As an afterthought of kind....if you really want me to ever read a link, dont give me Huffington post....that, TO ME, is not valid...and before you rant and rave AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE TO YOU...neither are the right wing sites.

You folks SEEM to have become so jaded and so partisan you cannot have any kind of discussion. I have said it on here many many times I am not a big fan of Sen McCains...I have expressed my concerns on this election. You seem compelled to come back with partisan stuff that serves no purpose whatsoever. I probably disagree with Sen McCain on as much as I disagree with Sen Obama and have said that, but you only hear what you want to hear.[/QUOTE]

Bucco... the Huffington post is at least as good as that UK and AU links I have been seeing. But I try to find the links beyond the Huffington post. You suffer from the same thing as I.....I am a Hillary girl and struggle with Obama but I get wacked as an Obama supporter.

Originally Posted by Bucco

1. CHELSEA...COLOGAL....I am not sure what Phil Gramm has to do with the Keating Five


You folks SEEM to have become so jaded and so partisan you cannot have any kind of discussion. I have said it on here many many times I am not a big fan of Sen McCains...I have expressed my concerns on this election. You seem compelled to come back with partisan stuff that serves no purpose whatsoever. I probably disagree with Sen McCain on as much as I disagree with Sen Obama and have said that, but you only hear what you want to hear.

Bucco, I brought Phil Gramm up as part of your quest for associations. I know he was not part of the Keating Five.

Also, if you really think you're coming off as bi-partisan, you haven't been reading your own posts.

Also, if you really think you're coming off as bi-partisan, you haven't been reading your own posts.
__________________________________________________ ________________________

I have not been trying to come off as bi partisan....let me say it once again....I am a registered Republican who looks at both sides before voting. This election, and in 2004, I looked hard at the Democratic ticket and was shocked at their nominees.

This year, as I said before, I find the democratic nominee to be very radical and it concerns me.

My posts have pretty much been anti Sen Obama based on ideaology, never personal. I have also posted when I see the partisan attacks that are based on the spin machines and have no basis on fact.

My criticism of you has never been about being partisan....you surely have that right...my comment on here about your being jaded and partisan is based on your constant neverending need to make fun of posters who dont agree with you, or candidates that are not in your camp and your condescending attitude toward anyone on here.

We all have a tendency to lean one way or another...some, INCLUDING ME, are not smart enough to discuss the details of the economy and many other things thus we learn from reading what others think; I just wish you could refrain from making fun of people, both posters and candidates...state what you think..partisan or not but without the "shots" you seem compelled to add !

Originally Posted by cologal

I am glad you bring up Mr. Gramm....likely the next Sec. of Treasury. OMG.

...

The list of likely appointees to come from either candidate post-election can be forecasted from those party members not currently in elective office. My guess includes the following:

DEM: Howard Dean, Bill Richardson, Andrew Tobias, Alexis Herman, Patrick Leahy, Ted Sorenson, Tom Daschle, Lottie Shackelford, Mark Brewer, Philip McNamara.

REP: Rudy Giuliani, Mike Duncan, Frank Donatelli, Carly Fiorina, Jo Ann Davidson, Newt Gingrich, J.C. Watts, Michael Steele, Pete McCloskey, Tom Campbell.

When we vote for a president, we are also, in essence, voting for who will be part of the entourage and actually responsible for advising, creating/interpreting policy, and spending the money. So, the question really is, which team to you prefer to see advising, creating/interpreting policy, and spending the money?

Originally Posted by SteveZ

The list of likely appointees to come from either candidate post-election can be forecasted from those party members not currently in elective office. My guess includes the following:

DEM: Howard Dean, Bill Richardson, Andrew Tobias, Alexis Herman, Patrick Leahy, Ted Sorenson, Tom Daschle, Lottie Shackelford, Mark Brewer, Philip McNamara.

REP: Rudy Giuliani, Mike Duncan, Frank Donatelli, Carly Fiorina, Jo Ann Davidson, Newt Gingrich, J.C. Watts, Michael Steele, Pete McCloskey, Tom Campbell.

When we vote for a president, we are also, in essence, voting for who will be part of the entourage and actually responsible for advising, creating/interpreting policy, and spending the money. So, the question really is, which team to you prefer to see advising, creating/interpreting policy, and spending the money?

I wouldn't trust Guillani as far as I could throw him. Carly Fiorina! She practically ran Hewlett Packard into the ground! Oh please!

Originally Posted by chelsea24

I wouldn't trust Guillani as far as I could throw him. Carly Fiorina! She practically ran Hewlett Packard into the ground! Oh please!

There are several whom I find disturbing, and they come from both lists. Neither party has a monopoly on out-of-work camp followers who only have self-interest in mind and could care less anything about the candidate as long as their party wins and they can get back on the dole.