Text 7076, 107 rader
Skriven 2008-08-10 17:58:00 av Bob Klahn (1:124/311)
     Kommentar till en text av Jim Holsonback
Ärende: Coulter's Column
========================
-=>> On 08-09-08 01:48 BOB KLAHN wrote to JIM HOLSONBACK <=-

 BK>> ...

 JH>> May as well dust it off, Tim.  You can stick a fork in
 JH>> Silky now - - he's done.  No speech at the convention, no
 JH>> more running for Pres or even Veep, and he can forget about

 BK>>  It was a waste of time anyway.

 JH> What was a waste of time, posting Coulter's column?  I

 No, the Edwards speech thing and all that.

 ...

 JH>> that pipe dream of being appointed Attorney General by
 JH>> Obambi.

 BK>>  There was no chance of that to beging with.

 JH> Awhile back, JohnJ posted he thought it was a good idea,

 Edwards lacks the experience.

 JH> along with Biden for SecState.

 Biden is not near diplomatic enough.

 JH> Did you bother to tell JohnJ how wrong he was.

 Yes, I did. In the *other* echo.

 JH> But I agree with you that there is
 JH> _no way_ Edwards would be a good choice for Attorney
 JH> General.

 Not now. twenty years from now, maybe, I wouldn't hazard a
 guess.

 JH>> Can you imagine what the MSM would have done along with
 JH>> this story if Edwards had been a Repub?

 BK>>  Just about as much as they did with Hastert, Barr, Gingrich, etc
 BK>>  etc etc. 15 minutes of infamy.

 JH> None of those men you cite were porking a bimbo while
 JH> running for President.

 Edwards was not carrying on a witch hunt in an attempt to
 sabatoge a presidency while screwing their bimbos.

 JH> And in which of those cases did the Liberal MSM spike the
 JH> story for ten months, whining that they couldn't prove
 JH> anything?

 How do you spike it and whine anything at the same time? If you
 whine they will hear it and the story will get out.


 JH> (Thus proving that they are less competent than
 JH> the tabloid rag National Enquirer)?

 You have been paying too much attention to the Men in Black.

 JH> Lack of proof didn't stop the NYT from running a front-page
 JH> story trying to tie McCain romantically to an attractive
 JH> blond lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, did it?

 McCain was in a position to steer government money in the
 millions or, maybe billions, on a company the bimbo lobbied for.
 Edwards was only in a position to steer his own campaign money
 to his chosen plaything.

 The company got that money, the only question was, did McCain do
 something dishonest in getting it to her? As I see it, if he was
 helping get government money to the company, then he should not
 have been screwing the whore. If he was screwing the bimbo, then
 he should not have lifted one finger, or one vote, to give money
 to her employer.

 JH> A story it ran with
 JH> no proof at all, and un-named sources, and stuff that may
 JH> or may not have happened eight years ago. So why did the

 The Washington press went with stories from unnamed sources,
 about the betrayal of a CIA covert operative, and her front
 organization, which allowed the Bush administration to cover up
 their guilt.

 So what's your point?

 JH> NYT hold back in Edwards case? Please tell me, if you can,
 JH> how there is no double-standard there.

 If you are spending your campaign money it's much less of a
 problem than if you are spending millions of govt money.

 None of it's good, spending the govt money is much more corrupt.


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... All I ask is PROOF money won't make me happy.
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
 * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:124/311)