Republicans. The Republicans were in the minority in the
House, Senate and couldn't get past the front gates to the White House.

The Democrats, including Obama, screwed up big time on Health Care and
now they are trying to score political points to look bi-partisan. They,
Obama and the other Democrats, have no intention of letting the
Republicans add, modify or remove anything from the Health Care bill.

You call this too important to play games with, well Bobby, grow up.
This is the big leagues of politics and everybody is looking at how to
position themselves for their next election. Nothing matters more than
getting elected again because seniority means power. Ask Charles Wrangle
the tax cheat who runs the House Ways and Means committee. You can't ask
John Murtha how important seniority is now but it got him his own
personal airport.

But, keep calling me a idiot, simpleton or crazy. I've been around DC
long enough to know how it works.

From: bknight on
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:03:05 -0500, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:


>But, keep calling me a idiot, simpleton or crazy. I've been around DC
>long enough to know how it works.
OK, you'r an idiot a simpleton and crazy, but most of all tiresome.
Maybe its BECAUSE you've been around DC so long.

BK
From: Carbon on
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 06:17:20 +0000, assimilate wrote:
> On 10-Feb-2010, William Clark <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> that's because the convention is not reflective of the nature of the
> movement, which is a bottom-up, decentralized affair.

So say the for-profit orchestrators of the movement. That'll be $550,
please.
From: MNMikeW on

<bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message
news:07u8n515ijcqcfmv4ao17a5bbusijjcrv0(a)4ax.com...
> 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.
>
>
His hencemen Pelosi and Reid wrote it for him. It is still his baby.