wrote in message
ups.com...

K4YZ wrote:
whoever wrote:
Blue State Liberal wrote:

In her continuing move to the right, U.S. Senator Hillary
Clinton today
stated on the floor of the Senate that there is far too
much filth and
family unfriendly programming on American TV.

I am reminded of the classic line from MP:

"I'm tired of all this sex on the television! I keep falling off!"

A few minutes later,
in what seemed an odd remark to make, Senator Clinton
stated were
it her decision, the FCC should have been dismantled and
shut down years ago.

Well, it isn't her decision. The Clinton White House had 8 years
to fix up FCC. They didn't. Shrub isn't doing any better but the
Clintons got nothing to brag about either.

She has no power so it doesn't matter what she said about
the FCC, She
ought to look at bill before talking about filth and family
values.

Kinda surreal, isn't it?

I'd rethink that, Ken.

Hillary has more power than any thieving white woman should be
allowed, but trust me, she's coniving and will have her way.

What did she steal? (Or should I say - what didn't she...)

There are women out there who will vote for Hillary Clinton
based upon no other criteria than she IS a woman.

Of course.

There are also lots of people who will *not* vote for Hillary
Clinton because she is a woman.

There are also lots of people who will *not* vote for Hillary
Clinton because she is a Clinton.

There are also lots of people who will *not* vote for Hillary
Clinton because she is a Democrat.

And there are also lots of people who will *not* vote for Hillary
Clinton because she is not the best choice for the job.

It's clear she has presidential aspirations for 2008. That's
about the best thing that could happen to the Republicans,
because it will almost guarantee them a victory.

Forget that her husband was one of the most prolific pathological
liars in the White House in over 200 years and she helped him.

That's not important, really.

What matters is that, according to her, Bill lied *to her*
repeatedly, yet she kept on believing him when he told new
lies.

Now either she's very gullible, or she is lying to us. Either
way it doesn't say much for her qualifications.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

(No
wonder folks like Lennie Anderson and Brian Burke don't think
twice
about doing it...Clinton set the trend...)

Hmmmm...

Forget that she still has never satisfactorially answered the
questions about her real estate dealings. Heck no!
Martha Stewart
went to jail for 6 months just becasue she acted on a stock
tip, yet
Hillary won't pay so mauch as attention.

It's about getting caught. Martha got caught. Now watch - she
will turn that whole thing to an advantage and will come back
bigger than ever.

Forget that Hillary was responsible for STEALING real property
from the White House as she and Billary were on thier way
out the door
in 2000. "Oh...that's not ours? Well...I guess we'll put it
back..."
Dodged ayet another bullet.

I think you mean "govt. property". REAL property means real estate.

Forget that she facilitated (or at least tolerated) her
husband's
philanderings all-the-while promoting herself as the champion of
women's rights and equal opportunity.

See above about not seeing what was going on.

As Billary's "Health Care Advocate" in 90's, she didn't do a
single worthy thing. She and Bill brandished a "health care
card" at
his first "State of the Union" address, but that was the end of it.
Health care benefits for the uninsured, under-insured, the aged and
catastrophically ill or infirmed are threadbare, to say the
least.

That one sank and never popped up again.

But, unfortunatley, people will still vote for her...Again, just
because she wears a skirt.

I think there are far more who will not vote for her, for the reasons
listed above.

The fact is that in every election there are several groups:

1) Those who will vote Republican no matter what
2) Those who will vote Democrat no matter what
3) Those who won't vote, or will vote for a 3rd party candidate
with absolutely no real chance of winning, no matter what
4) Those who are truly independent, and who may vote Democrat,
Republican, 3rd party, or not at all, depending on a wide variety of
factors, and whose votes really can decide an election.

Successful campaigning is all about identifying the 4th group, and
getting them to vote for your candidate.

73 de Jim, N2EY



Looney Liberal Blue state Democrats SUCK.

Looney Liberal Blue state Democrats SUCK.





Idiot Redneck Red state Republicans ..... :-)


(Time for a good old fashioned political flame war....)

wrote in message
ups.com...
snip
The fact is that in every election there are several groups:

1) Those who will vote Republican no matter what
2) Those who will vote Democrat no matter what
3) Those who won't vote, or will vote for a 3rd party candidate
with absolutely no real chance of winning, no matter what
4) Those who are truly independent, and who may vote Democrat,
Republican, 3rd party, or not at all, depending on a wide variety of
factors, and whose votes really can decide an election.

Successful campaigning is all about identifying the 4th group, and
getting them to vote for your candidate.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Hello, Jim

I used to try and look at the candidates, but what the current
administration is doing and setting us up for - I will, unfortunately, be
voting straight Democrat until things are a bit more balanced.

I know that sounds stupid, but when I found out that a co-worker was in
Desert Storm and has a 10% service connected disability ... and can *not*
get VA care ...(yep, even with an honorable discharge, you must serve at
least 2 years now to be treated for anything other than the service
connected disability).

Being a Vietnam veteran and seeing the changes at the VA, I honestly do
*not* believe the Republicans support the troops. They wave the flag and
make speeches (even visit the troops), but then forget them.

I couldn't believe they were going to attack the AARP as having a "gay"
agenda! The big deal is that they have dug a huge monetary pit and don't
want to repay the "borrowed" funds from Social Security. You think Hillary
Clinton or Martha Stewart are/were crooks?

So, unless the Republicans can come up with a candidate with something on
their mind other than big money, I have to vote something else. 3rd party
won't cut it as has been proven in the past.


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

JAMES HAMPTON wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...
snip

The fact is that in every election there are several groups:

1) Those who will vote Republican no matter what
2) Those who will vote Democrat no matter what
3) Those who won't vote, or will vote for a 3rd party candidate
with absolutely no real chance of winning, no matter what
4) Those who are truly independent, and who may vote Democrat,
Republican, 3rd party, or not at all, depending on a wide variety of
factors, and whose votes really can decide an election.

Successful campaigning is all about identifying the 4th group, and
getting them to vote for your candidate.

Sometimes that means using crap like "family values" to
get the dumb ones to vote for the guy that will do for
them a worse job.



I used to try and look at the candidates, but what the current
administration is doing and setting us up for - I will, unfortunately, be
voting straight Democrat until things are a bit more balanced.



I couldn't believe they were going to attack the AARP as having a "gay"
agenda! The big deal is that they have dug a huge monetary pit and don't
want to repay the "borrowed" funds from Social Security. You think Hillary
Clinton or Martha Stewart are/were crooks?

All they have to do is increase the threshold where you stop paying
"FICA" from your paychecks. Oh wait, that's taxing the rich, can't
have that....

So, unless the Republicans can come up with a candidate with something on
their mind other than big money, I have to vote something else. 3rd party
won't cut it as has been proven in the past.

Voting 3rd party is like giving it to the Republicans, so I won't
vote 3rd party.

Last year nobody in these newsgroups could give me a reason
to vote for Bush. It's the economy stupid. What, I
should reward Bush for my income going way down....

wrote in message
ups.com...

SNIP

The fact is that in every election there are several groups:

1) Those who will vote Republican no matter what
2) Those who will vote Democrat no matter what
3) Those who won't vote, or will vote for a 3rd party candidate
with absolutely no real chance of winning, no matter what
4) Those who are truly independent, and who may vote Democrat,
Republican, 3rd party, or not at all, depending on a wide variety of
factors, and whose votes really can decide an election.

Successful campaigning is all about identifying the 4th group, and
getting them to vote for your candidate.
73 de Jim, N2EY

Not quite that simple. I would agree with all of the above
where both parties present a candidate that is "reasonable"
across a broad brush of party faithfuls. Where things go wrong
is when a candidate goes beyond the point of reasonableness
on one or more issues as judged by others in the party.

Yes, there are many people who "appear" to be in groups
1 or 2, but **** any of them off and they too will jump ship and
either not vote at all (many people vote put don't vote
for all possible positions on a ballot), they'll vote for
a 3rd party...or write-in Mickey Mouse... or they'll
vote for the other party's candidate as many Dems did by
voting for Reagan in 80 and 84.

One other variable on a 4 year basis. From one presidential
election to the next, there is a considerable loss of existing voters
who have died and an influx of "new" voters who have reached
18 years of age, become naturalized citizens or just finally
registered to vote for the first time. Far more people today
as new voters tend to view themselves as "independents"
rather than being staunch democrats or republicans.

Cheers,
Bill

Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

SNIP

The fact is that in every election there are several groups:

1) Those who will vote Republican no matter what
2) Those who will vote Democrat no matter what
3) Those who won't vote, or will vote for a 3rd party candidate
with absolutely no real chance of winning, no matter what
4) Those who are truly independent, and who may vote Democrat,
Republican, 3rd party, or not at all, depending on a wide variety
of
factors, and whose votes really can decide an election.

Successful campaigning is all about identifying the 4th group, and
getting them to vote for your candidate.
73 de Jim, N2EY

Not quite that simple. I would agree with all of the above
where both parties present a candidate that is "reasonable"
across a broad brush of party faithfuls. Where things go wrong
is when a candidate goes beyond the point of reasonableness
on one or more issues as judged by others in the party.

We're saying the same things, Bill. If someone can be swayed, they're
not in group 1 or group 2.

Yes, there are many people who "appear" to be in groups
1 or 2, but **** any of them off and they too will jump ship and
either not vote at all (many people vote put don't vote
for all possible positions on a ballot), they'll vote for
a 3rd party...or write-in Mickey Mouse... or they'll
vote for the other party's candidate as many Dems did by
voting for Reagan in 80 and 84.

Those folks aren't/weren't in Group 1 or 2, that's all. Note that in
terms of the popular vote, those elections weren't landslides. But the
popular vote doesn't determine presidential elections.


One other variable on a 4 year basis. From one presidential
election to the next, there is a considerable loss of existing voters
who have died and an influx of "new" voters who have reached
18 years of age, become naturalized citizens or just finally
registered to vote for the first time. Far more people today
as new voters tend to view themselves as "independents"
rather than being staunch democrats or republicans.

Good point!

And the point I saw somewhere about 3rd parties is a good one, too.
Ross Perot effectively handed the election to Clinton, because he drew
so many more votes from Bush I and Dole than he did from Clinton. In
2000 the shoe was on the other foot as Nader drew far more votes from
AlGore than from Shrub. Which was truly ironic because Nader, of the
Green Party, managed to put a former oil man into the White House. Note
that the Green Party didn't back him in 2004!

But my basic point is the same: Successful campaigning consists of
identifying those voters who you can swing to your favor (which may not
mean that they vote for you!) *and* who are in places where their votes
can make a difference. In 2004, it was all about getting Ohioans riled
up about gay marriage.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Forget that her husband was one of the most prolific pathological
liars in the White House in over 200 years and she helped him. (No
wonder folks like Lennie Anderson and Brian Burke don't think twice
about doing it...Clinton set the trend...)

Nowheres near as bad as Nixon. Nixon rigged a presidential election,
which is a hell of a lot more serious than Clinton getting
sex in the Oval Office.

Forget that she still has never satisfactorially answered the
questions about her real estate dealings. Heck no! Martha Stewart
went to jail for 6 months just becasue she acted on a stock tip, yet
Hillary won't pay so mauch as attention.

A trivial matter compared to what Nixon did. They didn't
find anything more evil than what normally goes on in
the business world anyway.

Forget that Hillary was responsible for STEALING real property
from the White House as she and Billary were on thier way out the door
in 2000. "Oh...that's not ours? Well...I guess we'll put it back..."
Dodged ayet another bullet.

Big Whoop.


Forget that she facilitated (or at least tolerated) her husband's
philanderings all-the-while promoting herself as the champion of
women's rights and equal opportunity.

As Billary's "Health Care Advocate" in 90's, she didn't do a
single worthy thing. She and Bill brandished a "health care card" at
his first "State of the Union" address, but that was the end of it.
Health care benefits for the uninsured, under-insured, the aged and
catastrophically ill or infirmed are threadbare, to say the least.
They didn't horsetrade well enough like a skillful politician....

But they did reform Welfare, something the Republicans wanted
to do but never did themselves.

But, unfortunatley, people will still vote for her...Again, just
because she wears a skirt.

Better her than some Republican... :-)

She has no power so it doesn't matter what she said about the FCC, She
ought to look at bill before talking about filth and family values.
Ken N8CGY


Vs someone who lied about weapons of mass destruction?

You know when there's a problem when politicians talk
about "family values", "school prayer", and similar
distractions instead of the important stuff like the
economy and Iraq. Hiding behind the flag or the Bible
is not a good way to run the country.

Over the last 50 years I've seen no significant change
in the moral or family values in the USA. We've been
"going to hell in a handbasket" for so long we should
have gotten to hell a long time ago.

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Blue State Liberal wrote:
In her continuing move to the right, U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton today
stated on the floor of the Senate that there is far too much filth and
family unfriendly programming on American TV. A few minutes later,
in what seemed an odd remark to make, Senator Clinton stated were
it her decision, the FCC should have been dismantled and shut down
years ago.

Like her words mean anything. Had she been present in her marriage when she
was "First Lady" (if she could ever be called a lady; dyke is more like it),
then that filth of a husband she has wouldn't have caused disrespect to this
country or its highest office. Hypocritical bitch.

Hillary in 2008 !

And if Condilesa(sp) Rice runs on the Republican ticket....

How about a swimsuit debate........ ;-)
On second thought, maybe not....