Bloomie's Gun-Grabbing 3rd Party Will Put Whoop-Ass on the Dems!!

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/bloomberg_perot_president/2008/01/18/65717.html

Bloomberg Meets With Perot Manager, Ballot Expert

Friday, January 18, 2008

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg met Friday with the ballot access expert

and campaign manager for H. Ross Perot's third-party presidential bid, a

sign of the multibillionaire's seriousness about a possible independent run.

Bloomberg met privately with Clay Mulford, who is well-versed in third-party

ballot access and served as campaign manager for Perot, according to an

individual close to the mayor. Perot sought the presidency in 1992 and 1996.

The lunch meeting with Mulford comes less than two months before Bloomberg

would be able to start gathering signatures to get on the ballot and meet

Texas' early deadline.

If Bloomberg wants a chance at winning the state's large slice of electoral

votes -- 34 -- he would need to collect about 74,100 signatures by May 12,

and cannot begin circulating petitions here until March 5. Not only does he

have a short window to petition, the signatures need to be from Texas

residents who did not vote in a party primary.

Earlier Friday, during a news conference, Bloomberg was asked about the

significance of being in Texas, with its early ballot deadline. He seemed

irritated with the question, having said only a moment earlier that he is

"not a candidate" despite all the calls for him to run.

"I just said, I'm not a candidate -- it couldn't be clearer," he said.

"Which of the words do you not understand? People have urged me to do it but

I'm not a candidate."

Despite his public denials, Bloomberg has been consulting with people such

as Mulford and is conducting a sophisticated analysis of voter data in all

50 states to better understand his chances as a third-party candidate. Aides

have said he would delay a decision until after the major parties produce

clear front-runners.

Making a move in Texas is not easy. Ballot access is notoriously difficult

in the state, according to independent political strategist Dean Barkley,

who managed Kinky Friedman's independent gubernatorial campaign here in

2006.

"Texas is your biggest problem, and it starts on March 5, so if he's going

to do it, he's going to have to start fairly soon organizing the effort,"

Barkley said.

Friedman's campaign spent six months organizing for their petition drive, he

said.

Mulford, who was formerly a partner with the law firm Jones Day, was general

counsel and campaign manager for Perot's 1992 bid and in 1996 was general

counsel to the Reform Party and Perot's campaign.

Earlier in the day, Bloomberg appeared at an Austin hospital to talk health

care with Lance Armstrong, a cancer survivor and seven-time Tour de France

champion cyclist. Armstrong is an emerging political power in Texas, and any

hint that he's supporting Bloomberg would lend credence to the mayor's

prospective campaign and signature-gathering efforts.

Armstrong was a key figure in the state getting a large cancer-research bond

issue passed and he has dabbled in national politics with his televised

cancer forums for presidential candidates. He might even make a good running

mate for Bloomberg; the mayor on Friday suggested Armstrong has what it

takes to lead.

"He's exactly the kind of person we need," Bloomberg said.

Armstrong spoke just as warmly about the mayor.

"I'm sure there's a lot of questions about whether he's in or not in, but at

the end of the day, he's representing an independent agenda and the best

interests of the people," Armstrong said.

The event at Brackenridge Hospital focused on a national plan to deal with

cancer. Also attending was former surgeon general Richard Carmona, who leads

a coalition of health groups trying to get presidential candidates to talk

about chronic health issues.

Carmona, who served from 2002 to 2006 under President Bush, also leads the

Surgeons General Collective, an independent body composed of previous U.S.

surgeons general. On Friday, he said the group _ at Armstrong's request _

will develop a call to action focused on preventing and surviving cancer.

"The need and urgency to make cancer prevention and survivorship a national

priority should be clear to all of us, but the level of action and progress

is not nearly what it should be," Carmona said.

Carmona has not said which candidate he favors in the 2008 presidential

race. He has said the coalition, The Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease,

also will not make an endorsement.

He did say that Bloomberg is "setting an example, really, for the rest of

the nation."

Bloomberg, a billionaire philanthropist who has donated hundreds of millions

of dollars to public health causes, said health issues are sadly lacking

national leadership.

His City Hall administration has focused more on personal behavior as its

approach to public health policy; during his first term he banned smoking

citywide, and recently, the city outlawed trans-fats and created the

official New York City condom to promote safer sexual behavior.

"If we could get people to stop smoking and exercise and to eat healthy, we

would reduce the medical costs in this country quite significantly," he

said, "and we could have a more intelligent discussion about how we provide

care, which is fast outstripping our ability to pay for it."

Bloomberg's trip was to continue Saturday in California, where he was to

appear with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger at an event on infrastructure.

You may be on to something. You need to get all your racist buddies

to send money to Bloomberg.

Bret Cahill

> >http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/bloomberg_perot_president/2008/01/...

>

> > Bloomberg Meets With Perot Manager, Ballot Expert

>

> > Friday, January 18, 2008

>

> > New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg met Friday with the ballot access expert

> > and campaign manager for H. Ross Perot's third-party presidential bid, a

> > sign of the multibillionaire's seriousness about a possible independent run.

>

> > Bloomberg met privately with Clay Mulford, who is well-versed in third-party

> > ballot access and served as campaign manager for Perot, according to an

> > individual close to the mayor. Perot sought the presidency in 1992 and 1996.

> > The lunch meeting with Mulford comes less than two months before Bloomberg

> > would be able to start gathering signatures to get on the ballot and meet

> > Texas' early deadline.

>

> > If Bloomberg wants a chance at winning the state's large slice of electoral

> > votes -- 34 -- he would need to collect about 74,100 signatures by May 12,

> > and cannot begin circulating petitions here until March 5. Not only does he

> > have a short window to petition, the signatures need to be from Texas

> > residents who did not vote in a party primary.

>

> > Earlier Friday, during a news conference, Bloomberg was asked about the

> > significance of being in Texas, with its early ballot deadline. He seemed

> > irritated with the question, having said only a moment earlier that he is

> > "not a candidate" despite all the calls for him to run.

>

> > "I just said, I'm not a candidate -- it couldn't be clearer," he said.

> > "Which of the words do you not understand? People have urged me to do it but

> > I'm not a candidate."

>

> > Despite his public denials, Bloomberg has been consulting with people such

> > as Mulford and is conducting a sophisticated analysis of voter data in all

> > 50 states to better understand his chances as a third-party candidate. Aides

> > have said he would delay a decision until after the major parties produce

> > clear front-runners.

>

> > Making a move in Texas is not easy. Ballot access is notoriously difficult

> > in the state, according to independent political strategist Dean Barkley,

> > who managed Kinky Friedman's independent gubernatorial campaign here in

> > 2006.

>

> > "Texas is your biggest problem, and it starts on March 5, so if he's going

> > to do it, he's going to have to start fairly soon organizing the effort,"

> > Barkley said.

>

> > Friedman's campaign spent six months organizing for their petition drive, he

> > said.

>

> > Mulford, who was formerly a partner with the law firm Jones Day, was general

> > counsel and campaign manager for Perot's 1992 bid and in 1996 was general

> > counsel to the Reform Party and Perot's campaign.

>

> > Earlier in the day, Bloomberg appeared at an Austin hospital to talk health

> > care with Lance Armstrong, a cancer survivor and seven-time Tour de France

> > champion cyclist. Armstrong is an emerging political power in Texas, and any

> > hint that he's supporting Bloomberg would lend credence to the mayor's

> > prospective campaign and signature-gathering efforts.

>

> > Armstrong was a key figure in the state getting a large cancer-research bond

> > issue passed and he has dabbled in national politics with his televised

> > cancer forums for presidential candidates. He might even make a good running

> > mate for Bloomberg; the mayor on Friday suggested Armstrong has what it

> > takes to lead.

>

> > "He's exactly the kind of person we need," Bloomberg said.

>

> > Armstrong spoke just as warmly about the mayor.

>

> > "I'm sure there's a lot of questions about whether he's in or not in, but at

> > the end of the day, he's representing an independent agenda and the best

> > interests of the people," Armstrong said.

>

> > The event at Brackenridge Hospital focused on a national plan to deal with

> > cancer. Also attending was former surgeon general Richard Carmona, who leads

> > a coalition of health groups trying to get presidential candidates to talk

> > about chronic health issues.

>

> > Carmona, who served from 2002 to 2006 under President Bush, also leads the

> > Surgeons General Collective, an independent body composed of previous U.S.

> > surgeons general. On Friday, he said the group _ at Armstrong's request _

> > will develop a call to action focused on preventing and surviving cancer..

>

> > "The need and urgency to make cancer prevention and survivorship a national

> > priority should be clear to all of us, but the level of action and progress

> > is not nearly what it should be," Carmona said.

>

> > Carmona has not said which candidate he favors in the 2008 presidential

> > race. He has said the coalition, The Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease,

> > also will not make an endorsement.

>

> > He did say that Bloomberg is "setting an example, really, for the rest of

> > the nation."

>

> > Bloomberg, a billionaire philanthropist who has donated hundreds of millions

> > of dollars to public health causes, said health issues are sadly lacking

> > national leadership.

>

> > His City Hall administration has focused more on personal behavior as its

> > approach to public health policy; during his first term he banned smoking

> > citywide, and recently, the city outlawed trans-fats and created the

> > official New York City condom to promote safer sexual behavior.

>

> > "If we could get people to stop smoking and exercise and to eat healthy, we

> > would reduce the medical costs in this country quite significantly," he

> > said, "and we could have a more intelligent discussion about how we provide

> > care, which is fast outstripping our ability to pay for it."

>

> > Bloomberg's trip was to continue Saturday in California, where he was to

> > appear with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger at an event on infrastructure.

>

> "Patriot Games' " headline on this item is further proof of his total

> ignorance of reality -- which is to be expected of a half-witted

> dingbat who lives in a crowded trailer park in Tampa and spends his

> time playing bingo at the senior center, when he's not stalking the

> elementary school playgrounds trying to sneak a peek up little girls'

> skirts.

>

> But enough of his perverted ways.

>

> For well over a decade, more Americans have said they are independents

> than have said they are Republicon or Democrat. � Thus, the electorate

> is split almost three ways -- which is why both parties make such a

> fuss over attracting independent voters. �The Republicons have won

> since the "Gingrich Revulsion" by patching together a coalition of

> biblthumpers, racists, gunnuts, "militiamen," and other fringe weirdos

> along with life-long moderate Republicans. �That coalition is rapidly

> coming apart because mainstream Republicans are finished with the

> control that the wackjobs exercise over the party.

>

> Let's remember the last time there was a serious third party challenge

> -- 1992 -- Bush, Clinton, and Perot. Perot pulled about 20 percent of

> the vote and he pulled it ALL from Bush, leading to Bush's defeat by

> Clinton.

Actually Perot "only" played an obfuscatory role in '92 and '96.

Perot drew as many votes from Clinton 42 as from GHW Bush and Dole.

Clinton would have won by double digits no matter what.

I put "only" in quotes because obfuscating the clear victory and

mandate of Clinton 44 is the only possible reason for Bloomie to run.

> If Bloomberg puts together a serious third party, he likely will pull

> a lot more votes than Perot for several reasons:

> 1. �Perot was a nutcase, Bloomberg is serious.

> 2. �Moderate and liberal Republicans are thoroughly disgusted with the

> right wing of their party and they especially are sick of the control

> by the "religious right" -- they'll flock to Bloomberg because he will

> represent true moderate Republican values.

> 3. �Ditto for a lot of Democrats who will see in Bloomberg --

> especially if he pulls a moderate Democrat as his VP -- an opportunity

> to pull away from the fringe of the Democratic Party.

>

> Bloomberg's coalition is likely to be:

> 1. �MOST �independents;

> 2. �A LOT of disaffected Republicans;

> 3. �A few disaffected Democrats.

>

> Thus, a Bloomberg candidacy will be another nail in the coffin of the

> Republican Party -- no matter what PG tells us.

Then after the Romney goes down by double digits rightards will blame

Bloomberg like they blame Perot for Clinton 42.

"Hillary doesn't have a mandate because that bad Bloomie was a

spoiler" they'll whine.

Hillary will win by 15 points without a "spoiler" and have a clear

mandate.

With Bloomie she'll win by 20 points but Repugs can say, "Hey, if it

weren't for Bloomie, we would have won, so Hillary gets nothing, no

health care, no tax hikes on the rich, no withdrawal from Iraq, etc."

Bret Cahill

"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message

news:50b408fd-7a11-4542-a919-f4009372cea2@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...

> You may be on to something. You need to get all your racist buddies

> to send money to Bloomberg.

We're half broke already sending money to Buckwheat!!

Now we gotta launch Bloomie too!?

JesusHChrist! Why do rich racist white rednecks have to pay for

everyfuckingthing!?!?!

Just admit it - Hitlary scares the shit out of YOU TOO!

"Lickin' Ass and Takin' Names" <PopUlist349@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:47ceefb8-90f1-46c8-a8b2-18b2bf684a18@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On Jan 19, 9:58 am, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

>> http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/bloomberg_perot_president/2008/01/...

>> Bloomberg Meets With Perot Manager, Ballot Expert

>> Friday, January 18, 2008

>Let's remember the last time there was a serious third party challenge

>-- 1992 -- Bush, Clinton, and Perot. Perot pulled about 20 percent of

>the vote and he pulled it ALL from Bush, leading to Bush's defeat by

>Clinton.

>If Bloomberg puts together a serious third party, he likely will pull

>a lot more votes than Perot for several reasons:

>1. Perot was a nutcase, Bloomberg is serious.

>2. Moderate and liberal Republicans are thoroughly disgusted with the

>right wing of their party and they especially are sick of the control

>by the "religious right" -- they'll flock to Bloomberg because he will

>represent true moderate Republican values.

>3. Ditto for a lot of Democrats who will see in Bloomberg --

>especially if he pulls a moderate Democrat as his VP -- an opportunity

>to pull away from the fringe of the Democratic Party.

>Bloomberg's coalition is likely to be:

>1. MOST independents;

>2. A LOT of disaffected Republicans;

>3. A few disaffected Democrats.

>Thus, a Bloomberg candidacy will be another nail in the coffin of the

>Republican Party -- no matter what PG tells us.

>Heh, heh.

Do yourself a favor and stop licking the crunchy bits off your cat's

puckered butthole.

WHATEVER Bloomie MIGHT attract as voters he WILL NOT GET even ONE of the

EIGHTY MILLION GUN OWNERS in America.

Moron....

He WILL pull from the DEMS.

That WILL guarantee a GOP White House.

And if you think FOR A SECOND that he doesn't know that YOU'RE STUPID.

Bloomie is INTENTIONALLY trying to keep Hitlary out of the White House!

So I guess I better send that fucker a check.....

hahahahahahaha!!!

On Jan 19, 3:42 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

> "Lickin' Ass and Takin' Names" <PopUlist...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:47ceefb8-90f1-46c8-a8b2-18b2bf684a18@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

> On Jan 19, 9:58 am, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

>

>

>

> >>http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/bloomberg_perot_president/2008/01/...

> >> Bloomberg Meets With Perot Manager, Ballot Expert

> >> Friday, January 18, 2008

> >Let's remember the last time there was a serious third party challenge

> >-- 1992 -- Bush, Clinton, and Perot. Perot pulled about 20 percent of

> >the vote and he pulled it ALL from Bush, leading to Bush's defeat by

> >Clinton.

> >If Bloomberg puts together a serious third party, he likely will pull

> >a lot more votes than Perot for several reasons:

> >1. Perot was a nutcase, Bloomberg is serious.

> >2. Moderate and liberal Republicans are thoroughly disgusted with the

> >right wing of their party and they especially are sick of the control

> >by the "religious right" -- they'll flock to Bloomberg because he will

> >represent true moderate Republican values.

> >3. Ditto for a lot of Democrats who will see in Bloomberg --

> >especially if he pulls a moderate Democrat as his VP -- an opportunity

> >to pull away from the fringe of the Democratic Party.

> >Bloomberg's coalition is likely to be:

> >1. MOST independents;

> >2. A LOT of disaffected Republicans;

> >3. A few disaffected Democrats.

> >Thus, a Bloomberg candidacy will be another nail in the coffin of the

> >Republican Party -- no matter what PG tells us.

> >Heh, heh.

>

> Do yourself a favor and stop licking the crunchy bits off your cat's

> puckered butthole.

>

> WHATEVER Bloomie MIGHT attract as voters he WILL NOT GET even ONE of the

> EIGHTY MILLION GUN OWNERS in America.

I own more than half a dozen guns.

A .300 Savage for deer.

A 12 gauge Remington for pheasant.

A 20 gauge Beretta for grouse.

A 28 gauge Browning for rabbit.

A .410 bore Harrington & Richardson for squirrel.

A .22 Winchester for plinking.

A .45 ACP and a .22 Colt modeled after a Peacemaker because I like

them.

I could be persuaded to vote for Bloomberg.

I guess, as usual, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about,

eh rightard?

Rightards...

>

> Moron....

>

> He WILL pull from the DEMS.

>

> That WILL guarantee a GOP White House.

>

> And if you think FOR A SECOND that he doesn't know that YOU'RE STUPID.

>

> Bloomie is INTENTIONALLY trying to keep Hitlary out of the White House!

>

> So I guess I better send that fucker a check.....

>

> hahahahahahaha!!!

> > You may be on to something. �You need to get all your racist buddies

> > to send money to Bloomberg.

>

> We're half broke already sending money to Buckwheat!!

>

> Now we gotta launch Bloomie too!?

You could go door to door. Just don't mention my name.

> JesusHChrist! �Why do rich racist white rednecks have to pay for

> everyfuckingthing!?!?!

>

> Just admit it - Hitlary scares the shit out of YOU TOO!

Hillary by 15+ points in the general election.

Bret Cahill

> Bloomie is INTENTIONALLY trying to keep Hitlary out of the White House!

I think Bloomberg's doing the same thing as Perot in '92 and '96.

Instead of being a spoiler he's really only an obfuscator.

He wants right wing economists to be able to say, "see that 10 point

victory Hillary is claiming as a 'mandate?' Well if it weren't for

that Bloomberg jerk the race would have been much closer."

Problem with that plan is Bloomie will cause Hillary to win by 20

points instead of 15.

Bret Cahill

On Jan 19, 10:23 am, "Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names" wrote:

> Bloomberg's coalition is likely to be:

> 1. MOST independents;

I doubt "most" independents will have anything to do with Bloomberg.

They learned twice from Nader fucking up the election of a competent

and rational President -- and I suspect many have kicking themselves

for the damaged they did to this nation by voting for a 3rd party.

On top of that, it is clear that the mood in America is for CHANGE .

Bloomberg doesn't offer that in the slightest. The Democrats do in

2008, Big Time, whoever gets the nomination.

> 2. A LOT of disaffected Republicans;

> 3. A few disaffected Democrats.

I doubt there are many disaffected Democrats, expect for some in the

South who haven't realized yet they are actually Republicans.

I see a Democratic field where any of the top 3 candidates would be

acceptable to most of its party. All are very similar in what they

offer.

I see a Republican party which is basically tearing itself apart,

something that has been coming for sometime now.

-Tom Sr.

On Jan 19, 10:32 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

> > >http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/bloomberg_perot_president/2008/01/....

>

> > > Bloomberg Meets With Perot Manager, Ballot Expert

>

> > > Friday, January 18, 2008

>

> > > New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg met Friday with the ballot access expert

> > > and campaign manager for H. Ross Perot's third-party presidential bid, a

> > > sign of the multibillionaire's seriousness about a possible independent run.

>

> > > Bloomberg met privately with Clay Mulford, who is well-versed in third-party

> > > ballot access and served as campaign manager for Perot, according to an

> > > individual close to the mayor. Perot sought the presidency in 1992 and 1996.

> > > The lunch meeting with Mulford comes less than two months before Bloomberg

> > > would be able to start gathering signatures to get on the ballot and meet

> > > Texas' early deadline.

>

> > > If Bloomberg wants a chance at winning the state's large slice of electoral

> > > votes -- 34 -- he would need to collect about 74,100 signatures by May 12,

> > > and cannot begin circulating petitions here until March 5. Not only does he

> > > have a short window to petition, the signatures need to be from Texas

> > > residents who did not vote in a party primary.

>

> > > Earlier Friday, during a news conference, Bloomberg was asked about the

> > > significance of being in Texas, with its early ballot deadline. He seemed

> > > irritated with the question, having said only a moment earlier that he is

> > > "not a candidate" despite all the calls for him to run.

>

> > > "I just said, I'm not a candidate -- it couldn't be clearer," he said.

> > > "Which of the words do you not understand? People have urged me to do it but

> > > I'm not a candidate."

>

> > > Despite his public denials, Bloomberg has been consulting with people such

> > > as Mulford and is conducting a sophisticated analysis of voter data in all

> > > 50 states to better understand his chances as a third-party candidate. Aides

> > > have said he would delay a decision until after the major parties produce

> > > clear front-runners.

>

> > > Making a move in Texas is not easy. Ballot access is notoriously difficult

> > > in the state, according to independent political strategist Dean Barkley,

> > > who managed Kinky Friedman's independent gubernatorial campaign here in

> > > 2006.

>

> > > "Texas is your biggest problem, and it starts on March 5, so if he's going

> > > to do it, he's going to have to start fairly soon organizing the effort,"

> > > Barkley said.

>

> > > Friedman's campaign spent six months organizing for their petition drive, he

> > > said.

>

> > > Mulford, who was formerly a partner with the law firm Jones Day, was general

> > > counsel and campaign manager for Perot's 1992 bid and in 1996 was general

> > > counsel to the Reform Party and Perot's campaign.

>

> > > Earlier in the day, Bloomberg appeared at an Austin hospital to talk health

> > > care with Lance Armstrong, a cancer survivor and seven-time Tour de France

> > > champion cyclist. Armstrong is an emerging political power in Texas, and any

> > > hint that he's supporting Bloomberg would lend credence to the mayor's

> > > prospective campaign and signature-gathering efforts.

>

> > > Armstrong was a key figure in the state getting a large cancer-research bond

> > > issue passed and he has dabbled in national politics with his televised

> > > cancer forums for presidential candidates. He might even make a good running

> > > mate for Bloomberg; the mayor on Friday suggested Armstrong has what it

> > > takes to lead.

>

> > > "He's exactly the kind of person we need," Bloomberg said.

>

> > > Armstrong spoke just as warmly about the mayor.

>

> > > "I'm sure there's a lot of questions about whether he's in or not in, but at

> > > the end of the day, he's representing an independent agenda and the best

> > > interests of the people," Armstrong said.

>

> > > The event at Brackenridge Hospital focused on a national plan to deal with

> > > cancer. Also attending was former surgeon general Richard Carmona, who leads

> > > a coalition of health groups trying to get presidential candidates to talk

> > > about chronic health issues.

>

> > > Carmona, who served from 2002 to 2006 under President Bush, also leads the

> > > Surgeons General Collective, an independent body composed of previous U.S.

> > > surgeons general. On Friday, he said the group _ at Armstrong's request _

> > > will develop a call to action focused on preventing and surviving cancer.

>

> > > "The need and urgency to make cancer prevention and survivorship a national

> > > priority should be clear to all of us, but the level of action and progress

> > > is not nearly what it should be," Carmona said.

>

> > > Carmona has not said which candidate he favors in the 2008 presidential

> > > race. He has said the coalition, The Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease,

> > > also will not make an endorsement.

>

> > > He did say that Bloomberg is "setting an example, really, for the rest of

> > > the nation."

>

> > > Bloomberg, a billionaire philanthropist who has donated hundreds of millions

> > > of dollars to public health causes, said health issues are sadly lacking

> > > national leadership.

>

> > > His City Hall administration has focused more on personal behavior as its

> > > approach to public health policy; during his first term he banned smoking

> > > citywide, and recently, the city outlawed trans-fats and created the

> > > official New York City condom to promote safer sexual behavior.

>

> > > "If we could get people to stop smoking and exercise and to eat healthy, we

> > > would reduce the medical costs in this country quite significantly," he

> > > said, "and we could have a more intelligent discussion about how we provide

> > > care, which is fast outstripping our ability to pay for it."

>

> > > Bloomberg's trip was to continue Saturday in California, where he was to

> > > appear with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger at an event on infrastructure.

>

> > "Patriot Games' " headline on this item is further proof of his total

> > ignorance of reality -- which is to be expected of a half-witted

> > dingbat who lives in a crowded trailer park in Tampa and spends his

> > time playing bingo at the senior center, when he's not stalking the

> > elementary school playgrounds trying to sneak a peek up little girls'

> > skirts.

>

> > But enough of his perverted ways.

>

> > For well over a decade, more Americans have said they are independents

> > than have said they are Republicon or Democrat. � Thus, the electorate

> > is split almost three ways -- which is why both parties make such a

> > fuss over attracting independent voters. �The Republicons have won

> > since the "Gingrich Revulsion" by patching together a coalition of

> > biblthumpers, racists, gunnuts, "militiamen," and other fringe weirdos

> > along with life-long moderate Republicans. �That coalition is rapidly

> > coming apart because mainstream Republicans are finished with the

> > control that the wackjobs exercise over the party.

>

> > Let's remember the last time there was a serious third party challenge

> > -- 1992 -- Bush, Clinton, and Perot. Perot pulled about 20 percent of

> > the vote and he pulled it ALL from Bush, leading to Bush's defeat by

> > Clinton.

>

> Actually Perot "only" played an obfuscatory role in '92 and '96.

> Perot drew as many votes from Clinton 42 as from GHW Bush and Dole.

> Clinton would have won by double digits no matter what.

>

> I put "only" in quotes because obfuscating the clear victory and

> mandate of Clinton 44 is the only possible reason for Bloomie to run.

>

>

>

> > If Bloomberg puts together a serious third party, he likely will pull

> > a lot more votes than Perot for several reasons:

> > 1. �Perot was a nutcase, Bloomberg is serious.

> > 2. �Moderate and liberal Republicans are thoroughly disgusted with the

> > right wing of their party and they especially are sick of the control

> > by the "religious right" -- they'll flock to Bloomberg because he will

> > represent true moderate Republican values.

> > 3. �Ditto for a lot of Democrats who will see in Bloomberg --

> > especially if he pulls a moderate Democrat as his VP -- an opportunity

> > to pull away from the fringe of the Democratic Party.

>

> > Bloomberg's coalition is likely to be:

> > 1. �MOST �independents;

> > 2. �A LOT of disaffected Republicans;

> > 3. �A few disaffected Democrats.

>

> > Thus, a Bloomberg candidacy will be another nail in the coffin of the

> > Republican Party -- no matter what PG tells us.

>

> Then after the Romney goes down by double digits rightards will blame

> Bloomberg like they blame Perot for Clinton 42.

>

> "Hillary doesn't have a mandate because that bad Bloomie was a

> spoiler" they'll whine.

>

> Hillary will win by 15 points without a "spoiler" and have a clear

> mandate.

>

> With Bloomie she'll win by 20 points but Repugs can say, "Hey, if it

> weren't for Bloomie, we would have won, so Hillary gets nothing, no

> health care, no tax hikes on the rich, no withdrawal from Iraq, etc."

A reasonable assessment, but a lot can happen before November. Can the

political system even last another year of Bush? I see thawt the

prices on Wall Street would've had the bottom drop out already were it

not for the computer controls to slow the process. which is not the

same as saying that they have the power to stop the decline. Maybe. so

much of it is nothing but digital money.

But the sheeple will vote which ever way the corporate media decide,

and I cant tell yet. Maybe they havent decided yet either, and may not

come to a clear decision.

> But the sheeple will vote which ever way the corporate media decide,

The corp. media are only a factor in Iowa. Iowa hayseeds like to

think they look sophisticated by going along with the nat'l corp.

media.

Wall Street, in sharp contrast, just _loves_ the Clintons.

The corp. media,assuming anyone even pays attention to them, look like

incompetents or frauds whining about the Clintons.

They have these highly paid network news and print folk who are now

forced to admit that they "didn't know what was going on" with Clinton

as president.

Either they knew or should have known and are therefore frauds for not

telling the American people.

Or they are just plain stupid.

But there is no way any honest person gets paid big bucks for not

knowing what is going on.

Bret Cahill

On Jan 19, 11:32 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

> >

> ... so Hillary gets nothing, no

> health care, no tax hikes on the rich, no withdrawal from Iraq, etc."

Well, certainly not after the Republican congressional landslide in

2010.

If we can't get the presidency, at least we get paralysis - Republican

motto (which I just made up - do you like it?)

Fred Weiss

Bloomberg is daydreaming that he can obfuscate the results of

Hillary's otherwise 15% landslide.

The problem with that idea is he'll do even worse than Perot.

All B. will do is cause Hillary to win by 20%.

> > ... so Hillary gets nothing, no

> > health care, no tax hikes on the rich, no withdrawal from Iraq, etc."

>

> Well, certainly not after the Republican congressional landslide in

> 2010.

What part of "the GOP is dead" do you NOT unnerstand?

You are suffering from a virulent strain of factphobia.

Bret Cahill

"SilentOtto" <silentotto@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:d581752f-8130-41f5-8ae9-984cbce77b15@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

> On Jan 19, 3:42 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

>> "Lickin' Ass and Takin' Names" <PopUlist...@hotmail.com> wrote in

>> messagenews:47ceefb8-90f1-46c8-a8b2-18b2bf684a18@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

>> On Jan 19, 9:58 am, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

>> >>http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/bloomberg_perot_president/2008/01/...

>> >> Bloomberg Meets With Perot Manager, Ballot Expert

>> >> Friday, January 18, 2008

>> >Let's remember the last time there was a serious third party challenge

>> >-- 1992 -- Bush, Clinton, and Perot. Perot pulled about 20 percent of

>> >the vote and he pulled it ALL from Bush, leading to Bush's defeat by

>> >Clinton.

>> >If Bloomberg puts together a serious third party, he likely will pull

>> >a lot more votes than Perot for several reasons:

>> >1. Perot was a nutcase, Bloomberg is serious.

>> >2. Moderate and liberal Republicans are thoroughly disgusted with the

>> >right wing of their party and they especially are sick of the control

>> >by the "religious right" -- they'll flock to Bloomberg because he will

>> >represent true moderate Republican values.

>> >3. Ditto for a lot of Democrats who will see in Bloomberg --

>> >especially if he pulls a moderate Democrat as his VP -- an opportunity

>> >to pull away from the fringe of the Democratic Party.

>> >Bloomberg's coalition is likely to be:

>> >1. MOST independents;

>> >2. A LOT of disaffected Republicans;

>> >3. A few disaffected Democrats.

>> >Thus, a Bloomberg candidacy will be another nail in the coffin of the

>> >Republican Party -- no matter what PG tells us.

>> >Heh, heh.

>> Do yourself a favor and stop licking the crunchy bits off your cat's

>> puckered butthole.

>> WHATEVER Bloomie MIGHT attract as voters he WILL NOT GET even ONE of the

>> EIGHTY MILLION GUN OWNERS in America.

> I own more than half a dozen guns.

> A .300 Savage for deer.

> A 12 gauge Remington for pheasant.

> A 20 gauge Beretta for grouse.

> A 28 gauge Browning for rabbit.

> A .410 bore Harrington & Richardson for squirrel.

> A .22 Winchester for plinking.

> A .45 ACP and a .22 Colt modeled after a Peacemaker because I like

> them.

I don't believe it.

> I could be persuaded to vote for Bloomberg.

I don't believe it. You're a Hitlary crotch servicer.

Be that as it may, the GOP has shot itself in the foot over gun rights

and other emotional issues because it could not prevent outsourcing

and downsizing from destroying the incomes of its Christian fundy

followers. Bankruptcy has a nasty habit of waking people up to

reality.

If the Hillary/Obama ticket is to be beaten, it'll need a new

candidate from a new centrist party. There are enuf independents to do

that, but the rhetoric has to be more centrist than that of Ron Paul,

and from a man who is not a rich bastard or lawyer.

"Day Brown" <daybrown@hughes.net> wrote in message

news:3d161c86-e2c5-4a9f-afd0-1d46fa3f5352@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

> Be that as it may, the GOP has shot itself in the foot over gun rights

> and other emotional issues because it could not prevent outsourcing

> and downsizing from destroying the incomes of its Christian fundy

> followers. Bankruptcy has a nasty habit of waking people up to

> reality.

The GOP hasn't shot itself in the foot over gun rights.

Outsourcing and downsizing was first sanctioned by Clinton.

Its true the Dems are running against Bush. I have no idea why. Its a

stupid strategy.

> If the Hillary/Obama ticket is to be beaten, it'll need a new

> candidate from a new centrist party.

Maybe.

But consider this. We normally (past few decades) run around 50% turnout

for the Presidential election. But the last two were considerably larger.

Not because so many extra people wanted to vote for Bush but because they

felt compelled (for whatever specific reasons compel them) to vote against

Gore and against Kerry.

In 2006 we saw it drop to a near-record low 40% turnout. That's tens of

millions of people who should have been compelled to respond to the GOP

shooting itself "itself in the foot over gun rights", or should have

responded to "outsourcing and downsizing," etc. But they didn't respond.

60% of registered voters are not bothered by what you think they're bothered

by.

And in 2000 and 2004 we had a couple of mostly ordinary white guys running.

Sure, George was a bit extreme right, Gore was a bit more than a bit extreme

left, and Kerry was a bit more than normal scary.

This time it ain't no semi-normal white guys like we're used to.

How can you NOT predict a massive turnout? And in BOTH directions. I think

you have to assume there will be some people who normally don't bother to

vote who will vote because they have a woman to vote for, or a black guy to

vote for.

The question becomes: Will the enhanced turnout be more for woman/black or

will it be more against woman/black. Which takes us back to two

plain-as-day facts. First, Hitlary has been running consistently 46%-50%

negative. These people will never vote for her no matter what, persiod.

With America pretty close to 50-50 male-female I think this is a wash.

Second, America is ONLY 13% Black. If every eligible black voter voted for

Hitlary/Buckwheat, AND took along an eligible white voter that is STILL not

HALF enough to counter a potential anti-black vote.

> There are enuf independents to do

> that, but the rhetoric has to be more centrist than that of Ron Paul,

> and from a man who is not a rich bastard or lawyer.

I think there is a HUGE pool of Independents. We had a decent-sized pool of

Centrists, who were actually Centrists. And we had a loud but small block of

actual Independents (and Libertarian, etc.) The original Independents are

still there but they went off to a weird place thanks mostly to Ron Paul,

9/11 Was An Inside Job, and other wackiness.

Unrelated to that mini-mutation the Center of American politics also

mutated. It is no longer happy to be thought of as "leaning" in any

direction. The Traditional Left went Far Left and the Center rejected any

allegiance to them. The Traditional Right went Far Right and the Center

rejected any allegiance to them too. That probably more than anything has

made the Center huge, probably two or three times the size it was 40 years

ago, and the Center is really the true pool of Independent voters.

You are absolutely right that the Independents could run around like maniacs

(meant in a nice way) and win two-third of the elections in the US.

But they need a Leader....

On Jan 21, 11:24 am, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

> "SilentOtto" <silento...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>

> news:d581752f-8130-41f5-8ae9-984cbce77b15@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

>

>

>

> > On Jan 19, 3:42 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

> >> "Lickin' Ass and Takin' Names" <PopUlist...@hotmail.com> wrote in

> >> messagenews:47ceefb8-90f1-46c8-a8b2-18b2bf684a18@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

> >> On Jan 19, 9:58 am, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

> >> >>http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/bloomberg_perot_president/2008/01/...

> >> >> Bloomberg Meets With Perot Manager, Ballot Expert

> >> >> Friday, January 18, 2008

> >> >Let's remember the last time there was a serious third party challenge

> >> >-- 1992 -- Bush, Clinton, and Perot. Perot pulled about 20 percent of

> >> >the vote and he pulled it ALL from Bush, leading to Bush's defeat by

> >> >Clinton.

> >> >If Bloomberg puts together a serious third party, he likely will pull

> >> >a lot more votes than Perot for several reasons:

> >> >1. Perot was a nutcase, Bloomberg is serious.

> >> >2. Moderate and liberal Republicans are thoroughly disgusted with the

> >> >right wing of their party and they especially are sick of the control

> >> >by the "religious right" -- they'll flock to Bloomberg because he will

> >> >represent true moderate Republican values.

> >> >3. Ditto for a lot of Democrats who will see in Bloomberg --

> >> >especially if he pulls a moderate Democrat as his VP -- an opportunity

> >> >to pull away from the fringe of the Democratic Party.

> >> >Bloomberg's coalition is likely to be:

> >> >1. MOST independents;

> >> >2. A LOT of disaffected Republicans;

> >> >3. A few disaffected Democrats.

> >> >Thus, a Bloomberg candidacy will be another nail in the coffin of the

> >> >Republican Party -- no matter what PG tells us.

> >> >Heh, heh.

> >> Do yourself a favor and stop licking the crunchy bits off your cat's

> >> puckered butthole.

> >> WHATEVER Bloomie MIGHT attract as voters he WILL NOT GET even ONE of the

> >> EIGHTY MILLION GUN OWNERS in America.

> > I own more than half a dozen guns.

> > A .300 Savage for deer.

> > A 12 gauge Remington for pheasant.

> > A 20 gauge Beretta for grouse.

> > A 28 gauge Browning for rabbit.

> > A .410 bore Harrington & Richardson for squirrel.

> > A .22 Winchester for plinking.

> > A .45 ACP and a .22 Colt modeled after a Peacemaker because I like

> > them.

>

> I don't believe it.

Why?

Just because I don't think the first best solution to any problem is

to shoot someone like gun nut rightards do?

> > I could be persuaded to vote for Bloomberg.

>

> I don't believe it. You're a Hitlary crotch servicer.

Better that than being Bush's bend-over boy, like you are.

Rightards...

On Jan 23, 10:49 am, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

> "Day Brown" <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote in message

>

> news:3d161c86-e2c5-4a9f-afd0-1d46fa3f5352@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

>

> > Be that as it may, the GOP has shot itself in the foot over gun rights

> > and other emotional issues because it could not prevent outsourcing

> > and downsizing from destroying the incomes of its Christian fundy

> > followers. Bankruptcy has a nasty habit of waking people up to

> > reality.

>

> The GOP hasn't shot itself in the foot over gun rights.

>

> Outsourcing and downsizing was first sanctioned by Clinton.

Clinton started it.

But the Bush administration went hog wild and gutted anything that

could have acted as a break.

> Its true the Dems are running against Bush. I have no idea why. Its a

> stupid strategy.

Because the Republican candidates, almost to a man, support Bush's

failed policies.

When the Republican nominee becomes apparent, who ever the Democrat

candidate is will be sure to point that out.

Rest assured.

> > If the Hillary/Obama ticket is to be beaten, it'll need a new

> > candidate from a new centrist party.

It doesn't seem like that is in the offing.

I don't think Bloomberg is going to run.

> Maybe.

>

> But consider this. We normally (past few decades) run around 50% turnout

> for the Presidential election. But the last two were considerably larger.

> Not because so many extra people wanted to vote for Bush but because they

> felt compelled (for whatever specific reasons compel them) to vote against

> Gore and against Kerry.

Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and barely squeaked by in 2004.

I would suggest that voting for Bush or against Kerry wasn't the only

thing motivating voters.

Kerry got more votes than any Democrat in history.

> In 2006 we saw it drop to a near-record low 40% turnout. That's tens of

> millions of people who should have been compelled to respond to the GOP

> shooting itself "itself in the foot over gun rights", or should have

> responded to "outsourcing and downsizing," etc. But they didn't respond.

> 60% of registered voters are not bothered by what you think they're bothered

> by.

The turnout in 2006 would have been low for a presidential election,

but for an off year congressional election it was a high turnout.

We know the results.

> And in 2000 and 2004 we had a couple of mostly ordinary white guys running.

> Sure, George was a bit extreme right, Gore was a bit more than a bit extreme

> left, and Kerry was a bit more than normal scary.

Rubbish.

While Bush isn't bright enough to have any real ideology of his own,

the people he surrounded himself with are far more extreme to the

right than Gore or Kerry were extreme to the left.

You listen to too much Limbaugh and are confused about what a moderate

is.

> This time it ain't no semi-normal white guys like we're used to.

>

> How can you NOT predict a massive turnout? And in BOTH directions. I think

> you have to assume there will be some people who normally don't bother to

> vote who will vote because they have a woman to vote for, or a black guy to

> vote for.

I can see a massive turnout on the left.

I'm not so certain about the right.

> The question becomes: Will the enhanced turnout be more for woman/black or

> will it be more against woman/black. Which takes us back to two

> plain-as-day facts. First, Hitlary has been running consistently 46%-50%

> negative. These people will never vote for her no matter what, persiod.

> With America pretty close to 50-50 male-female I think this is a wash.

> Second, America is ONLY 13% Black. If every eligible black voter voted for

> Hitlary/Buckwheat, AND took along an eligible white voter that is STILL not

> HALF enough to counter a potential anti-black vote.

I will support which ever Democratic candidate who wins the primary

process.

None of them have any position which I can't stomach.

On the other hand, each and every Republican candidate has a segment

of the Republican base that loathes them.

McCain? Hard core conservatives, both fiscal and social, hate his

guts.

Romney? The Religious right have been taught their entire lives that

Mormons are cultists. That belief has been pounded into their skull

and it's not easily tossed aside.

Huckabee? Fiscal conservatives can't stand him and he's not very

popular with social moderates either.

Further, disaffected independents are very likely to side with the

left this time around.

I know rightards, like you, like to pretend that Bush's economy is

fine, but the vast majority of Americans don't think it is.

They also know the party responsible for the policies that got us into

this mess.

None of the Republican candidates are offering any substantial change

from what Bush is doing.

That's not going to fly come November.

> > There are enuf independents to do

> > that, but the rhetoric has to be more centrist than that of Ron Paul,

> > and from a man who is not a rich bastard or lawyer.

>

> I think there is a HUGE pool of Independents. We had a decent-sized pool of

> Centrists, who were actually Centrists. And we had a loud but small block of

> actual Independents (and Libertarian, etc.) The original Independents are

> still there but they went off to a weird place thanks mostly to Ron Paul,

> 9/11 Was An Inside Job, and other wackiness.

>

> Unrelated to that mini-mutation the Center of American politics also

> mutated. It is no longer happy to be thought of as "leaning" in any

> direction. The Traditional Left went Far Left and the Center rejected any

> allegiance to them. The Traditional Right went Far Right and the Center

> rejected any allegiance to them too. That probably more than anything has

> made the Center huge, probably two or three times the size it was 40 years

> ago, and the Center is really the true pool of Independent voters.

The flaw in your reasoning is that you're pretending that the

Democratic candidates are far left extremists.

They're not.

The same center who voted for Bill Clinton won't have any difficulty

in voting for any of the Democratic candidates.

Further, among the center, there is a strong feeling that Republicans

have been in charge for long enough and it's time to give another

party a try.

A viable independent candidate could possibly win were one to run.

But, so far, none have taken a stab at it.

> You are absolutely right that the Independents could run around like maniacs

> (meant in a nice way) and win two-third of the elections in the US.

>

> But they need a Leader....

The sheeple will vote for whoever the corporate mass media tells them

too. But before the election, they will spin the campaigns to keep the

polls as close as possible to motivate the partisans to buy as much

advertising as possible. Which is how to maximize corporate media

profits.

"SilentOtto" <silentotto@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:21d6c691-823c-4550-9ec9-d06ca10a2d0b@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

> On Jan 23, 10:49 am, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

>> "Day Brown" <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote in message

>> news:3d161c86-e2c5-4a9f-afd0-1d46fa3f5352@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

>> > Be that as it may, the GOP has shot itself in the foot over gun rights

>> > and other emotional issues because it could not prevent outsourcing

>> > and downsizing from destroying the incomes of its Christian fundy

>> > followers. Bankruptcy has a nasty habit of waking people up to

>> > reality.

>> The GOP hasn't shot itself in the foot over gun rights.

>> Outsourcing and downsizing was first sanctioned by Clinton.

> Clinton started it.

> But the Bush administration went hog wild and gutted anything that

> could have acted as a break.

Bullshit. Feel free to prove it.

>> Its true the Dems are running against Bush. I have no idea why. Its a

>> stupid strategy.

> Because the Republican candidates, almost to a man, support Bush's

> failed policies.

Try to see the bigger picture. YOU are a Liberal, so OF COURSE you think

they are failed policies. The Liberal candidates can COUNT on your vote.

The Liberal candidates are running AGAINST things that MIGHT turn around and

AGAINST an opposite opinion. They are running AGAINST a MOVING TARGET.

If the Liberals ran against the GOP candidates they would be going after a

STATIONARY target.

Everybody knows its EASIER to hit something that ain't moving!

> When the Republican nominee becomes apparent, who ever the Democrat

> candidate is will be sure to point that out.

> Rest assured.

Yep, I'm sure of it.

>> > If the Hillary/Obama ticket is to be beaten, it'll need a new

>> > candidate from a new centrist party.

> It doesn't seem like that is in the offing.

> I don't think Bloomberg is going to run.

Who knows...

>> Maybe.

>> But consider this. We normally (past few decades) run around 50% turnout

>> for the Presidential election. But the last two were considerably

>> larger.

>> Not because so many extra people wanted to vote for Bush but because they

>> felt compelled (for whatever specific reasons compel them) to vote

>> against

>> Gore and against Kerry.

> Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and barely squeaked by in 2004.

> I would suggest that voting for Bush or against Kerry wasn't the only

> thing motivating voters.

> Kerry got more votes than any Democrat in history.

But NOT where it counted....

However, IF as you claim he WAS MORE POPULAR then the anti-vote was MORE

SCARED because of that...

>> In 2006 we saw it drop to a near-record low 40% turnout. That's tens of

>> millions of people who should have been compelled to respond to the GOP

>> shooting itself "itself in the foot over gun rights", or should have

>> responded to "outsourcing and downsizing," etc. But they didn't respond.

>> 60% of registered voters are not bothered by what you think they're

>> bothered

>> by.

> The turnout in 2006 would have been low for a presidential election,

> but for an off year congressional election it was a high turnout.

Wrong. Feel free to prove it.

> We know the results.

>> And in 2000 and 2004 we had a couple of mostly ordinary white guys

>> running.

>> Sure, George was a bit extreme right, Gore was a bit more than a bit

>> extreme

>> left, and Kerry was a bit more than normal scary.

> Rubbish.

> While Bush isn't bright enough to have any real ideology of his own,

> the people he surrounded himself with are far more extreme to the

> right than Gore or Kerry were extreme to the left.

> You listen to too much Limbaugh and are confused about what a moderate

> is.

>> This time it ain't no semi-normal white guys like we're used to.

>> How can you NOT predict a massive turnout? And in BOTH directions. I

>> think

>> you have to assume there will be some people who normally don't bother to

>> vote who will vote because they have a woman to vote for, or a black guy

>> to

>> vote for.

> I can see a massive turnout on the left.

> I'm not so certain about the right.

Hahahahhahahahaa!!!

>> The question becomes: Will the enhanced turnout be more for woman/black

>> or

>> will it be more against woman/black. Which takes us back to two

>> plain-as-day facts. First, Hitlary has been running consistently 46%-50%

>> negative. These people will never vote for her no matter what, persiod.

>> With America pretty close to 50-50 male-female I think this is a wash.

>> Second, America is ONLY 13% Black. If every eligible black voter voted

>> for

>> Hitlary/Buckwheat, AND took along an eligible white voter that is STILL

>> not

>> HALF enough to counter a potential anti-black vote.

> I will support which ever Democratic candidate who wins the primary

> process.

> None of them have any position which I can't stomach.

> On the other hand, each and every Republican candidate has a segment

> of the Republican base that loathes them.

> McCain? Hard core conservatives, both fiscal and social, hate his

> guts.

> Romney? The Religious right have been taught their entire lives that

> Mormons are cultists. That belief has been pounded into their skull

> and it's not easily tossed aside.

> Huckabee? Fiscal conservatives can't stand him and he's not very

> popular with social moderates either.

> Further, disaffected independents are very likely to side with the

> left this time around.

> I know rightards, like you, like to pretend that Bush's economy is

> fine, but the vast majority of Americans don't think it is.

Wrong, again:

Gallup Poll. Dec. 6-9, 2007. "In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied

with the way things are

going in your personal life at this time?"

Satisfied: 84%

Dissatisfied: 14%

Retarded: 2%

"Generally speaking, how happy would you say you are: very happy, fairly

happy, or not too

happy?"

Very Happy: 52%

Fairly Happy: 40%

Not Too Happy: 6%

Retarded: 1%

http://www.pollingreport.com/life.htm

> They also know the party responsible for the policies that got us into

> this mess.

> None of the Republican candidates are offering any substantial change

> from what Bush is doing.

> That's not going to fly come November.

You're an uninformed and ignorant, which makes your opinions worth little.

> The flaw in your reasoning is that you're pretending that the

> Democratic candidates are far left extremists.

> They're not.

> The same center who voted for Bill Clinton won't have any difficulty

> in voting for any of the Democratic candidates.

Yes they will. Bubba said "no new gun laws." He LIED. That's just ONE

example. The FAILINGS and LIES of the Bubba Administration caused a SPLIT

in the Dems. Also the advancement of the socialists forced a split.

Actual Moderates SPLIT from the Farther Left.

Sure, some of them will STAY Democrat. But SOME won't.

Given that you AGREE that the last two elections were very close, if the

Dems lose ANY votes they MUST be made up somewhere. Where?

And since its a Far Left BLACK Guy and a Far Left WOMAN you have to assume a

LARGE FEAR VOTE which means they have even MORE votes to counter.

So, AGAIN, you two types of votes: Fear voters and Happy voters.

A large than usual number of Happy Voters will come out FOR either a woman

or a black.

A large than usual number of Fear Voters will come out AGAINST either a

woman or a black.

Since ONLY 13% of the US population is black one MUST assume there will be

MORE Fear voters than Happy voters if a black guy is on the ticket?

Duh.

> Further, among the center, there is a strong feeling that Republicans

> have been in charge for long enough and it's time to give another

> party a try.

> A viable independent candidate could possibly win were one to run.

> But, so far, none have taken a stab at it.

Its probably too late anyway.

"SilentOtto" <silentotto@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:46522177-2d2e-4784-a7c9-d00608869265@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

> On Jan 21, 11:24 am, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

>> "SilentOtto" <silento...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:d581752f-8130-41f5-8ae9-984cbce77b15@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

>> > On Jan 19, 3:42 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

>> >> "Lickin' Ass and Takin' Names" <PopUlist...@hotmail.com> wrote in

>> >> messagenews:47ceefb8-90f1-46c8-a8b2-18b2bf684a18@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

>> >> On Jan 19, 9:58 am, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

>> >> >>http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/bloomberg_perot_president/2008/01/...

>> >> >> Bloomberg Meets With Perot Manager, Ballot Expert

>> >> >> Friday, January 18, 2008

>> >> >Let's remember the last time there was a serious third party

>> >> >challenge

>> >> >-- 1992 -- Bush, Clinton, and Perot. Perot pulled about 20 percent of

>> >> >the vote and he pulled it ALL from Bush, leading to Bush's defeat by

>> >> >Clinton.

>> >> >If Bloomberg puts together a serious third party, he likely will pull

>> >> >a lot more votes than Perot for several reasons:

>> >> >1. Perot was a nutcase, Bloomberg is serious.

>> >> >2. Moderate and liberal Republicans are thoroughly disgusted with

>> >> >the

>> >> >right wing of their party and they especially are sick of the control

>> >> >by the "religious right" -- they'll flock to Bloomberg because he

>> >> >will

>> >> >represent true moderate Republican values.

>> >> >3. Ditto for a lot of Democrats who will see in Bloomberg --

>> >> >especially if he pulls a moderate Democrat as his VP -- an

>> >> >opportunity

>> >> >to pull away from the fringe of the Democratic Party.

>> >> >Bloomberg's coalition is likely to be:

>> >> >1. MOST independents;

>> >> >2. A LOT of disaffected Republicans;

>> >> >3. A few disaffected Democrats.

>> >> >Thus, a Bloomberg candidacy will be another nail in the coffin of the

>> >> >Republican Party -- no matter what PG tells us.

>> >> >Heh, heh.

>> >> Do yourself a favor and stop licking the crunchy bits off your cat's

>> >> puckered butthole.

>> >> WHATEVER Bloomie MIGHT attract as voters he WILL NOT GET even ONE of

>> >> the

>> >> EIGHTY MILLION GUN OWNERS in America.

>> > I own more than half a dozen guns.

>> > A .300 Savage for deer.

>> > A 12 gauge Remington for pheasant.

>> > A 20 gauge Beretta for grouse.

>> > A 28 gauge Browning for rabbit.

>> > A .410 bore Harrington & Richardson for squirrel.

>> > A .22 Winchester for plinking.

>> > A .45 ACP and a .22 Colt modeled after a Peacemaker because I like

>> > them.

>> I don't believe it.

> Why?

If I told you it would help you make a more credible list. Why would I do

that?

> Just because I don't think the first best solution to any problem is

> to shoot someone like gun nut rightards do?

See?

>> > I could be persuaded to vote for Bloomberg.

>> I don't believe it. You're a Hitlary crotch servicer.

> Better that than being Bush's bend-over boy, like you are.

News Flash: Bush isn't running.

This is usenet. You cant prove anything here. Nobody is under oath,

and can lie with impunity.

A lot depends on the nature of the economy as the election nears. If a

lotta middle class voters see their real investments decline, or loose

them entirely, they'll be far more willing to listen to someone like

Huckabee, who said he's more like the guy you work with, rather than

the one who fired you. Both Bloomberg and Romney fit the latter

description.

But if things stabilize, and its an issue of building the economy back

up to compete in an expanding global economy, then the classic CEO

types will have a much better shot at beating Hillary. But either way,

its not upta us here.

On Jan 25, 3:02 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

> "SilentOtto" <silento...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>

> news:46522177-2d2e-4784-a7c9-d00608869265@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

>

>

>

> > On Jan 21, 11:24 am, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

> >> "SilentOtto" <silento...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>news:d581752f-8130-41f5-8ae9-984cbce77b15@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

> >> > On Jan 19, 3:42 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

> >> >> "Lickin' Ass and Takin' Names" <PopUlist...@hotmail.com> wrote in

> >> >> messagenews:47ceefb8-90f1-46c8-a8b2-18b2bf684a18@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

> >> >> On Jan 19, 9:58 am, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

> >> >> >>http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/bloomberg_perot_president/2008/01/...

> >> >> >> Bloomberg Meets With Perot Manager, Ballot Expert

> >> >> >> Friday, January 18, 2008

> >> >> >Let's remember the last time there was a serious third party

> >> >> >challenge

> >> >> >-- 1992 -- Bush, Clinton, and Perot. Perot pulled about 20 percent of

> >> >> >the vote and he pulled it ALL from Bush, leading to Bush's defeat by

> >> >> >Clinton.

> >> >> >If Bloomberg puts together a serious third party, he likely will pull

> >> >> >a lot more votes than Perot for several reasons:

> >> >> >1. Perot was a nutcase, Bloomberg is serious.

> >> >> >2. Moderate and liberal Republicans are thoroughly disgusted with

> >> >> >the

> >> >> >right wing of their party and they especially are sick of the control

> >> >> >by the "religious right" -- they'll flock to Bloomberg because he

> >> >> >will

> >> >> >represent true moderate Republican values.

> >> >> >3. Ditto for a lot of Democrats who will see in Bloomberg --

> >> >> >especially if he pulls a moderate Democrat as his VP -- an

> >> >> >opportunity

> >> >> >to pull away from the fringe of the Democratic Party.

> >> >> >Bloomberg's coalition is likely to be:

> >> >> >1. MOST independents;

> >> >> >2. A LOT of disaffected Republicans;

> >> >> >3. A few disaffected Democrats.

> >> >> >Thus, a Bloomberg candidacy will be another nail in the coffin of the

> >> >> >Republican Party -- no matter what PG tells us.

> >> >> >Heh, heh.

> >> >> Do yourself a favor and stop licking the crunchy bits off your cat's

> >> >> puckered butthole.

> >> >> WHATEVER Bloomie MIGHT attract as voters he WILL NOT GET even ONE of

> >> >> the

> >> >> EIGHTY MILLION GUN OWNERS in America.

> >> > I own more than half a dozen guns.

> >> > A .300 Savage for deer.

> >> > A 12 gauge Remington for pheasant.

> >> > A 20 gauge Beretta for grouse.

> >> > A 28 gauge Browning for rabbit.

> >> > A .410 bore Harrington & Richardson for squirrel.

> >> > A .22 Winchester for plinking.

> >> > A .45 ACP and a .22 Colt modeled after a Peacemaker because I like

> >> > them.

> >> I don't believe it.

> > Why?

>

> If I told you it would help you make a more credible list. Why would I do

> that?

You mean you just can't believe that a liberal owns guns because it

flies in the face of your rightardedness.

> > Just because I don't think the first best solution to any problem is

> > to shoot someone like gun nut rightards do?

>

> See?

You were the one ranting about shooting people for vandalizing a

nativity scene, remember?

Then you went on to describe the fantasy scenario that you erroneously

believed would get you off the hook for committing murder.

If that's not an example of a full blown rightard nut case elevating

the use of deadly force to the first option to stop what is, in

reality, a relatively trivial offense, then I don't know what is.

Assholes like you stroke your cocks with one and and your guns with

the other.

> >> > I could be persuaded to vote for Bloomberg.

> >> I don't believe it. You're a Hitlary crotch servicer.

> > Better that than being Bush's bend-over boy, like you are.

>

> News Flash: Bush isn't running.

Nope.

But all his policies are.

Who ever wins the Democratic nomination will be sure to point that out

come election time.

A vote for any of the Republican candidates will be like voting for

another four years of Bush.

It's gonna be a Republican blood bath in November.