OBAMA WINS TEXAS! - Caucus Results Give Obama Overall Win - Another Nail In Hillary's Coffin

[Peter Principle]

In the "another nail in Hillary's coffin" category, the results are finally
in from the Texas caucuses. 67 delegates were at stake. The caucus tally
is...

Obama - 38
Clinton - 29

Including the results of the primary, the final total for committed Texas
delegates is...

Obama - 99
Clinton - 94

Everyone has known these numbers since the day after the primary/caucus. The
only drama was whether any of the many dirty tricks the Clintonistas tried
would overturn the results.

Once again, Hillary Clinton has lied to her supporters and the country. She
knew full well she'd lost Texas on election day. She knew Barack Obama had
won more delegates. But she claimed victory, anyway.

Now that the final results are out, the truth is crystal clear. Barack Obama
won Texas. He increased his delegate lead.

There's no way Clinton can catch up in delegates, votes or states won. It's
over. It's time for Hillary Clinton to drop out and support Obama.

Do the right thing, Hillary. For a change...

---
Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
------
Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

 

[kwag7693@hotmail.com]

On Mar 29, 11:57

 

[Nebuchadnezzar II]

<kwag7693@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a9266bf8-4e90-42ea-a575-ab58188d5fb2@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>On Mar 29, 11:57 pm, Peter Principle <petesfe...@SNIPITgmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Once again, Hillary Clinton has lied to her supporters and the country.
>> She
>> knew full well she'd lost Texas on election day. She knew Barack Obama
>> had
>> won more delegates. But she claimed victory, anyway.
>
>She's just following in Al Gore's footsteps.

Not even close.

>> Now that the final results are out, the truth is crystal clear. Barack
>> Obama
>> won Texas. He increased his delegate lead.
>>
>> There's no way Clinton can catch up in delegates, votes or states won.
>> It's
>> over. It's time for Hillary Clinton to drop out and support Obama.
>
>If the Democratic party was founded on a purely democratic principle,
>they wouldn't have "superdelegates". Hillary will and should fight on
>to the bitter, party-damaging end.

If the Republican party "was founded on purely democratic principle" they
wouldn't have rules that allow a nominee to take every single delegate in a
state even if 3/5ths of all votes go to the other candidate. They wouldn't
have unpledged delegates. As far as that goes, if the entire US "was
founded on purely democratic principle" we wouldn't have an electoral
college or a system that allows a candidate to win even if they lose the
popular vote, and for that matter we wouldn't have elected officials at all
and would vote on every issue.

If Reichtards were really all that dedicated to "democratic principle(s)",
you wouldn't have your favorite fat junkie criminal hero urging other
Reichtards to break the law and interfere with the nomination process,
simply because he didn't like who the Repugnants nominated. You wouldn't
have a criminal presidential administration using fraudulent means to
disenfranchise voters. You wouldn't have state Repugnant officials using
fraudulent means to disenfranchise voters.

Repugnants have proved over and over and over again they could really give a
**** about "democratic principle(s)". So do yourself a favor and don't try
and lecture anyone else on the subject. You only look like an even bigger
fool.

Have a nice day.

 

[Peter Principle]

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 16:30:48 GMT, "Nebuchadnezzar II"
<nebuchadnezzar@microsoft.com> wrote:

><kwag7693@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:a9266bf8-4e90-42ea-a575-ab58188d5fb2@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>On Mar 29, 11:57 pm, Peter Principle <petesfe...@SNIPITgmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Once again, Hillary Clinton has lied to her supporters and the country.
>>> She
>>> knew full well she'd lost Texas on election day. She knew Barack Obama
>>> had
>>> won more delegates. But she claimed victory, anyway.
>>
>>She's just following in Al Gore's footsteps.
>
>Not even close.
>
>>> Now that the final results are out, the truth is crystal clear. Barack
>>> Obama
>>> won Texas. He increased his delegate lead.
>>>
>>> There's no way Clinton can catch up in delegates, votes or states won.
>>> It's
>>> over. It's time for Hillary Clinton to drop out and support Obama.
>>
>>If the Democratic party was founded on a purely democratic principle,
>>they wouldn't have "superdelegates". Hillary will and should fight on
>>to the bitter, party-damaging end.
>
>If the Republican party "was founded on purely democratic principle" they
>wouldn't have rules that allow a nominee to take every single delegate in a
>state even if 3/5ths of all votes go to the other candidate. They wouldn't
>have unpledged delegates. As far as that goes, if the entire US "was
>founded on purely democratic principle" we wouldn't have an electoral
>college or a system that allows a candidate to win even if they lose the
>popular vote, and for that matter we wouldn't have elected officials at all
>and would vote on every issue.
>
>If Reichtards were really all that dedicated to "democratic principle(s)",
>you wouldn't have your favorite fat junkie criminal hero urging other
>Reichtards to break the law and interfere with the nomination process,
>simply because he didn't like who the Repugnants nominated. You wouldn't
>have a criminal presidential administration using fraudulent means to
>disenfranchise voters. You wouldn't have state Repugnant officials using
>fraudulent means to disenfranchise voters.
>
>Repugnants have proved over and over and over again they could really give a
>**** about "democratic principle(s)". So do yourself a favor and don't try
>and lecture anyone else on the subject. You only look like an even bigger
>fool.
>
>Have a nice day.

Man, is that subliterate stupid asshole still following me around like a
puppy? Man, some people never learn.

Has he tried to claim the BoR is somehow "encoded," lately?

<snicker>

I **** you not. Ask the incredible boob. He'll be happy to tell you all
about it.

<snort>

Given his rather stunning philological incompetence, it's not terribly
surprising that comprehending the meaning of <PLONK!> is a bit beyond his
laughably limited cognitive skill set. Entertaining, sure, but not
surprising.

---
Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
------
Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

 

[kwag7693@hotmail.com]

On Mar 30, 12:30