Obama/2004

[Valuist]

I think much of the nation isn't aware how close he came to not wiining the Illinois Senate election in 2004. No, not the final results, which he won handily. Here's what happened:

Obama was slated to run against a Republican candidate named Jack Ryan. While Obama had picked up steam and was considered a "rising" candidate, Ryan was not going to be a pushover. It was not clear that either candidate had any real advantage in the weeks leading up to the election. Ryan had recently gone thru a divorce from actress Jeri Ryan (the blonde from the Fox show Boston Public). Obama had been pushing to get the divorce papers opened and couldn't. But he kept at it, and eventually the details came out. Apparently one of the reasons for the divorce was Jack Ryan trying to get his wife to go to some sex clubs in New York. She said no and that was it. There was no mention of infidelity or anything like that. The media ran with it and dogged Ryan. He said he wasn't going to resign from the campaign. Finally, after a week or so, distraction became too much, and Ryan resigned. With so little time until the election, the Republicans basically tossed up Alan Keyes to run against Obama. With the late scratch, Obama became a shoo in. But what would've happened if Ryan would've run without a scandal? If he wins, Obama's momentum is stopped and there would've been no 2008 Presidential run.

[Tom]

Good character, that AC Obama. Good character.
Wonder if he got that idea from his racist spiritual adviser that he says he never listened to for 20 years?

You can put all the perfume on him you want, the man still stinks.

FUBO

[DJofSD]

More lipstick might be necessary.

[mostpost]

I think much of the nation isn't aware how close he came to not wiining the Illinois Senate election in 2004. No, not the final results, which he won handily. Here's what happened:

Obama was slated to run against a Republican candidate named Jack Ryan. While Obama had picked up steam and was considered a "rising" candidate, Ryan was not going to be a pushover. It was not clear that either candidate had any real advantage in the weeks leading up to the election. Ryan had recently gone thru a divorce from actress Jeri Ryan (the blonde from the Fox show Boston Public). Obama had been pushing to get the divorce papers opened and couldn't. But he kept at it, and eventually the details came out. Apparently one of the reasons for the divorce was Jack Ryan trying to get his wife to go to some sex clubs in New York. She said no and that was it. There was no mention of infidelity or anything like that. The media ran with it and dogged Ryan. He said he wasn't going to resign from the campaign. Finally, after a week or so, distraction became too much, and Ryan resigned. With so little time until the election, the Republicans basically tossed up Alan Keyes to run against Obama. With the late scratch, Obama became a shoo in. But what would've happened if Ryan would've run without a scandal? If he wins, Obama's momentum is stopped and there would've been no 2008 Presidential run.
AND if "Ifs and buts"
were candy and nuts
every day would be Christmas.

[LutherCalvin]

Only in the cesspool of the Illinois political system could a Manchurian candidate like Barack Obama rise to the top. A gifted speaker with charisma, he has been well schooled with Marxist ideology. He may have been born in the United States, but his policies are from elsewhere. I only hope that our future elections do not resemble those of Iran.

[mostpost]

Good character, that AC Obama. Good character.
Wonder if he got that idea from his racist spiritual adviser that he says he never listened to for 20 years?

You can put all the perfume on him you want, the man still stinks.

FUBO
Jack Ryan wanted his wife to go to a sex club, and you think Obama is the one with character problems :faint: :faint: :faint: The statement "She said no and that was it" is patently false. According to stories at the time, Ryan was very persistent and refused to accept Jeri Ryan's refusal.

If the situation had been reversed, we all know that you would have been screaming about the immoral Obama, and cheering if Ryan had made it an issue. Can you say "hypocrit?".

[cj's dad]

I think much of the nation isn't aware how close he came to not wiining the Illinois Senate election in 2004. No, not the final results, which he won handily. Here's what happened:

Obama was slated to run against a Republican candidate named Jack Ryan. While Obama had picked up steam and was considered a "rising" candidate, Ryan was not going to be a pushover. It was not clear that either candidate had any real advantage in the weeks leading up to the election. Ryan had recently gone thru a divorce from actress Jeri Ryan (the blonde from the Fox show Boston Public). Obama had been pushing to get the divorce papers opened and couldn't. But he kept at it, and eventually the details came out. Apparently one of the reasons for the divorce was Jack Ryan trying to get his wife to go to some sex clubs in New York. She said no and that was it. There was no mention of infidelity or anything like that. The media ran with it and dogged Ryan. He said he wasn't going to resign from the campaign. Finally, after a week or so, distraction became too much, and Ryan resigned. With so little time until the election, the Republicans basically tossed up Alan Keyes to run against Obama. With the late scratch, Obama became a shoo in. But what would've happened if Ryan would've run without a scandal? If he wins, Obama's momentum is stopped and there would've been no 2008 Presidential run.

Interesting that he wanted to expose Ryan's private affairs yet he will not release his Birth Certificate or his College records-

What a hypocrite.!!!

[boxcar]

Jack Ryan wanted his wife to go to a sex club, and you think Obama is the one with character problems :faint: :faint: :faint: The statement "She said no and that was it" is patently false. According to stories at the time, Ryan was very persistent and refused to accept Jeri Ryan's refusal.

If the situation had been reversed, we all know that you would have been screaming about the immoral Obama, and cheering if Ryan had made it an issue. Can you say "hypocrit?".

Yeah, maybe they BOTH have character problems. But what business is it of BO for why an opposing candidate is getting a divorce. Family problems are family problems.

But this is what liberals do the best -- character assassination. Just destroy the opposition -- not on the issues -- not on anything substantive -- not on public policy -- none of these. But rather demolish the opposition with personal attacks. With attacks on character. And BO, being the Illinois two-bit, empty suit thug that he is, succeeded because that's all he had.

Boxcar

[mostpost]

There are a number of inaccuarcies in Valuist's post. This is from Wikipedia.
First of all, it was the Chicago Tribune and WLS TV, the ABC affiliate in Chicago, which petitioned the court to order the release of the Divorce papers. For those of you who are not aware, the Chicago Tribune has a long history of supporting Republicans.
Second, while Obama did originally call for the release of the divorce papers, he reversed himself on April 3, 2004 saying such things had no place in a campaign.
From the Sun Times:
Obama: Back off divorce files
Click here for complete article
Author: Scott Fornek
Date: April 3, 2004
Publication: Chicago Sun-Times
Page: 4
Word Count: 568
Excerpt:
Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Barack Obama reversed his position on Republican rival Jack Ryan's divorce file Friday, calling on fellow Democrats to refrain from trying to inject it into the campaign."I don't think it's an appropriate topic for debate," Obama said.
Obama has consistently said that his campaign would not focus on Ryan's 1999 divorce from TV actress Jeri Ryan


Third: A statewide poll by The Chicago Tribune in May 2004 showed Obama leading Ryan by a margin of 52% to 30%. Hardly a tossup race.

[Greyfox]

Obama threw extremely popular former Senator Alice Palmer under a bus in order to get into the Illinois Senate in the first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Palmer_(Illinois_politician)


"Obama challenged Palmer's hastily gathered nominating petitions and those of the three other prospective candidates. Nearly two-thirds of the signatures on Palmer's nominating petitions were found to be invalid, leaving her almost 200 signatures short of the required 757 signatures of registered voters residing in the Senate district; neither of the other three prospective candidates had the required number of valid signatures, leaving Obama, who had filed nominating petitions with over 3,000 signatures on the first filing day, as the only candidate to earn a place on the March 1996 Democratic primary ballot."

[DJofSD]

I would not blame BO for Palmer's failures -- to have enough additional signatures in reserve, just in case something like that happened, and, for not doing a better job examining the forms before turning them in.

[mostpost]

It is delusional to think Ryan would have beaten Obama under any circumstances. In the Democratic primary Obama won with 640,707 votes to 573,334 for all of his opponents. Total votes cast in the Democratic party primary was 1,214,041. In the Republicaan primary, Jack ryan received 226,679 out of a total of 634,085 votes.
So if Jack Ryan carried every single vote he received in the primary over to the general election, then Obama would only need to keep 52.23% of the democratic votes to win.
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY OBAMA WAS GOING TO LOSE THE 2002 ILLINOIS SENATE RACE. Period, end of discussion. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[boxcar]

It is delusional to think Ryan would have beaten Obama under any circumstances. In the Democratic primary Obama won with 640,707 votes to 573,334 for all of his opponents. Total votes cast in the Democratic party primary was 1,214,041. In the Republicaan primary, Jack ryan received 226,679 out of a total of 634,085 votes.
So if Jack Ryan carried every single vote he received in the primary over to the general election, then Obama would only need to keep 52.23% of the democratic votes to win.
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY OBAMA WAS GOING TO LOSE THE 2002 ILLINOIS SENATE RACE. Period, end of discussion. :lol: :lol: :lol:

This isn't the point. It's the unethical tactics, stupid! :bang: :bang: But then again...when has any liberal concerned himself with ethics when it comes to the DemRats?

Boxcar

[bigmack]

'Taint no bigger fan of BO's than 'mostpost'. Johnny on the spot to defend any flak thrown his way.

Go man go. & GOOO OBAMA!

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/7547/cheerleader2rq5.jpg

[Valuist]

Jack Ryan wanted his wife to go to a sex club, and you think Obama is the one with character problems :faint: :faint: :faint: The statement "She said no and that was it" is patently false. According to stories at the time, Ryan was very persistent and refused to accept Jeri Ryan's refusal.

.

So a guy has a smoking hot wife and wanting to have sex with her is a character flaw? 99% of the heterosexual male population would have so-called character flaws. I guess to the libs it would be okay if he was gay or screwing around on his wife.

Face it: the real reason they got divorced had nothing to do with that. She wanted to further pursue her acting career which required her to be 2000 miles away. End of story.

[rastajenk]

"Facts are stupid things."

[mostpost]

This isn't the point. It's the unethical tactics, stupid! :bang: :bang: But then again...when has any liberal concerned himself with ethics when it comes to the DemRats?

Boxcar
Duh!!! There were no unethical tactics. Except in your delusions. It was the Chicago Tribune which sued to obtain release of the Ryan divorce papers. Obama was well ahead of Ryan at all points of the race.

As to Alice Palmer in the state senate race, I will accept your feigned outrage in you can show me that no Republican has ever challenged an opponents signatures. This is accepted practice and a candidate would be a fool to not do so.
Besides I would rather have a state senator or Senator, or President who can obtain four times the required signatures as opposed to one who has 2/3 of her signatures disqualified.

[Pell Mell]

Why do you guys argue with someone who lives in, according to his profile, a small town, which is over 90% white, in Cook County, IL.

He's part and parcel of the same gang of s##t heels that are in DC now.

[mostpost]

'Taint no bigger fan of BO's than 'mostpost'. Johnny on the spot to defend any flak thrown his way.

Go man go. & GOOO OBAMA!

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/7547/cheerleader2rq5.jpg
I hope you got Boxcar's permission before posting his picture. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Valuist]

Why do you guys argue with someone who lives in, according to his profile, a small town, which is over 90% white, in Cook County, IL.

He's part and parcel of the same gang of s##t heels that are in DC now.

I, for one, happen to live in that same county. We all certainly not willing members of A(O)bination.

[NJ Stinks]

Yeah, maybe they BOTH have character problems. But what business is it of BO for why an opposing candidate is getting a divorce. Family problems are family problems.

But this is what liberals do the best -- character assassination. Just destroy the opposition -- not on the issues -- not on anything substantive -- not on public policy -- none of these. But rather demolish the opposition with personal attacks. With attacks on character. And BO, being the Illinois two-bit, empty suit thug that he is, succeeded because that's all he had.

Boxcar

So Monica was public policy problem and not a family problem.:rolleyes: And you say this is what liberals do best? Hilarious.

[mostpost]

So Monica was public policy problem and not a family problem.:rolleyes: And you say this is what liberals do best? Hilarious.
But...But.....Clinton was a DEMOCRAT, Jack Ryan is a REPUBLICAN. Don't you get it. :bang: :bang: :bang:

[Tom]

Jack Ryan wanted his wife to go to a sex club, and you think Obama is the one with character problems :faint: :faint: :faint: The statement "She said no and that was it" is patently false. According to stories at the time, Ryan was very persistent and refused to accept Jeri Ryan's refusal.

If the situation had been reversed, we all know that you would have been screaming about the immoral Obama, and cheering if Ryan had made it an issue. Can you say "hypocrit?".

You really can stop. We all know for sure now what kind of a person your are. You don't have to prove it day after day. :ThmbDown:

[mostpost]

So a guy has a smoking hot wife and wanting to have sex with her is a character flaw? 99% of the heterosexual male population would have so-called character flaws. I guess to the libs it would be okay if he was gay or screwing around on his wife.

Face it: the real reason they got divorced had nothing to do with that. She wanted to further pursue her acting career which required her to be 2000 miles away. End of story.
Tom is the one who brought up the question of character. As far as I'm concerned, if they both wanted to go to a swingers club, good for them. But all the evidence indicates she did not want to go and he forced her to. That is a major character flaw.

[mostpost]

Why do you guys argue with someone who lives in, according to his profile, a small town, which is over 90% white, in Cook County, IL.

He's part and parcel of the same gang of s##t heels that are in DC now.
The real question is; why do they argue with aomeone who beats them almost everytime. (I only say almost because of excessive modesty) :lol:

[Greyfox]

The real question is; why do they argue with aomeone who beats them almost everytime. :lol:

Well you think you beat them almost every time.
To pat yourself on the back I suggest one of these:

http://blogs.graphicdesignforum.com/mlenhart/archives/images/pat_on_the_back_1.jpg.

[Valuist]

Tom is the one who brought up the question of character. As far as I'm concerned, if they both wanted to go to a swingers club, good for them. But all the evidence indicates she did not want to go and he forced her to. That is a major character flaw.

Did they ever go to a sex club? According to reports, they never did. So how could he have forced her to do something that didn't happen?

[mostpost]

Well you think you beat them almost every time.
To pat yourself on the back I suggest one of these:

http://blogs.graphicdesignforum.com/mlenhart/archives/images/pat_on_the_back_1.jpg.
Thank you. Do you know where I can purchase one?

[Greyfox]

Thank you. Do you know where I can purchase one?

My understanding is the Prez has the patent on it. Might be able to get it on line at obamascare.com or something like that.

[mostpost]

Did they ever go to a sex club? According to reports, they never did. So how could he have forced her to do something that didn't happen?
From the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/23/us/illinois-senate-campaign-thrown-into-prurient-turmoil.html?scp=1&sq=Jack+Ryan+Jeri+Ryan&st=nyt

From the New York Times:

Ms. Ryan, who appeared in ''Star Trek: Voyager'' and is a star of the television series ''Boston Public,'' said in a declaration dated June 9, 2000, that when she and her husband were in New York, she refused to enter one club with him because ''it had mattresses and cubicles,'' and that he then took her to ''a bizarre club with cages, whips and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling.''

''Respondent wanted me to have sex with him there, with another couple watching,'' she said, referring to her husband. ''I refused. Respondent asked me to perform a sexual activity upon him, and he specifically asked other people to watch. I was very upset. We left the club and respondent apologized, said that I was right and he would never insist that I go to a club again. He promised it was out of his system.''

''Then during a trip to Paris,'' the document said, ''he took me to a sex club in Paris, without telling me where we were going. I told him I thought it was out of his system. I told him he had promised me we would never go. People were having sex everywhere. I cried, I was physically ill. Respondent became very upset with me, and told me it was not a 'turn-on' for me to cry. I could not get over the incident, and my loss of any attraction to him as a result.''

[Tom]

Well, we know where one of the Four Tops ended up.
Spin spin spin.........weeeeeee!

[mostpost]

Well, we know where one of the Four Tops ended up.
Spin spin spin.........weeeeeee!
In another thread you talked of putting me on "IGGY"
To me the only two reasons a person would put someone on "Ignore" are
1. The ignoree is being very and persistently rude and insulting to the ignorer. Not the case.
2. The ignorer is tired of losing lots of arguments to the ignoree.
Modesty prevents........

Back to this thread:
Let me summarize; Valuist posted a claim that Jack Ryan could have beaten Obama in the 2004 Illinois Senate race, and the reason he didn't was Obama caused the relaese of sealed divorce papers which damaged Ryan.

Several posts followed to the effect of "Yes, he did." "That rotten Obama" "Oh drat, he makes me so mad." None of this backed up by any documentation.

Then Mostpost (me) pointed out:
1. It was the Chicago Tribune, not Obama who sued for release of the divorce records. (Wikipedia)
2. Obama urged fellow Democrats not to pursue the matter. (Chicago Sun Times)
3. A Chicago Tribune poll of May 2004 showed Obama with a 22 percentage point lead over Ryan. (Wiki)
4. I didn't even mention the fact that during the Republican Party Primary, four Republicans called for Ryan to release the Divorce documents. (Chicago Sun Times)

Next, Boxcar called me stupid, again. Kinda like Robert Reich calling someone short.

Then Greyfox posted that Obama had "Cheated" by challenging the signatures on Alice Palmer's nominating petition, and even the "Radical Socialist" DJof SD thought Obamashould not be blamed for Palmer's failures. Finally, Valuist challenged my assertion that the Ryans ever attended a sex club.
My response cited a New York Times article and quoted from a Declaration (A statement under oath) By Jeri Ryan that indeed they had. Jack Ryan denied this at a press conference. (No Oath Required).

After all that, you're saying that I"M spinning. :faint: :faint: :faint: :faint:

[cj's dad]

Why don't you try to post something in the horse racing sections ??

Are you a flamer or what exactly are you ??

looking forward to your next handicapping post- maybe we can learn something from it :lol:

[Steve 'StatMan']

Assuming Obama didn't win the senate and have his meteoric rise to the presidency, who would the Dems have had as their candidate, and would they have beaten McCain? With the scandal that claimed John Edwards, would it have been Hillary Clinton? Would she have won that election? Admittedly, same IL senate seat, but I don't think Jack Ryan would have been running for President on the Republican side.

[Greyfox]

Then Mostpost (me) pointed out:

Then Greyfox posted that Obama had "Cheated" by challenging the signatures on Alice Palmer's nominating petition, and even the "Radical Socialist" DJof SD thought Obama should not be blamed for Palmer's failures. :faint: :faint: :faint: :faint:

Excuse me, I never said Obama "cheated."
I said he threw her under the bus, as he did others.

In fact when Alice Palmer tried for the federal position, they had what might have been called a " a"hand-shake agreement" that if she didn't get it, she would go for the Illinois Senate seat and he, as the one she blessed would step down. When she failed at the federal bid, he reneged in stepping down, called in her signatures and that was that.
For you to accuse DJof SD as being a "Radical Socialist," even though she attempts to point out where I might be wrong on other threads, is
absolutely ridiculous.

When you flap your lips as often as you do, or more realistically pound the keyboard as often as you do, there comes a time when you'll just be taken win a grain of inane salt. Me thinks, that's where you're headed for. Yet, you could have so much to contribute with a bit more thought.

[mostpost]

Excuse me, I never said Obama "cheated."
I said he threw her under the bus, as he did others.

In fact when Alice Palmer tried for the federal position, they had what might have been called a " a"hand-shake agreement" that if she didn't get it, she would go for the Illinois Senate seat and he, as the one she blessed would step down. When she failed at the federal bid, he reneged in stepping down, called in her signatures and that was that.
For you to accuse DJof SD as being a "Radical Socialist," even though she attempts to point out where I might be wrong on other threads, is
absolutely ridiculous.

When you flap your lips as often as you do, or more realistically pound the keyboard as often as you do, there comes a time when you'll just be taken win a grain of inane salt. Me thinks, that's where you're headed for. Yet, you could have so much to contribute with a bit more thought.
DJofSD is a lady? OOPs. My bad. I thought that putting quotes around RADICAL SOCIALIST would be sufficient to denote that I was speaking ironically. Again, by putting quotes arounf CHEATED I was trying to convey the tenor of your post, not to quote your actual words. It appears to me that subtlety is often misunderstood here.

As far as a "hand shake agreement", I know nothing about that and will not comment until I research it.

[Greyfox]

DJofSD is a lady? OOPs. My bad.
.

Why the apology if DJofSd is a lady?
On this board people are people as far as I know.:rolleyes:

[Tom]

In another thread you talked of putting me on "IGGY"
To me the only two reasons a person would put someone on "Ignore" are
1. The ignoree is being very and persistently rude and insulting to the ignorer. Not the case.
2. The ignorer is tired of losing lots of arguments to the ignoree.
Modesty prevents........


A legend in your own mind. You left out the MAIN reason.......after a few weeks ofmaking no sense at all on any topic, one starts to hear you as a kid in a car going "Arewethereyet?Arewethereyet?Arewethereyet?
Arewethereyet?Arewethereyet?Arewethereyet?

[mostpost]

A legend in your own mind. You left out the MAIN reason.......after a few weeks ofmaking no sense at all on any topic, one starts to hear you as a kid in a car going "Arewethereyet?Arewethereyet?Arewethereyet?
Arewethereyet?Arewethereyet?Arewethereyet?
In your world I make no sense. In another world I make a great deal of sense. In that world (which actually exists) thirty states lean solidly democratic; only four lean solidly Republican. (Gallup poll). In that world 46% trust Obama on health care while 37% trust congressional Republicans. (Quinnipiac poll). In that world 69% of the people think that health care reform is very or somewhat important, while 28% do not. In the real world, Obama has an approval rating of 53%, which is dropping, but still 30 points higher than congress.

The world you live in is one where facts which don't fit your worldview are ignored. No wonder I make no sense.

[BenDiesel26]

In your world I make no sense. In another world I make a great deal of sense. In that world (which actually exists) thirty states lean solidly democratic; only four lean solidly Republican. (Gallup poll). In that world 46% trust Obama on health care while 37% trust congressional Republicans. Meanwhile, voters disapprove 49 - 45 percent of the way the President is handling the economy and disapprove 52 - 39 percent of the way he is handling health care (Quinnipiac poll). In that same world, 47 of 50 states gave Obama a C- or D on healthcare reform for a national average of a D on a CNN poll consisting of 282,000 people. In that world 69% of the people think that health care reform is very or somewhat important, while 28% do not, and 49% of Americans rate their healthcare either good or excellent. In the real world, Obama has an approval rating of 53%, which is dropping and about equal to Bush's 55% at the same point in office (50% in the latest Quinnipiac Poll), but still 30 points higher than congress.

The world you live in is one where facts which don't fit your worldview are ignored. No wonder I make no sense.

I added some more real world facts to your post. Your welcome.

[mostpost]

Why don't you try to post something in the horse racing sections ??

Are you a flamer or what exactly are you ??

looking forward to your next handicapping post- maybe we can learn something from it :lol:
I know my strengths. I know my weaknesses. I am extremely impressed with the acumen and intelligence of the people who discuss handicapping here. while I do OK at handicapping, (modest to fair profits in two of the last four years; modest losses in the other two years) I don't feel qualified to participate in that discussion.

I should participate more the racing section. I have opinions and am willing to express them, but I'm very busy saving the world here. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[boxcar]

I should participate more the racing section. I have opinions and am willing to express them, but I'm very busy saving the world here. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Geesh...we have another "messiah" in our midst. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

I hope you got Boxcar's permission before posting his picture. :lol: :lol: :lol:

You should only look half as good. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

So Monica was public policy problem and not a family problem.:rolleyes: And you say this is what liberals do best? Hilarious.

I knew you'd bring this up because you can't see the difference between the two situations. Adultery by a president in the Oval Office differs a wee bit from differences between a mere candidate husband and his wife.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Duh!!! There were no unethical tactics. Except in your delusions. It was the Chicago Tribune which sued to obtain release of the Ryan divorce papers. Obama was well ahead of Ryan at all points of the race.

As to Alice Palmer in the state senate race, I will accept your feigned outrage in you can show me that no Republican has ever challenged an opponents signatures. This is accepted practice and a candidate would be a fool to not do so.
Besides I would rather have a state senator or Senator, or President who can obtain four times the required signatures as opposed to one who has 2/3 of her signatures disqualified.

Of course you would. This is what sheeple do best. Follow that "herd" of signatories. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Next, Boxcar called me stupid, again. Kinda like Robert Reich calling someone short.

What did you expect me to do? Call you "brilliant" for missing the point and getting off it? :bang: :bang:

Besides, you should be counting your blessing that I was being gracious and didn't call you a lot worse, such as a ULF -- Unintelligent Life-form. The level of "stupid" is actually an upgrade from this. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[Tom]

I knew you'd bring this up because you can't see the difference between the two situations. Adultery by a president in the Oval Office differs a wee bit from differences between a mere candidate husband and his wife.

Boxcar

This is the problem with liberal thinking - it is superficial at best. Libs do not understand concepts, they react to key words. Ideas are replaces by "auto-thoughts" much like Word tries to complete sentences or Excel fills a cell after you type a letter or two. They do not understand that the two things are totally different - they have that one single response programed or beamed in from the mother ship that they parrot back out when a word comes up.

The mystery about libs is why they are always so angry when they understand so little. One would expect great hilarity in their lives.

That brings up a useful side note - unlike normal zombies, you cannot kill a lib by whacking off its head (remember Dawn of the Dead?) Unlike zombies, libs really have no use for their heads. Since you cannot tell the difference between a zombie and a lib, you need to know that. If you shoot the head and it keeps coming, hit it with an idea. :lol:

[mostpost]

This is the problem with liberal thinking - it is superficial at best. Libs do not understand concepts, they react to key words. Ideas are replaces by "auto-thoughts" much like Word tries to complete sentences or Excel fills a cell after you type a letter or two. They do not understand that the two things are totally different - they have that one single response programed or beamed in from the mother ship that they parrot back out when a word comes up.

The mystery about libs is why they are always so angry when they understand so little. One would expect great hilarity in their lives.

That brings up a useful side note - unlike normal zombies, you cannot kill a lib by whacking off its head (remember Dawn of the Dead?) Unlike zombies, libs really have no use for their heads. Since you cannot tell the difference between a zombie and a lib, you need to know that. If you shoot the head and it keeps coming, hit it with an idea. :lol:
I'm still alive, so apparently you haven't hit me with any ideas yet. I may live to a thousand :lol: :lol:

[david botsford]

Why don't you try to post something in the horse racing sections ??

Are you a flamer or what exactly are you ??

looking forward to your next handicapping post- maybe we can learn something from it :lol:This is a handicapping site I'm confused.

[boxcar]

This is a handicapping site I'm confused.

What part of OFF TOPIC, don't you understand?

Boxcar

[david botsford]

What part of OFF TOPIC, don't you understand?

BoxcarIt was and attempt to support CJ'S Dad in the contention that you seem to be here just to flame.

[boxcar]

It was and attempt to support CJ'S Dad in the contention that you seem to be here just to flame.

Then I'd suggest that your attempt fell far short of its intended mark.

Boxcar

[Warren Henry]

But...But.....Clinton was a DEMOCRAT, Jack Ryan is a REPUBLICAN. Don't you get it. :bang: :bang: :bang:
Clinton LIED under oath about his escapade. If he had just said, "Yeah, I got a little knob job. Probably shouldn't have done that" he would have been just fine.

He made the same mistake as "tricky" Dick. He thought he was above the law and could lie about his actions and get away with it. Unlike Dick, Clinton did pretty much get away with it.

[boxcar]

I'm still alive, so apparently you haven't hit me with any ideas yet. I may live to a thousand :lol: :lol:

Actually, he did -- many times over. But you lack even the most rudimentary elements of common sense to roll over and die already. :bang: :bang:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Clinton LIED under oath about his escapade. If he had just said, "Yeah, I got a little knob job. Probably shouldn't have done that" he would have been just fine.

He made the same mistake as "tricky" Dick. He thought he was above the law and could lie about his actions and get away with it. Unlike Dick, Clinton did pretty much get away with it.

No he didn't. Not really. He's still stuck with Hillary. He couldn't get rid of that rotten apple. She's probably his piece of hell here on earth. :D

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

It was and attempt to support CJ'S Dad in the contention that you seem to be here just to flame.CJ's Dad was writing to mostpost...

[PaceAdvantage]

What did you expect me to do? Call you "brilliant" for missing the point and getting off it? :bang: :bang:

Besides, you should be counting your blessing that I was being gracious and didn't call you a lot worse, such as a ULF -- Unintelligent Life-form. The level of "stupid" is actually an upgrade from this. :rolleyes:

BoxcarHow about just stop calling people names altogether? It would certainly make my life much easier, and it wouldn't detract ONE BIT from the banter that goes on around here....

This goes for everyone else too in off topic...