Philly Sucks

Robert wrote:
Did you vote yes on prop 8 or no?
I voted yes,

40 to 48% of Californians are misguided and/or *******s.

On Nov 4, 9:53*am, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
wrote:
they did win the world series.

oh yeah, that was the one that nobody watched. *how cruel!

who did they play again?

The Tampa Bay Devil Rays.

In this Godless country, values have fallen
so far that no one cares about defeating the
Devil any more, even when it's on primetime TV.

Sincerely,
Liddy Dole

Robert wrote:

Did you vote yes on prop 8 or no?

I voted yes,

Come on you gutless wonder, tell us how you voted on prop 8, or will
vote? Regardless of if you are gay or not, that will tell us a lot
about you.

Dumbass,

You have (or had) a Native American girlfriend. Until 1948 in California,
which is within the lifetimes of plenty of people I know, interracial
marriage was illegal. Until 1967 in the US, which is within my own lifetime,
there were states where interracial marriage was illegal.

On the one hand, if those laws were still valid, I wouldn't have been able
to marry my wife. On the other, all those hot asian chicks you white guys
jerk off over? Mine.

"Ted van de Weteringe" wrote in message
...
Robert wrote:
Did you vote yes on prop 8 or no?
I voted yes,

40 to 48% of Californians are misguided and/or *******s.

A quick check, outdated at least a year, but nevertheless, 34 percent of
Californians born out of wedlock was still lower then the national average
of 37 percent. BTW, I see around 40 percent of Hollands babies are born to
unwed mothers, from again statisics that seem at least a year old or more.
In Indiana I saw an article that 80 percent of babies were born out of
wedlock to black unwed mothers. So the stats vary greatly in some areas
compared to others. If you are saying there is a connection concerning the
possibilty of/or a link between unwed babies and growing up to be gay, I
don't know. That's a new on me. Post those articles! However, I did find an
interesting article, short as it might be by someone who is a gay liberal
democrat who says why he thinks gay marriage will hurt society. Its
intesting because it comes from someone who is solidly gay.

He ends with...
"That conclusion has nothing to do with bigotry and everything to do with
what's best for children and society. Just ask pro-gay, liberal democrat
David Blankenhorn."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2022069/posts

Robert

On Nov 4, 12:31*pm, "Robert" wrote:
someone who is a gay liberal
democrat who says why he thinks gay marriage will hurt society. Its
intesting because it comes from someone who is solidly gay.


Oh, well then. Let's change the Constitution.

-rj, LCVP

P.S. Too bad about Henry being bald and all. Otherwise you determine
which way his hair whorls:

http://nymag.com/news/features/33520/

On Nov 4, 8:51*am, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
Robert wrote:
Grow
some hair back dude, hair is always cooler then a shiny head.

Debatable.

Michael Jordan. Michael Rasmussen. John McCain.

Discuss.




Dumbass -


John McCain does the combover.

The combover is very bad for election prospects. Who wants a Combover-
In-Chief?

BTW, I have a queue.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
\
Dumbass -


John McCain does the combover.

The combover is very bad for election prospects. Who wants a Combover-
In-Chief?

Ever since Nixon, the guy with the better hair has won. McCain goes
right along with Ford, McGovern and Humphrey.

That's just a fact.


BTW, I have a queue.

Yeah, chicks dig me too!

FOAD wrote:
Dumbass,

The Tampa Bay Rays

What happened to the "Devil"? He used to be right there! Sneaky old
*******, take your eye off him for one minute...

Fred Fredburger wrote:
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
\
Dumbass -


John McCain does the combover.

The combover is very bad for election prospects. Who wants a Combover-
In-Chief?

Ever since Nixon, the guy with the better hair has won. McCain goes
right along with Ford, McGovern and Humphrey.

That's just a fact.


BTW, I have a queue.

Yeah, chicks dig me too!

I feel like I should expand on this, because it's a better theory of
Presidential electoral politics than most, and you might not take it
seriously on its face.

1960: Nixon vs Kennedy. Kennedy has better hair, he wins.
1964: Johnson vs. Goldwater. Goldwater has better hair, but Johnson has
the Kennedy assassination sympathy. The guy with the worse hair has won
for the last time. It will never occur again.
1968: Nixon vs. Humphrey. Nixon has more hair and gets more votes.
1972: Nixon vs. McGovern. The Democrats still haven't caught on. Nixon wins.
1976: Ford vs. Carter. Ford's bald, therefore he loses.
1980: Reagan vs. Carter. Reagan had great hair, movie star hair. He was
unbeatable.
1984. Reagan vs. Mondale. Mondale actually had pretty good hair, he
could have given Nixon a run for his money. But he's no Reagan.
1988: Dukakis vs. Bush. Dukakis had this weird, unmovable plastic ****
on his head. Bush's hair wasn't great, but at least it looked human.
Bush wins.
1992: Clinton vs. Bush. Clinton had great hair. Very presidential. Just
looking at the guy, you KNEW he was good for 2 terms.
1996: Clinton vs Dole. See above.
2000: Bush vs Gore. Both had good, but not exceptional hair. You could
argue this both ways. One won the majority of votes cast and the other
won the electoral college. I am aware of no other electoral model that
fits with the empirical data this well.
2004: Bush vs Kerry. Very similar to 2000, except that Kerry's hair
wasn't quite up to Gore-like levels. Another close election, Bush eeks
it out.

And with this as background, the 2008 winner is obvious.

On Nov 4, 2:24*pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
Fred Fredburger wrote:
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
\
Dumbass -

John McCain does the combover.

The combover is very bad for election prospects. Who wants a Combover-
In-Chief?

Ever since Nixon, the guy with the better hair has won. McCain goes
right along with Ford, McGovern and Humphrey.

That's just a fact.

BTW, I have a queue.

Yeah, chicks dig me too!

I feel like I should expand on this, because it's a better theory of
Presidential electoral politics than most, and you might not take it
seriously on its face.

1960: Nixon vs Kennedy. Kennedy has better hair, he wins.
1964: Johnson vs. Goldwater. Goldwater has better hair, but Johnson has
the Kennedy assassination sympathy. The guy with the worse hair has won
for the last time. It will never occur again.
1968: Nixon vs. Humphrey. Nixon has more hair and gets more votes.
1972: Nixon vs. McGovern. The Democrats still haven't caught on. Nixon wins.
1976: Ford vs. Carter. Ford's bald, therefore he loses.
1980: Reagan vs. Carter. Reagan had great hair, movie star hair. He was
unbeatable.
1984. Reagan vs. Mondale. Mondale actually had pretty good hair, he
could have given Nixon a run for his money. But he's no Reagan.
1988: Dukakis vs. Bush. Dukakis had this weird, unmovable plastic ****
on his head. Bush's hair wasn't great, but at least it looked human.
Bush wins.
1992: Clinton vs. Bush. Clinton had great hair. Very presidential. Just
looking at the guy, you KNEW he was good for 2 terms.
1996: Clinton vs Dole. See above.
2000: Bush vs Gore. Both had good, but not exceptional hair. You could
argue this both ways. One won the majority of votes cast and the other
won the electoral college. I am aware of no other electoral model that
fits with the empirical data this well.
2004: Bush vs Kerry. Very similar to 2000, except that Kerry's hair
wasn't quite up to Gore-like levels. Another close election, Bush eeks
it out.

And with this as background, the 2008 winner is obvious.



Dumbass -


As much as I think Obama has a very large hair advantage over McCain
(because McCain's hair is terrible, not that Obama's is good), I have
to ask:

if hair is so important, how did McCain get the nomination over
Romney?

BTW, I was amazed that Giuliani tried to run for the Republican
nomination. He had a worse combover than McCain and there's that thing
about him cross-dressing. Cross-dressing likely does not play well
with the social conservative wing of the GOP.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.