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

Amen to that. In what you might call "local" elections (city, county, local
school board, etc.) the conventional wisdom is that 30% of the voters know
you and would vote for you if you were the devil incarnate. 30% of the
voters know you and wouldn't vote for you if you were the second coming of
Christ.

The other 40% haven't a CLUE and vote based on whose name they heard the
most (or the last), whether or not you have a nice smile, or if you go to
their church. THOSE are the ducks that you go hunting.

Jim



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

73 de Jim, N2EY

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....

"robert casey" wrote in message
nk.net...
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....



Do you always wait to have other people tell you who to vote for?
Nevermind, I see now, you blue state looney liberals are not capable
of deciding which candidate to vote for on your own.

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....




Do you always wait to have other people tell you who to vote for?
Nevermind, I see now, you blue state looney liberals are not capable
of deciding which candidate to vote for on your own.


How do you figure that? I made my choice myself, and
heard nothing that justified changing my mind.

"robert casey" wrote in message
nk.net...
JAMES HAMPTON wrote:
SNIP
Voting 3rd party is like giving it to the Republicans, so I won't
vote 3rd party.

Not always the case.
Bush senior lost to Clinton because of a 3rd Party (Perot).

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
ink.net...

"robert casey" wrote in message
nk.net...
JAMES HAMPTON wrote:
SNIP
Voting 3rd party is like giving it to the Republicans, so I won't
vote 3rd party.

Not always the case.
Bush senior lost to Clinton because of a 3rd Party (Perot).

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK


And Perot made a remarkably strong showing for a 3rd Party candidate. If I
remember correctly, it's the strongest one in my lifetime and was more far
above the number actually needed to tip the win away from the Republicans.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE