Obama wins Wis. for 9th straight triumph!. Ha Ha, old lady Clinton is starting to get her clock cleaned. It would be much longer.
Printable View
Obama wins Wis. for 9th straight triumph!. Ha Ha, old lady Clinton is starting to get her clock cleaned. It would be much longer.
Cool and Calm
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids...g1v69B3fhuPg--
Angry and Agitated
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/2...KG8VYOUcivyA--
They should trade haircuts.
11 in a Row!! Old lady Clinton must be losing her mind. I am quite sure that she assumed that everyone would have bowed out by now. It what capacity did she "serve" the people for 35 years as she is now touting? Other than here term as a US Senator and a staff attorney for the Watergate Hearings, what other Public Service has she performed? Maybe she worked on a chain gang "back in the day" ;-)
Both of these pictures are sitters for an X rated photo shop :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Gambo
[QUOTE=Mark GamboHa Ha, old lady Clinton is starting to get her clock cleaned. It would be much longer.[/QUOTE]
I'm just curious about what you meant to say in that second sentence:confused: I can think of several options, some of them being quite crude, but I don't know which is right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Take a read :D metaphorically of course. HERE is another article.
Blahahahah :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by SurfDemon
Now, she is getting desperate.
Which part of "second sentence" was confusing to you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Gambo
If it was the "second" part, then a workable definition would be that if you take a set of items, the second item is the item that is next in line after the first item in the set.
If it was the "sentence" part, you can find the second one by looking for periods in the piece I quoted. Parse the string until you find the first period, which will appear as a small black dot following one of the letters. Look closely, they can be hard to see. The second sentence, the one that I explicitly was asking about, begins immediately after that dot. Another way to identify the second sentence, since that period is so hard to see, would be to look for capital letters. Be cautious, though, because capital letters are not only used at the start of sentences, so you still have to look for that period to positively identify where one sentence ends and another begins.
Hmmm, maybe because the sentence that your refer to wasn't my second sentence. Let me illustrate for you and for the viewers at home:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Loquacious One
If you would allow me to properly parse and number the sentences in my original posting, then and only then will we be able to get to the bottom of this issue:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Gambo's Original Post
- Obama wins Wis. for 9th straight triumph!.
- Ha Ha, old lady Clinton is starting to get her clock cleaned.
- It would be much longer.
So by using the logic you so eloquently elucidated in your post, then this would be, by all accounts my Second Sentence:
So now it should become crystal clear to you, the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that my analysis of the statement made by The Loquacious One was based upon fact and proper interpretation of the criteria that he posted HERE. Now what seems to be the misunderstanding?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark's Second Sentence
Are we Clear?
http://www.vbforums.com/images/ieimages/2008/02/1.jpg
Crystal.
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...MFEWGOOD04.jpg
I SAID, ARE WE CLEAR?!!???!?
http://www.vbforums.com/images/ieimages/2008/02/1.jpg
Crystal Reports, SIR!!!!!!
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...talreports.jpg
Actually, I'm with the Shagster on this one.
he quoted you as
Then referred to the second sentence, being "It would be much longer". Which in itself doesn't make much sense, but I'm suspecting is a typo of "It won't be much longer".Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Gambo
Either way I can see how the confusion arises about the second sentence, but I'm not sure if it's very important in the greater scheme of things :)
I would make the argument that SurfDemon did, but I loved your reply MG, it was a good un.:thumb:
:D Thank you Ladies and Gentlemen, Thank you :D
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...lvis300_hr.jpg
Ladies and Gentlemen, Elvis (Mark Gambo) has just left the building
By the way, I heard this morning that Obama won the overseas vote (Americans in foreign lands), which apparently acts as another minor primary. However, I also heard that it was his 11th win in a row. It seems like it should be his 12th, but I can't keep all this straight.
Unfortunately, he could win 17 in a row, and have NY win it on a last second maneuver.
All I know is Madam Hilliary is in a lot of trouble.
Do you think America is ready for a black president though?
I was chatting to two Americans (seperately) yesterday and they both made the same observation. The first, is black, and he was all pumped that Obama would make it into office, but he said "He won't last 2 years though. Some red neck will shoot him." Fine.
Then at lunch I ended up chatting to a Texan. (Yes, it was a pub lunch). He seemed pretty even minded about the whole thing, but thought that many of the white democrats would switch their vote to McCain, rather than than let a black guy run the country. That's not the interesting part though. He then went on to say "It doesn't matter, if they vote him (Obama) in, he'll never make it to the end of his term, someone will take him out...." (I get the impression that he wasn't talking about a dinner date... more white supremicists or some such)
Now, I admit, my sampling of 2 of the 100,000 Americans in Calgary is pretty small, but it did seem to be a genuine concern.
It's 2008. The struggle is over.Quote:
Do you think America is ready for a black president though?
Dude, you talked to a Texan. That was your first mistake.
I really don't like either of them. Obama just keeps using rhetoric, "change change change change hope hope hope hope!!!" has no substance and seems to me, he brings out the worst quality of a politician by basically taking little stance on the issues to pander for votes.
Clinton cried on national tv ... you can't have that for a president. Plus, she supports ethanol just like everyone else (Obama included), which is a horrible idea as it will raise food costs. Really just pandering to Iowan corn farmers.
I don't like Mccain either, he's stubborn and a war hawk. Bush is already spending our country into bankrupcy, I don't need a continuation of that. If I remember correctly Mccain said he would stay in Iraq for a hundred years if need be.
However, if it came down to it, I'd vote for a democrat.
Lets hope all this vagueness, and support for bad policy is really just a front to get votes, and that they're not really that stupid or that they're not really just out to get the presidency for the hell of it.
If you are worried about spending then voting democrat is probably the worst thing you can do. First of all no democrat is going to pull the US out of Iraq, if you look at both of what Hillary and Obama have stated they leave the pulling out of Iraq open to “what they find” when they are president. The reality is no democrat president is going to saddle the Iraq war around their neck if things turn into an utter mess once they pull the troops out. Despite Bush starting the war the failure will be associated with their (Clinton or Obama) presidency.Quote:
Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx
Second, if you read all about all of the programs both of the democratic candidates want to enact it will account for hundreds of billions of dollars of new spending (some might argue more due to cost of their health care programs could be trillions rather than billions).
I am not saying McCain would be any better (although McCain’s plans only increase spending around 7-10 billion, not hundreds of billions) but for someone who is concerned about holding the line on spending McCain should be the only choice.
X
[Soapbox]
When I was living on the East Coast and interacting with people there I would have said yes the US could elect a minority and/or woman to be president but after moving across the country I have very serious doubts. I have interacted with a lot of people and I will tell you people in the middle of the US aren’t ready for a Black or a Woman president yet. The people on the coasts of the US and people who live in large urban centers (i.e. Chicago, Detroit, Denver, etc.) are by nature more liberal and therefore are more open to try new things. Unfortunately, some (emphasis on the word SOME) of the people in other parts of this vast country aren’t ready yet. There will definitely come a time in the history of the US where we as a nation will elect a minority and/or woman as President but I don’t think this is the time especially with the choices the democratic have presented to us.
Personally I wouldn't vote for either Obama or Clinton because I don’t like the some of the policies that they are advocating. I been around the block a few times and I know quite well politicians say a lot of things to get elected and then they never act upon after they get elected but according to both of them and most other Democrats, my wife and I are considered "Rich" because we make too much money.
Now let me tell you we aren't rich by any stretch of the imagination. Yes, we do own our own home, we are able to pay our bills and put away a little money for the kid’s education and our old age. We are comfortable but not that comfortable. All of the things we have today we got by working hard, sacrificing and saving. There were many times in my life that I had to work two and at least one time three jobs just to keep our head above water and a roof over our heads. There were days where we would have to eat macaroni and cheese or tuna fish for dinner (before we had kids of course). So we know firsthand how hard it is to make it but we made it all by ourselves, of course we received help along the way from our parents (which we be will to do for our kids IF and when they need it), but we never looked to the government to solve our problems.
The most members of the Democratic Party seems to think they know better that you and I how we should live our lives and they think that more government is the solution to all of society’s ills and problems. I think that people should be allowed to fail. Failure is part of human nature; it is what makes us better persons and a stronger society. Failure is a very important learning experience for humans, it helps them build character. (My definition - Character is what you do when nobody else is watching.) The Democratic Party doesn’t want anyone to fail so they are always there with some sort of governmental hand out (Public Assistance). It is much easier for a person to sit on the couch and watch TV knowing that at the end of the money they will be receiving a check for basically not doing anything rather than it is to wake up in the morning, shower, shave, dress and actually go to work. Now don’t get me wrong there are some people who due to circumstances beyond their control need governmental assistance to live. These people are a very small portion of the people currently receiving public assistance. In my previous life I worked in low social economic areas (read the ghetto) I have personally witnessed young able bodied men standing around during the work day drinking alcoholic beverages and engaging in who know what other types of activities (Crime, using narcotics etc) while you and I are hard at work paying taxes so that these gentlemen and ladies can hang out every day and have a good time on “Our Dime”. I have also witnessed some of these individuals driving in late model luxury vehicles (BMW, Lexus, Lincolns, etc).
But because I was able to learn a skill and practice it until I because good enough so that people would pay me for this skill I am penalized and will be expected to pay more in taxes, while other people are able to drive in brand new BMWs and Lexus motor vehicles. I am all for the abolishment of all income taxes and in their place we should have a consumption tax. This way we all share the load. The Rich people when they buy food at the grocery store are taxed the same rate as the neighborhood ahem “Street Pharmacist”. Everyone pays the same amount in taxes. This way everyone pays taxes. Why should hard working people pay the freight for all those who choose to stay at home and not pull their own weight?
Now to McCain, even thought I believe that he is a RINO, due to some of his policies and his consideration of selecting Giuliani as his running mate, I think his is the best choice to keep this country on track. Now if he does select Guiliani as his running mate I will either; stay home on Election Day (more likely) or vote for the democratic candidate (less likely). Either way I choose I will actively and strongly campaign against the McCain/Giuliani ticket in my community. For the next twenty years or so we are a country are in for a rough ride. Energy prices are rising every day, taxes, terrorism, Islamofascism is on the rise. I don’t feel that the Democrats are up to the task of securing our future. We saw how an all democratic government reacted when our home land was attacked in 1993 and thank God every day that Al Gore wasn’t our president on 9-11.
[/Soapbox]
[Ducks for cover]Anyway let the attacks begin . . . [/Ducks for cover]
Oh please. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx
You should stand on your soapbox more often.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Gambo
Ok, if you insist ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
He doesn't have enough experience. He has never been a First Lady.
:) True. Unfortunately my city is practically twinned with Huston. Both have lots of oil and guys like to wear stetsons...... it was inevitable. :bigyello:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
I agree, he probably is the best person to keep the country on track.... however, I would ask if you want to keep on this track (Crashing dollar, massive borrowing, stirring up anti-american sentiment throughout much of the world, warmongering and generally strengthening Al-Quida's cause and recruitment), or maybe you should be voting for a candidate who might concentrate a bit more on making America more secure and trying to sort out your economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Gambo
A note about staying in Iraq or leaving though: I do agree with McCain that you can't set a date for departure. I strongly disagree that Canada has set a date for departure from Afghanistan (2011). Either, you decide that now is the time to leave, or your stay there. You don't set a random date in the future with no guarantees as to what the situation will be like then. Why not set the date as 2010 or 2020?
As for getting out of Iraq, I've recently returned from the middle east and I couldn't help noticing a couple of things. Two of the nicest countries I was in (UAE and Oman) are run by "dictatorships" in that they don't have elections etc. These countries are forward thinking, have much better human rights records than their neighbours and have populations that like (actually adore) their leaders. Their standard of living is excellent.
The worst place I was in was Pakistan. A democratic country, where political corruption has broken the country so badly, that I'm not sure it can be fixed in the next 50 years. The standard of living there is shocking.
Whats my point? Well, maybe the answer is to accept that Iraq isn't ready for a democratic society. Cut out all the BS and just install a dictatorship that's friendly to the west. We can then leave them to it, and accept that whilst it's not an ideal solution (by a long stretch), it's probably the best of a bad bunch.
The only part about your rant that I would comment on is this one:
My comment is that both parties are actively trying to push controls on how you live. The Rs want very much to be in your bedroom, the Ds....well, they sometimes seem to be taking a random walk. Frankly, if those are the choices for interventionist legislation, I favor the D side. I suppose that both sides feel they are legislating morality. The Rs speak for a more restrictive, conformist, morality, while the Ds speak for a more liberal form.Quote:
The most members of the Democratic Party seems to think they know better that you and I how we should live our lives and they think that more government is the solution to all of society’s ills and problems.
As for economics. I believe in living within your means. For a long time, the Ds were labeled as "tax and spend", but the Rs should now be called "borrow and spend". Not to say that there are not some fiscally responsible people in government, but they aren't tied to one party or the other. They are a "super minority", because they are the minority whoever is in the majority or the white house. Any attempt at balanced budgets is going to be sabotaged by one side if not the other. Since 1980, the Ds have actually had a better track record than the Rs for holding down spending, and they tacitly acknowledge that by running on social, rather than economic, issues.
I used to be fiscally conservative, and socially liberal, but now that conservatives are not fiscally conservative by any rational sense of the word, my characterization has changed to "socially liberal deficit hawk."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23330293
Maybe I'm just uninformed and ignorant, but would something like really happen today in America?
The Tecumseh curse. Reagan (who almost died) and Bush both got skipped. So who knows if the curse is dormant or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by System_Error
Here is an astrological explanation
It is unfortunate that in a country of almost 300 million people, there is bound to be at least one nutter who thinks that killing a black president would be the right thing to do. Wasn't the guy who shot Reagan trying to impress Jodi Foster... I mean, that was bound to work out for him...Quote:
Originally Posted by System_Error
Anybody who sticks their head above the crowd has a chance to get it lopped off. Hopefully, that won't keep people from trying.