Tom Tancredo
in [Golf]
|
From: John B. on 12 Feb 2010 22:11 On Feb 12, 3:15 pm, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <a228c2ec-4f95-4d5f-a3c2-9f329aa58671 > @k11g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, johnb...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > > > On Feb 12, 2:36 pm, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > > > "William Clark" <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message > > > >news:clark-880F44.14010212022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > > > > In article <7tljlbFg5...(a)mid.individual.net>, > > > > "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > >> I'm waiting for an intelligent answer to my question, Clark. > > > > >> -Greg > > > > > Well, Bush is the one they elected (supposedly), so it is a frightening > > > > indictment of the Americn electorate. > > > > Ironically this was the tenet that started this thread. Oops. > > > No, it wasn't. I started this thread by asking how conservatives/ > > Republicans felt about Tom Tancredo's remarks at the Tea Party > > convention. I think I got two answers. > > You came here looking for a pissing match and you are upset that you got > a pissing match. I came here in good faith, trying to determine the extent to which Tancredo's remarks represented mainstream conservative thought. I myself have expressed no opinion. Two people responded directly; both said they agreed with some of his assertions and disagreed with others. No one has denounced him. I've also perused conservative media and blogs. Same result. So, I can only assume that conservatives by and large agree with his sentiments.
From: Moderate on 12 Feb 2010 22:21 "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message news:clark-966AFF.17392612022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <hl4fqq$hta$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, > "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > >> "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:a228c2ec-4f95-4d5f-a3c2-9f329aa58671(a)k11g2000vbe.googlegroups.com... >> On Feb 12, 2:36 pm, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: >> > "William Clark" <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message >> > >> > news:clark-880F44.14010212022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... >> > >> > > In article <7tljlbFg5...(a)mid.individual.net>, >> > > "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> I'm waiting for an intelligent answer to my question, Clark. >> > >> > >> -Greg >> > >> > > Well, Bush is the one they elected (supposedly), so it is a >> > > frightening >> > > indictment of the Americn electorate. >> > >> > Ironically this was the tenet that started this thread. Oops. >> >> No, it wasn't. I started this thread by asking how conservatives/ >> Republicans felt about Tom Tancredo's remarks at the Tea Party >> convention. I think I got two answers. >> >> **************************************** >> >> Yes, Tancredo's remarks about the intellect of the electorate. > > No, Tancredo's remark was about ways of denying minorities the vote. > Sure, that was it Senor Chang. Idiot.
From: assimilate on 12 Feb 2010 23:17 On 12-Feb-2010, William Clark <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote: > > > Actually, it's from Oxford. Game, set, and match. > > > > it is a piece of paper & will not substitute for wisdom or character. > > Well, at least you are not denying its existence. That's progress. I tend to take people at their word when I can afford to. -- bill-o
From: Carbon on 12 Feb 2010 23:21 On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 21:21:18 -0600, Moderate wrote: > "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message > news:clark-966AFF.17392612022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > >> No, Tancredo's remark was about ways of denying minorities the vote. > > Sure, that was it Senor Chang. > > Idiot. Shouldn't you be cautious about throwing that epithet around?
From: assimilate on 12 Feb 2010 23:26
On 12-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > >> Right. With crib notes scrawled on the palm of your hand. I get it. > > > > Get your jolies while you can, 2010 will be ugly for you lefties. > > You know Bill, I think you're right. But Obama will still win a second > term. Things will have to get a whole lot better in a hurry. Clinton had a good economy going for him in 92. W/o a similar wind at his back Obama has little chance. -- bill-o |