Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon at (no spam) live.com> wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:05:03 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon at (no spam) live.com> wrote:

At least a 3-party system would give us a bit more representation. It
will also be interesting to see them forced to disassemble the
existing framework which prevents minor parties from participating.

"Disassemble". That means to not tell the truth.

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

Sorry, but my use and spelling were correct. You're thinking of
"dissemble" not "disassemble".

Bush quote.

The way the law in Arizona is written, even if Ron Paul had found a
way to win, he would not have won because he wasn't approved by the
official party powers. Voting is not what it used to be.

Ain't that the truth.

I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that Gunner Asch
gunner at (no spam) NOSPAMlightspeed.net> reported Elvis on Sun, 01 Nov 2009
00:58:52 -0700 in misc.survivalism:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:05:03 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_real at (no spam) bogus.net
wrote:

Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon at (no spam) live.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:30:36 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:

The moral of this story is that the Republican leadership is
completely out of touch with the Republican rank and file. The
party has to crash and rebuild from its grass roots. This may be a
small start in that direction. Time to dump the RINO's and run on
real principles instead of just running for power with whatever
looks like it may work at the moment.

The name "Republican" will probably survive the crash. Most likely as
a theocratic wing. While true conservatives may break off into an
anti- federalist party and suck true conservatives from the Democrats.

At least a 3-party system would give us a bit more representation. It
will also be interesting to see them forced to disassemble the
existing framework which prevents minor parties from participating.

"Disassemble". That means to not tell the truth.

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

The way the law in Arizona is written, even if Ron Paul had found a way
to win, he would not have won because he wasn't approved by the
official party powers. Voting is not what it used to be.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-trippi/roves-misread-of-
tuesdays_b_340290.html

Interesting ...



-
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel, you
find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.

Gunner Asch <gunner at (no spam) NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:05:03 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:

The way the law in Arizona is written, even if Ron Paul had found a way
to win, he would not have won because he wasn't approved by the
official party powers. Voting is not what it used to be.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-trippi/roves-misread-of-
tuesdays_b_340290.html

|| To Rove "us" is the Republican party and "them" is the Democratic
|| party. This isn't just Rove's problem - most in both party
establishments || view the political world this way - with just as
many seeing "us" as || Democrats and "them" as Republicans. But this
view masks what || is truly happening - and makes the establishments
of both parties || blind to what is coming in 2010.
||
|| Voters are increasingly seeing themselves as "us" and both parties
|| in Washington as "them." They are not going to discriminate between
|| the two parties in 2010. The results next Tuesday will likely
demonstrate || the voter's frustration with those in power, regardless
of party. Far from || signaling a backlash against Democratic rule and
hope for the || Republican Party, the results on Tuesday will signal
that in 2010 || incumbents in both parties, of all ideological stripes
should be || frightened.

Bingo. We have a winner. Give the man a cigar.

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:05:03 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon at (no spam) live.com> wrote:

At least a 3-party system would give us a bit more representation. It
will also be interesting to see them forced to disassemble the existing
framework which prevents minor parties from participating.

"Disassemble". That means to not tell the truth.

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

Sorry, but my use and spelling were correct. You're thinking of
"dissemble" not "disassemble".

The way the law in Arizona is written, even if Ron Paul had found a way
to win, he would not have won because he wasn't approved by the official
party powers. Voting is not what it used to be.

Ain't that the truth.

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:05:03 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:

The way the law in Arizona is written, even if Ron Paul had found a
way to win, he would not have won because he wasn't approved by the
official party powers. Voting is not what it used to be.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-trippi/roves-misread-of-tuesdays_b_340290.html

|| To Rove "us" is the Republican party and "them" is the Democratic
|| party. This isn't just Rove's problem - most in both party establishments
|| view the political world this way - with just as many seeing "us" as
|| Democrats and "them" as Republicans. But this view masks what
|| is truly happening - and makes the establishments of both parties
|| blind to what is coming in 2010.
||
|| Voters are increasingly seeing themselves as "us" and both parties
|| in Washington as "them." They are not going to discriminate between
|| the two parties in 2010. The results next Tuesday will likely demonstrate
|| the voter's frustration with those in power, regardless of party. Far from
|| signaling a backlash against Democratic rule and hope for the
|| Republican Party, the results on Tuesday will signal that in 2010
|| incumbents in both parties, of all ideological stripes should be
|| frightened.

Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 12:19:08 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_real at (no spam) bogus.net
wrote:

Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon at (no spam) live.com> wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:05:03 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon at (no spam) live.com> wrote:
At least a 3-party system would give us a bit more representation.
It will also be interesting to see them forced to disassemble the
existing framework which prevents minor parties from participating.
"Disassemble". That means to not tell the truth.

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
Sorry, but my use and spelling were correct. You're thinking of
"dissemble" not "disassemble".
Bush quote.

Ah, now it makes sense. Now I'm going to go dissemble the power
steering booster on the old Peugot...


4-speed column shift.

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 12:19:08 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_real at (no spam) bogus.net
wrote:

Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon at (no spam) live.com> wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:05:03 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon at (no spam) live.com> wrote:
At least a 3-party system would give us a bit more representation. It
will also be interesting to see them forced to disassemble the
existing framework which prevents minor parties from participating.
"Disassemble". That means to not tell the truth.

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
Sorry, but my use and spelling were correct. You're thinking of
"dissemble" not "disassemble".
Bush quote.

Ah, now it makes sense. Now I'm going to go dissemble the power steering
booster on the old Peugot...

The way the law in Arizona is written, even if Ron Paul had found a
way to win, he would not have won because he wasn't approved by the
official party powers. Voting is not what it used to be.
Ain't that the truth.

"Disassemble". That means to not tell the truth.

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

The way the law in Arizona is written, even if Ron Paul had found a
way to win, he would not have won because he wasn't approved by the
official party powers. Voting is not what it used to be.

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:05:03 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_real at (no spam) bogus.net
wrote:

Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon at (no spam) live.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:30:36 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:

The moral of this story is that the Republican leadership is completely
out of touch with the Republican rank and file. The party has to crash
and rebuild from its grass roots. This may be a small start in that
direction. Time to dump the RINO's and run on real principles instead
of just running for power with whatever looks like it may work at the
moment.

The name "Republican" will probably survive the crash. Most likely as a
theocratic wing. While true conservatives may break off into an anti-
federalist party and suck true conservatives from the Democrats.

At least a 3-party system would give us a bit more representation. It
will also be interesting to see them forced to disassemble the existing
framework which prevents minor parties from participating.

"Disassemble". That means to not tell the truth.

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

The way the law in Arizona is written, even if Ron Paul had found a
way to win, he would not have won because he wasn't approved by the
official party powers. Voting is not what it used to be.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-trippi/roves-misread-of-tuesdays_b_340290.html

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:05:03 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_real at (no spam) bogus.net
wrote:

"Disassemble". That means to not tell the truth.

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

What a relief.
Disassemble means "to take apart".
Have you ever considered getting anything right or
not lying?
Wingers .... <sheesh> ....

http://www.therightperspective.org/2009/10/28/palin-endorses-conserva...
[
Former Alaska governor and GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin has
broken party ranks and endorsed a third-party candidate over his Republican
competitor in an upstate New York congressional race.
]

  " ..  the heavily-Republican district voted for Obama last year,  .. "

  LOL ..  Bull in the china shop ....
--
Cliff

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 03:46:21 -0500, Cliff
Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:05:03 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_real at (no spam) bogus.net
wrote:

"Disassemble". That means to not tell the truth.

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

What a relief.
Disassemble means "to take apart".
Have you ever considered getting anything right or
not lying?
Wingers .... <sheesh> ....

Yeah, I caught and replied to that one too but if you read on Winston
explained how it was a repeat of Bush's misuse of English.

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 16:50:18 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon
CurlySurmudgeon at (no spam) live.com> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 03:46:21 -0500, Cliff
Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:05:03 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_real at (no spam) bogus.net
wrote:

"Disassemble". That means to not tell the truth.

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

What a relief.
Disassemble means "to take apart".
Have you ever considered getting anything right or
not lying?
Wingers .... <sheesh> ....

Yeah, I caught and replied to that one too but if you read on Winston
explained how it was a repeat of Bush's misuse of English.

I saw that later.
Hero worship?

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:26:40 -0500, Cliff
Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 16:50:18 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon
CurlySurmudgeon at (no spam) live.com> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 03:46:21 -0500, Cliff
Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:05:03 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_real at (no spam) bogus.net
wrote:

"Disassemble". That means to not tell the truth.

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

What a relief.
Disassemble means "to take apart".
Have you ever considered getting anything right or
not lying?
Wingers .... <sheesh> ....

Yeah, I caught and replied to that one too but if you read on Winston
explained how it was a repeat of Bush's misuse of English.

I saw that later.
Hero worship?

Hardly, back off, Cliff. Winston has been pretty consistent and has
never been a bushbot. He extends the same revulsion to both parties
rather than to just one.

Even if you don't agree with him you have to respect his consistency.