BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Amos
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 10:27 AM

I swan, GG, you are becoming downright civilized.

As for Obama, my support of him is not just the "feelings for the man", but my assessment that he is a better candidate. I have no trouble defending him, up to a reasonable degree, but I am not sure it makes a lot of sense to put a lot of time into it right now.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 10:37 AM

Hey ringslinger,

I gotta bumper sticker that says

John McCain & Cheney 08.
fill the world with war and hate.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Amos
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 10:48 AM

See also the December analysis in the Atlantic called Why Obama Matters.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 10:54 AM

I've told you and told you, Amos, a swan is a bird! ;-) Look it up in the dictionary, man. It's a noun.


You know, on a personal basis, I like Obama too (and I like his wife Michelle as well). No question about it. They're very atttractive personalities who come across well. On a political basis? I don't know. He's an unknown quantity. I'm not sure if he is as against that Iraq War as he says he is...and I don't expect to find out unless he gets elected. Then we'll see what he does. The proof is in the pudding.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: artbrooks
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 11:03 AM

An example of proofreading your stuff before you push the "SUBMIT" button. Let me restate my first paragraph above, so it makes at least as much sense as my contribution usually do..

We had a very interesting caucus in New Mexico...so many people turned out that they had to run out to Office Max to print more ballots! I managed to get into the wrong line, and ended up in the "people with issues" group (well, maybe not all that wrong...). Neither of the two people in front of me were on the "registered Democrats" list; one was given a provisional ballot, although he made a big fuss about being required to sigh an affidavit that he was a Democrat, the other was turned away after saying, "oh no, I can't sign that, I'm a Republican". Our caucus is still undecided and the final decision on New Mexico's delegates will be based on the provisional ballots - I wonder how many of the 17,000 outstanding votes were really made by Republicans?

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Amos
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 11:04 AM

That kind of second-guessing and thinkity-thinkery is exactly what I was talking about.


Anyway, on other subjects, I wish to make a public apology for starting the scurrilous rumour the other day that Hillary was in the early stages of a late-in-life pregnancy carrying John McCain's love-child. THis is an unfounded and irresponsible rumor, inaccurate in the extreme, and I had no business leaking it without checking my sources. So I retract it.

It was Karl Rove's love-child.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Amos
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 11:41 AM

LIttle Hawk,

How many times do you have to let your ignorance fuel another tedious episode of acute embarassment before you learn?

Here's what the Word Detective says, in part:

""I swan" is generally used as the equivalent of "I do declare," which makes perfect sense since the two phrases are essentially professions of sincerity. "I swan" is apparently derived from the northern English dialectical pronunciation of "I shall warrant" (meaning "I shall be bound by my word; I promise I am speaking the truth"), which probably sounded like a slurred "I s'wan." The longer form "I shall warrant you," pronounced "I s'wan ye," gave us the form "I swannee" or "I swanny," still common in the South. None of this, of course, has any connection to actual swans.

Oddly enough, given their background, both "I swan" and "I swanny" are considered Americanisms and never gained much of a foothold in Britain. One reason for the continued use of "I swan" and its variants on this side of the Atlantic may be that, because of their initial consonants (that "sw" sound), they also serve as handy euphemisms for "I swear," an expression considered by many to be itself blasphemous. This would make "I swan" a member of the not-fooling-anybody group of euphemisms that includes such old standbys as "gosh" and "golly" (for "God") and "darn" for "damn."

"

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: pdq
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 11:46 AM

"...how many of the 17,000 outstanding votes were really made by Republicans? "

Nicely put, Art Brooks, but I did not know you felt Republican votes were outstanding.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 12:27 PM

"How many times do you have to let your ignorance fuel another tedious episode of acute embarassment before you learn?"

Is that a rhetorical question, Amos, or do you want me to provide a provisional estimate? ;-)

As for your explanation...bollocks! It isn't in my dictionary, old buddy, and my dictionary has been blessed by the Pope, knighted by the Queen of England, kissed by Angelina Jolie, and gnawed on by my dachshund. It is the ultimate source, the final authority, the last word. It is the next thing to Holy Writ. In my dictionary, "swan" is defined as a noun. Period. It is a long-necked bird.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: artbrooks
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 12:31 PM

Well, pdq, Republican votes certainly stand out in a Democratic Party primary. We don't have open primaries in this state.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 12:47 PM

I's one and you's another...

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Amos
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 02:29 PM

LIttle Hawk:

Obdurate though you may be, I suggest you consider the possibility that you are just projecting again, my little long-necked bird friend. :D

HEre's yet another form of the word, from JOE (Jolly Old Englande):

Verb
to swan

(UK) To travel from place to place with no fixed itinerary or purpose.


(From Wiktionary).

'Fess up, varlet; thou hast declined into defensive provincialism!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Peace
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 02:33 PM

'In my dictionary, "swan" is defined as a noun.'

Thought it was the past of swoon.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: pdq
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 02:35 PM

I was an attempt at humor, Art. Just asmall attempt to lighten things up.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 10:59 PM

Janet--

You have provided precisely zero evidence that the black community, after Hillary's treatment of Obama, will come out to support her in the fall. You seem to think she can win without them. Dream on.

And the Obama new voters want no part of her either--for similar reasons. If she is the nominee, it's back to 1968. Remember how many McCarthy supporters voted for the Democratic nominee that year?

Whereas the opposite scenario is much more promising. Since Obama has not carried out a campaign smearing Hillary at every opportunity--as her surrogates have done to him--"what he was doing in the neighborhood...", etc. her supporters will have no problem supporting him. Especially when he makes it plain, for instance, that his platform is at least as pro-Hispanic as hers--probably more so--see the illegal immigrants drivers license issue.

Added to which, as I've said, he stands to get far more independents than she ever will.

And some Republicans.

She does nothing but unite the Republicans--against her.

I note with interest you have provided absolutely no evidence to the contrary.




What's really interesting is that you want to debate at all--after all, you've given us ample evidence that you think the whole political system--certainly all the major parties--being associated with filthy lucre--say it ain't so--is totally worthless.

So you must be defending Hillary as a totally pointless exercise, not believing a word of what you yourself say. Since there is a persistent rumor she is actually associated with a major political party--and therefore hopelessly corrupted in your book.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 06:51 AM

"John McCain & Cheney 08.
      fill the world with war and hate."



                            I like it!

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 03:48 PM

My copy of Chambers English Dictionary has (in addition to the noun meanings)not "swan" as a verb by itself, but:

"Swan about or around" (colloq) - to move about aimlessly or gracefully

"Swan in or up" (colloq) - to arrive, either aimlessly or gracefully

"Swan off" (colloq) - to wander off, or depart, in a nonchalant, relaxed or oblivious manner.

Kitty

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: PoppaGator
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 04:14 PM

Ron: Who's Janet? I don't find a post with that name attached.

Could it be that you know "GUEST Guest" personally? Or am I guessing wrong about who Janet might be?

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 04:59 PM

Evidence! Evidence! Evidence! Ron must have evidence, not just opinions. He spits on opinions that differ noticeably from his own. WHERE oh WHERE is your empirical and undeniable evidence to back up your damnable assertions???????????????????????? ;-)

Now be very specific when you dare to voice a political opinion that Ron doesn't like, and be sure to provide lots of links to your evidence. Your "evidence" cannot be considered real evidence unless it passes certain stringent conditions and standards of verification as set out in the Davies Code, and those standards will not be revealed until well after your evidence has been first considered, and then roundly scorned and rejected...and possibly not even then.

So I'd say just give up now. Forget it. Shut up and go away. You really have no chance. ;-)

****


Question: Who the hell is "Janet", anyway? Is she someone famous from the early days of Mudcat? I don't think I've had the pleasure. Is she a Redemocrapublicant or a Democrepubliblricant? Does she secretly work on salary for the Clinton campaign spreading disinformation? Is she a personal friend and confidante of Ann Coulter? Has she ever partied all weekend with Bill and Opus? Inquiring minds want to know!

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 05:02 PM

"Is she a personal friend and confidante of Ann Coulter?" If birds of a feather flock together, that's my guess.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 05:16 PM

"I'm the constable of Punkinville,
Just traded horses at the mill.
My name's Joshua Ebenezer Fry.
I know a thing or two,
You bet your life I do.
You cain't fool me, 'cause I'm too durned sly!"

   cho:
    "Well, I swan, I must be gittin' on.
      Giddyup, Napoleon..it looks like rain.
      I'd shoot a hawk, if the critter didn't balk..
      Drap in when you're over to the farm again!"

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 05:20 PM

FWIW, Little Hawk, 'I swan' is a common exclamation in Virginia. Used, I think, the same as 'I do declare!'

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 05:34 PM

Yeah, I know....I just pretend to object to the expression "I swan" in order to provoke silly set-to's with Amos. ;-) I love the way he talks, specially when he's engaging in verbal combat with me over such trivialities.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 07:20 PM

It is not commonly known that 'swan' as a verb is the past participle of 'swin'. Swin-swaan-swan. Swin is a an archaic term from Welsh farmers, meaning "to win in a sneaky manner". They coined it to taunt the English who attempted to buy their coal at reduced prices during rough times...often mixing black obsidian with the coal to reduce the amount of heat obtained and confuse the speculators.

Thus..."Let's swin this guy...12 pence a tonne...ha!"

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Amos
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 07:35 PM

Ron is revealing his Mudcat hipness by penetrating the veil of identity; this is because he pays attention over a long period of time. He learned this trick from Big Mick, I believe.

But you would have to go do a search to track down those instances where Mick was calling her out on her use of simultaneous anononymity and innuendo in passive-aggressive persiflage.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 07:43 PM

There seems to be a real movement with Obama, people are lining up outside of the auditoriums to hear his speeches.. His acceptance speeches on the internet have an incredible number (millions of) views which means listening to the whole 9min speech to be counted. There are even comparisons to the excitement the Kennedys generated. I think the Democratic party should go with it. Hilary would probably make a good president as well, but I wouldnt really see her as a 'change' candidate. Ralph Nader wrote an article recently, that during the Clinton years there were plenty of missed opportunities to get things done.
I dont believe the Republicans have a chance on this one. With such a low approval rating - fiscal mess, constitutional violations, fear politics, renditions, etc.. On the other hand if Muqtada AlSadr and his Mahdi army start a Tet offensive in Aug/Sept who knows what might happen...

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 08:00 PM

I wish I felt as confident as you do, Guest Ptr. I'm afraid that we'll wake up the day after the election and fimd an impossible situation...

I just got back from Oregon (a mostly liberal, green state) and heard from various fundamentalist people that their minds have not changed a whit. They voted for Bush and the Republicans and they would do it again and they don't understand why everyone is so negative and doesn't give Bush a chance, there are so many lies told about him it is a crime, Bush is a godly man and he has a difficult job, why don't you try it if you think you're so smart?


groannnnnn....

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 08:05 PM

Indeed, Ebbie...there are some who would continue to vote ANY Republican, even if they started to see horns & a tail peeking out.

Lets hope there are not too many in November.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 08:20 PM

That worries me too, Ebbie. It is one of the thing that is perennially worrisome about elections in the USA.

Amos - "persiflage"   !!!!

Omigod. Another gorgeously aristocratic word that is known only to the most obscure savants and a few close friends of Penelope Rutledge. Gad, sir, it is a splendid word indeed! I intend to use it frequently once I become quite certain of its meaning...and assuming that I can find an appropriate occasion to casually slip it into the conversation... ;-)

I'll have you know that the vast improvements already wrought in my ever-growing arsenal of arcane and impressive verbiage by a careful study of your writings has reduced many of my local friends and acquaintances to stunned silence. They dare not admit that they have no idea what I am talking about, and it is clear that my local reputation is approaching the status of "unsung genius". Yes, I owe a great deal to you, my friend.

"Persiflage"....God, I love that sound of that! Watch out, Orillia!

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Charley Noble
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 08:34 PM

Now that we've wrested this thread away from GG, a totally fictional creation of some regular Mudcat member who may also have created Chongo the chimp and Corridus the hamster, it's high time to focus on the real political contenters or pretenders to the Democratic nomination.

The Clinton and Obama race is indeed too close to call. Either could be supported by liberal Democrats at this point, and Obama might actually be supported by a broader range of voters. Maybe that's why the powers that be are lining up behind him, not necessarily because they are evil international entrepreneurs but simply because they want to back a winner in the General Election, and turn back the radical Republican administration which has dominated the States (and part of the world) for the last seven years.

That's not necessarily a bad level to analyse the election outcome.

It much more dangerous (on a personal level) to assume that a particular candidate will actually realize his and your dreams for a better America and a better world. It's a much more difficult path.

And there is always the danger that an attractive candidate will become enamoured of his or her new celebrity status and self-destruct in spectacular fashion.

I certainly will not be voting for McCain but I will be voting for whoever survives the bruising Democratic Primaries. May the better candidate win!

Charley Noble, Chair of the Richmond, Maine, Democratic Caucus this Sunday, provider of chocolate chip cookies and oatmeal raisin cookies so the people will have a choice!

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 08:51 PM

Charlie, you are way off the beam if you imagine that I have created GG. I create fictional characters for humorous and satirical purposes, not to sew confusion on the political threads. I think GG is some former member of this forum, but from a long way back, probably before I was even here.

And anyway, some of the things GG has said have been quite interesting in their own right, specially as regards inner power struggles within the DLC. I don't see why anyone should fear his or her comments. What's so bad about someone who has lost faith in both the Democrats and the Republicans? Sounds like someone with a good capacity for grasping unpleasant truths to me...

We all hope for a change. We should probably all temper those hopes with, as I think you have suggested, the realization that no matter who gets elected change will at best only be gradual....because there's a tremendous inertia in the $ySStem, and it tends to perpetuate itself. This makes fundamental change very, very difficult.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 09:25 PM

"Charley Noble, Chair of the Richmond, Maine, Democratic Caucus this Sunday, provider of chocolate chip cookies and oatmeal raisin cookies so the people will have a choice!"


                      Well, isn't that what America is all about, choice?

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 08:06 AM

In the cereal aisle at the big box grocery stores, you bet. You have your choice of 500 different boxes of sugar cereals that all taste exactly the same.

Choice in our political leaders? Not so much.

I have finally come up with an iron clad reason to vote for Clinton, though. If you all (remember, I'm sitting out the prez race, meself) vote for Clinton, Big Media and the punditocracy will lose.

As it is, your stinking votes aren't gonna matter one iota. This so-called "election" is all going to be decided by 800 or so super delegates somewhere in the Poconos.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 09:09 AM

All so true, GG... For Obama to get the nomination he has to beat Clinton wtice... First with the voters, which he has done... Then with the DNC's tyranic "super delegate" system which he can't do...

This means that Obama will have to shup the crud ouut Hillary to get the nod...

Reminds me of a few olympic boxing matches I've witnessed over the years where the only way one boxer could get the victory was by TKO...

It is an antiquated, un-democratic, rigged deck system that the DNC has ion place...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Amos
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 09:44 AM

GG is very, very real, Charley. One might even say "too real".! :D And she certainly has her moments of clarity and insight, which I find very valuable when they can be separated from her "off-med" moments of slander, sarcasm and bitterness. It is an interesting combination.

Nation magazine came otu for Obama this morning.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 09:56 AM

Oh good, at long last The Nation's endorsement. That one really rings--they endorsed Kerry the Loser in 2004.

That one makes about as much difference in the scheme of world domination as Joan Baez and the Camelot Kennedys. I note no one here has mentioned any Clinton endorsements.

Wonder why?

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Amos
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 11:02 AM

It should be obvious, Vinegar-Breath. She's the establishment contestant, the default value. The pattern that is interesting is the pattern of Obama's upsetting those expectations.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 11:07 AM

Guest-Guest - Both the Democratic Senators from the state of Washington endoresed Hillary. The governor, whose name I can't pronounce, endorsed Obama. I suspect most of these endorsements coming from political players has more to do with what they think they, themselves, can get out of such an endorsement than any overridding principles.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 12:23 PM

Rig--

You've made this allegation more than once about Hispanics themselves being against drivers licenses for illegal immigrants--primarily Hispanic.

Would it be too much to ask you to actually think before saying it again?

1)   In the US it's often difficult to get around without a car. Hispanics who work would likely want a car. About 12 million are now illegal immigrants. Somehow it's unlikely that legal Hispanics would not sympathize with many other-- illegal-- Hispanics--(some who've been here for years)--and believe they should get drivers licenses.

Your theory about this seems to have as much credibility as your allegation that "most of the people I work with" believe all sorts of rumors about Obama--that he's just waiting to declare himself a Moslem, for instance.

It's amazing how this rumor, for instance seems to have only your fingerprints on it.

So it would be good if you could come up with some actual evidence that Hispanics themselves are against drivers licenses for illegal immigrants. Please don't forget to give the exact source--and date--for your evidence. Thanks so much


2) Then there's the little matter of logic. If I were hit by another car, I'd actually prefer that the driver be insured--which is strongly promoted by having a drivers license. Interesting to know you're fine with being hit by an uninsured driver.

It's patently absurd to believe that if you do not issue drivers licenses to illegal immigrants, they will not drive.

Perhaps you'd like to actually start using logic on this issue. I know it's not against your religion, since you're not religious. So there must be some other reason for your prejudice against logic.

Please enlighten us as to what it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 01:05 PM

Drivers license = license to drive = knowledge and ability to drive (one hopes). I find it hard to believe that any substantial percentage of "Hispanics" (whatever that word means) thinks undocumented migrants should be deprived of this. I live in New Mexico, the state with the largest percentage of "Hispanic" citizens and individuals of Spanish heritage, and the documentation requirement for a New Mexico drivers license reads as follows:

You will need to provide one (1) proof of identification number; one (1) proof of identity and two (2) proofs or New Mexico residency. If you are eligible for a Social Security number (SSN) your proof of identification number will be your Social Security card or a verification document from Social Security confirming your SSN. If you are not eligible for a Social Security card, you will be required to provide a valid passport issued by your country of citizenship; a Matricula Consular issued after February 1, 2005 by the Mexican Consulate in Albuquerque or El Paso; or an individual tax identification number (ITIN) card or the letter from the IRS issuing your ITIN.

Any Mexican citizen residing outside of Mexico can obtain a Matricula Consular, regardless of his or her legal status.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 01:14 PM

"Interesting to know you're fine with being hit by an uninsured driver."


                   Ron - Do you have any evidence to back this up? Be specific - time, date etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 01:39 PM

Incoming!

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 01:49 PM

Yeah, re: the endorsement thing--no mention around here of the YOUNGER Kennedy generation (Bobby's kids especially) who endorsed Hilary.

Wonder why?

Maybe Caroline & Uncle Teddy own the trademark on the name. Aren't they too part of that political past Obama the Fast Talker and Empty Suit is talking about leaving behind?

Oh, I see. Obama is cherry picking his Kennedys from the political past.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Charley Noble
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 01:56 PM

Geeze! It's getting hot and heavy around here and it's still February. Too bad I can't tap some of the heat for this house. Even my offer of "chocolate chip cookies and oatmeal raisin cookies' is scorned by GG and a few others. As if they were capable of coming up with a more flavorful or healthyl alternative. I'm also bringing a jug of cider as well. I suppose you don't like cider either!

Well, we'll just have to hold our caucus gathering this Sunday without you. Actually I'm more concerned that folks in this town will not be able to make it. We're having another big snow storm tonight and there is no more room to get rid of the stuff. And it's supposed to continue snowing all Sunday, inch by inch. Well, we only live a block and a half from the Town Office and can make it by snowshoe if necessary. And if no one else shows up, Judy and I will vote in our current favorites.

It will still be too close to call!

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 02:07 PM

Charley, you and Amos and Ron are the ONLY people who are hot and bothered, because of your emotional attachment to your candidate.

Me, I don't give a rip who gets the nomination. One Clinton is just as bad, IMO, as one Obama. And I'll raise you an Ellen for your Oprah (cue angels and darling little dogs).

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 02:14 PM

Rig-

Uh, that was sarcasm--which I've just used for the first time in my life.   

Point remains: your attitude against licenses for illegal immigrants makes it more likely that you will be hit by an uninsured driver. That would be too bad--but worse is that I might be hit by one--because of your certified senseless attitude. There is a bit of self-interest in it, I admit. Hope you don't mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Amos
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 02:43 PM

How terribly feminine of you, GG.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 03:15 PM

Janet (AKA GG)--

Thanks for confirming what I pointed out on another thread: that you yourself, in your defense of Hillary, don't believe a word of what you said--that it was totally a hypocritical and pointless exercise. No wonder it was totally devoid of sense, as I noted. Well, I suppose it's a logical outcome of terminal bitter cynicism.

Gee, just think of what you could do if you actually did believe in what you said.

But at least we now know for the future how seriously to take anything you say. Point taken.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 06:51 PM

I don't believe you've used sarcasm only once, Ron. ;-) Document it. Provide a full statistical breakdown based on at least your last 1700 posts, proving that you have not resorted to sarcasm on any other occasions. Otherwise you cannot really expect anyone to give credence to your very unlikely assertion.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging
From: Peace
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 06:53 PM

I wonder where reason goes
When the bullshit gets deeeeeeep.