Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:36:07 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_real at (no spam) bogus.net> wrote:

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:


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.

Saw Ron Paul on the TV news today.
Per him gummer should be dead & happy to be dead.

Given your penchant for misunderstanding and misquoting I'll pass
commenting on that.

I quoted exactly & provided a link IIRC.
Why is gummer still living?

Ron Paul actually mentioned Gunner by name?

Wow, the guy is famous. He can raise his rates now. TMT tells us
Gunner is why the Ds lost so badly on Tuesday, so I think Gunner can
probably double his rates.

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 08:32:54 -0500, Cliff
Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 03:35:43 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon
CurlySurmudgeon at (no spam) live.com> wrote:

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:52:31 -0500, Cliff
Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 06:28:22 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon
CurlySurmudgeon at (no spam) live.com> wrote:

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.

True but I don't see blaming the new guy for what the old guys did
just yet.

Same here but I'm having an increasingly difficult time resisting an
outpouring of rejection on other issues myself. The economy is, and
must be, primary. The economy is coming along but as a mortal its
excruciatingly slow.

Seemingly so but the other risk is massive debt & hyper-inflation
followed by a bad crash.
After the rethug debts of 11 trillion how much more current debt
is affordable?
Obama's folks seem to be keeping it down, all things considered
(such as huge losses to write down & less tax collected).

That's the only thing keeping me from raising disagreements on other
issues.

The economy is by far and away the most important issue facing
not only the USA but the world.

Remember, I didn't vote for Obama either.

Much is in the intentions & the old guys clearly did not have our best
interests in mind.

No shit, sherlock. And I say that in a non-insulting, sarcastic, sense.
Also consider Palin as one of the "old guys" in platform and goals.

She was too stupid other than as a sock puppet which is clearly
what they had in mind for her.

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 07:33:19 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon
CurlySurmudgeon at (no spam) live.com> wrote:

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 08:32:54 -0500, Cliff
Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 03:35:43 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon
CurlySurmudgeon at (no spam) live.com> wrote:

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:52:31 -0500, Cliff
Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 06:28:22 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon
CurlySurmudgeon at (no spam) live.com> wrote:

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.

True but I don't see blaming the new guy for what the old guys did
just yet.

Same here but I'm having an increasingly difficult time resisting an
outpouring of rejection on other issues myself. The economy is, and
must be, primary. The economy is coming along but as a mortal its
excruciatingly slow.

Seemingly so but the other risk is massive debt & hyper-inflation
followed by a bad crash.
After the rethug debts of 11 trillion how much more current debt
is affordable?
Obama's folks seem to be keeping it down, all things considered
(such as huge losses to write down & less tax collected).

That's the only thing keeping me from raising disagreements on other
issues.

As I mentioned before Obama may have a larger picture in mind. IF the
courts rule things forbidden then the next guys may not ever
try them again. IF things are just left to executiive orders who knows?
Obama is bright AND a constitutional specialist AND a lawyer. Perhaps
he has noticed this?
My hope, anyway. Such as bushco had best never happen again.

The economy is by far and away the most important issue facing not only
the USA but the world.

Remember, I didn't vote for Obama either.

Much is in the intentions & the old guys clearly did not have our
best interests in mind.

No shit, sherlock. And I say that in a non-insulting, sarcastic,
sense. Also consider Palin as one of the "old guys" in platform and
goals.

She was too stupid other than as a sock puppet which is clearly
what they had in mind for her.

Palin+Cheney in 2016 !!

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:41:16 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_real at (no spam) bogus.net> wrote:
Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:

Ron Paul actually mentioned Gunner by name?

Wow, the guy is famous. He can raise his rates now. TMT tells us
Gunner is why the Ds lost so badly on Tuesday, so I think Gunner can
probably double his rates.

He's from Mexico, right?

BTW, The wingers are claiming that their loss in NY was a huge win.

Pretty funny.
District had voted republican siince the civil war. Now they voted in a dem.
And the dems have one more vote in congress .....

Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:41:16 -0700, Winston_Smith
not_real at (no spam) bogus.net> wrote:
Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:

Ron Paul actually mentioned Gunner by name?

Wow, the guy is famous. He can raise his rates now. TMT tells us
Gunner is why the Ds lost so badly on Tuesday, so I think Gunner
can
probably double his rates.

He's from Mexico, right?

BTW, The wingers are claiming that their loss in NY was a huge
win.

To them is was because they are an ultra liberal faction. By
combining forces with the other left-wingers (Democrats) they kept a
true conservative out. Two libs beat one conservative.

Pretty funny.
District had voted republican siince the civil war. Now they voted
in a dem.
And the dems have one more vote in congress .....

But Obama took it in 2008 so any sort of a conservative showing is a
come back. The point you miss is that the Rs got skunked because
they
ran a candidate that was an extreme liberal. The plan was to out
liberal the Dem. That actually made the Dem the more moderate of
the
two. Obama's sort of liberalism is fading fast. The electorate is
fast getting afraid of him and moving right.

To complicate things, a conservative ran as a third party. He was
ready to take so many votes he was the spoiler at a minimum. He may
very well have won. The uber-liberal winger (Republican) group
could
not stomach that, so the Republican party endorsed the Democrat.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ENDORSED THE DEMOCRAT. Got that?

You seem to miss all that and tell us how the D beat the R. That
would be the R that had already withdrawn from the race and
supported
the D in a desperate attempt to save liberalism.

That makes the Dem "victory" pretty much of a farce. But hey, it's
the only one you got all night.
..

Rendition and the infrastructure created to torture can be eliminated by
a simple Executive Order. Obama hasn't issued one and maintains the
policies that permit War Crimes. That is intolerable.

Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:41:16 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_real at (no spam) bogus.net> wrote:
Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:

Ron Paul actually mentioned Gunner by name?

Wow, the guy is famous. He can raise his rates now. TMT tells us
Gunner is why the Ds lost so badly on Tuesday, so I think Gunner can
probably double his rates.

He's from Mexico, right?

BTW, The wingers are claiming that their loss in NY was a huge win.

To them is was because they are an ultra liberal faction.

By
combining forces with the other left-wingers (Democrats) they kept a
true conservative out.

Two libs beat one conservative.

Pretty funny.
District had voted republican siince the civil war. Now they voted in a dem.
And the dems have one more vote in congress .....

But Obama took it in 2008 so any sort of a conservative showing is a
come back.

The point you miss is that the Rs got skunked because they
ran a candidate that was an extreme liberal.

The plan was to out
liberal the Dem. That actually made the Dem the more moderate of the
two. Obama's sort of liberalism is fading fast. The electorate is
fast getting afraid of him and moving right.

To complicate things, a conservative ran as a third party.

He was
ready to take so many votes he was the spoiler at a minimum. He may
very well have won.

The uber-liberal winger (Republican) group could
not stomach that, so the Republican party endorsed the Democrat.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ENDORSED THE DEMOCRAT. Got that?

You seem to miss all that and tell us how the D beat the R.

That
would be the R that had already withdrawn from the race and supported
the D in a desperate attempt to save liberalism.

That makes the Dem "victory" pretty much of a farce. But hey, it's
the only one you got all night.

That makes the Dem "victory" pretty much of a farce. But hey, it's
the only one you got all night.
.
.
.
Lets hope they keep up the good work!
.
Encourage them to come to Florida and purge Crist in favor of Rubio.

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:54:37 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_real at (no spam) bogus.net> wrote:

Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:41:16 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_real at (no spam) bogus.net> wrote:
Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:

Ron Paul actually mentioned Gunner by name?

Wow, the guy is famous. He can raise his rates now. TMT tells us
Gunner is why the Ds lost so badly on Tuesday, so I think Gunner can
probably double his rates.

He's from Mexico, right?

BTW, The wingers are claiming that their loss in NY was a huge win.

T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.

To them is was because they are an ultra liberal faction.

T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.

By
combining forces with the other left-wingers (Democrats) they kept a
true conservative out.

T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.

Two libs beat one conservative.

T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.


Pretty funny.
District had voted republican siince the civil war. Now they voted in a dem.
And the dems have one more vote in congress .....

But Obama took it in 2008 so any sort of a conservative showing is a
come back.

T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.

The point you miss is that the Rs got skunked because they
ran a candidate that was an extreme liberal.

T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.

The plan was to out
liberal the Dem. That actually made the Dem the more moderate of the
two. Obama's sort of liberalism is fading fast. The electorate is
fast getting afraid of him and moving right.

T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.

To complicate things, a conservative ran as a third party.

T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.

He was
ready to take so many votes he was the spoiler at a minimum. He may
very well have won.

T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.

The uber-liberal winger (Republican) group could
not stomach that, so the Republican party endorsed the Democrat.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ENDORSED THE DEMOCRAT. Got that?

T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.

You seem to miss all that and tell us how the D beat the R.

T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.

That
would be the R that had already withdrawn from the race and supported
the D in a desperate attempt to save liberalism.

T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.

That makes the Dem "victory" pretty much of a farce. But hey, it's
the only one you got all night.

T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.

Do you understand yet?

Who financed Doug Hoffman?

HTH

Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:36:07 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_real at (no spam) bogus.net> wrote:

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:


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.

Saw Ron Paul on the TV news today.
Per him gummer should be dead & happy to be dead.

Given your penchant for misunderstanding and misquoting I'll pass
commenting on that.

I quoted exactly & provided a link IIRC.
Why is gummer still living?

Ron Paul actually mentioned Gunner by name?

Wow, the guy is famous. He can raise his rates now. TMT tells us
Gunner is why the Ds lost so badly on Tuesday, so I think Gunner can
probably double his rates.

Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:54:37 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_real at (no spam) bogus.net> wrote:

Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:41:16 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_real at (no spam) bogus.net> wrote:
Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:

Ron Paul actually mentioned Gunner by name?

Wow, the guy is famous. He can raise his rates now. TMT tells us
Gunner is why the Ds lost so badly on Tuesday, so I think Gunner can
probably double his rates.

He's from Mexico, right?

BTW, The wingers are claiming that their loss in NY was a huge win.

T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.

To them is was because they are an ultra liberal faction.

T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.

By
combining forces with the other left-wingers (Democrats) they kept a
true conservative out.

T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.

Two libs beat one conservative.

T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.


Pretty funny.
District had voted republican siince the civil war. Now they voted in a dem.
And the dems have one more vote in congress .....

But Obama took it in 2008 so any sort of a conservative showing is a
come back.

T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.

The point you miss is that the Rs got skunked because they
ran a candidate that was an extreme liberal.

T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.

The plan was to out
liberal the Dem. That actually made the Dem the more moderate of the
two. Obama's sort of liberalism is fading fast. The electorate is
fast getting afraid of him and moving right.

T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.

To complicate things, a conservative ran as a third party.

T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.

He was
ready to take so many votes he was the spoiler at a minimum. He may
very well have won.

T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.

The uber-liberal winger (Republican) group could
not stomach that, so the Republican party endorsed the Democrat.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ENDORSED THE DEMOCRAT. Got that?

T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.

You seem to miss all that and tell us how the D beat the R.

T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.

That
would be the R that had already withdrawn from the race and supported
the D in a desperate attempt to save liberalism.

T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.

That makes the Dem "victory" pretty much of a farce. But hey, it's
the only one you got all night.

T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.

Do you understand yet?

Who financed Doug Hoffman?

HTH

Boy are you in denial !!

If you shout it often enough maybe some poor
soul will believe it.

The WINGER is the left wing Democrat. He was
saved from defeat by the other WINGER, a left wing Republican.

You really are better suited to rooting for a football team than
commenting on politics. You see everything as our team (the Dems) and
the other team (whoever it is this week).

The issue is not R vs D. They both span far left to conservative.

The issue is liberal vs. conservative.

It took two liberals - far
left wingers - to defeat one conservative.

The two left wingers had
all the money and resources of a national party behind them and it
took two of them working together to squeak past a guy running as an
independent.

And no, the ultra left Republican winger did not lose; she withdrew
and SUPPORTED the ultra left Democrat winger.

If you don't understand that you are a shill or a fool.

Now if so many of my clients had not already gone out of busines thanks
to the Leftards and the Obamassiah...

On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:50:49 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:

If you don't understand that you are a shill or a fool.

T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.

Is that any clearer yet?

T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.
T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.

Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:50:49 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:

If you don't understand that you are a shill or a fool.

T H E W I N G E R ** L O S T **.

Is that any clearer yet?

No. Your mindless rooting for your football team makes no sense and
never will.

Denial is not a river in Egypt. It's the left WINGERS state of mind.