Philly Sucks

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
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?

Primaries and caucuses are a different game. I will admit to a good deal
of confusion about how this plays out there. The best I can do with this
is to suggest that the primary/caucus system is not optimized for
selecting electable presidents. I know, it sounds like a cop out, but
there's no way McCain looks right to be president.

Another place where this goes to hell is when you introduce females into
the equation. Who has better hair: Hillary or Obama? I have no basis for
comparison.


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.

Behind closed doors, I think you might be surprised at how popular it is.

"Robert Chung" wrote in message
...
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.

Show me a Chung chart on what race white men prefer the most as partners.
However, that's a different issue altogether. Prop 8 strikes a theme
critical to the very core of society. At least mixed interracial marriages
were still between a man and women.

Robert

"Robert" wrote in message
...

"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote in message
...

BTW, has anyone ever told you you're a pervert?

just my opinion,

K. Gringioni.

You avoided the question. Why do sport a bald head?

Ok, we'll find out about you Henry. You say Bessette has serious problems,
yet you overlook Jeanson.

We will see who is perverted?

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.

Robert

Well, it looks like you won't say how you voted. I'll tell you what though.
I didn't have a clue about what Fat Stevie was talking about when he called
you a fudge packer. That didn't dawn on me what he meant for a day or so. I
thought he was talking about something to do with real fudge or something.
Then I became curious and started to think a bit, and it finally hit me!

That's disgusting!!!!!!!!!!!

That is truely perverted!!!!!!!!!

Robert

On Nov 4, 3:03*pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:

Primaries and caucuses are a different game. I will admit to a good deal
of confusion about how this plays out there. The best I can do with this
is to suggest that the primary/caucus system is not optimized for
selecting electable presidents. I know, it sounds like a cop out, but
there's no way McCain looks right to be president.

What states have caucuses for republicans?

On Nov 4, 4:19*pm, SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
On Nov 4, 3:03*pm, Fred Fredburger

wrote:
Primaries and caucuses are a different game. I will admit to a good deal
of confusion about how this plays out there. The best I can do with this
is to suggest that the primary/caucus system is not optimized for
selecting electable presidents. I know, it sounds like a cop out, but
there's no way McCain looks right to be president.

What states have caucuses for republicans?

Try this link:
http://www.google.com/

With just a little effort you can find the knowledge you seek,
grasshopper. Oh wait, if you knew how to use a search engine you
wouldn't ask a stupid question like that. Here, I'll spoon feed it to
you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Results_of_the_2008_Republican_Party_presidential_ primaries

Oh, sorry, you're probably too dumb to figure out how to use a link.
OK, here's a list:

# 3.1 Iowa caucuses

# 3.5 Nevada caucuses

# 3.7 Louisiana caucuses
# 3.8 Hawaii caucuses

# 3.10 Maine caucuses

# 3.12 Alaska caucuses

# 3.16 Colorado caucuses

# 3.22 Minnesota caucuses

# 3.24 Montana caucuses

# 3.27 North Dakota caucuses

# 3.31 West Virginia caucuses
# 3.32 Kansas caucuses

# 3.34 Washington caucuses

# 3.41 American Samoa caucuses
# 3.42 Northern Mariana Islands caucuses
# 3.43 Puerto Rico caucuses

# 3.48 Guam caucuses

# 3.51 United States Virgin Islands caucuses

On Nov 4, 3:56*pm, "Robert" wrote:
"Robert" wrote in message

...







"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote in message
....

BTW, has anyone ever told you you're a pervert?

just my opinion,

K. Gringioni.

You avoided the question. Why do sport a bald head?

Ok, we'll find out about you Henry. You say Bessette has serious problems,
yet you overlook Jeanson.

We will see who is perverted?

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.

Robert

Well, it looks like you won't say how you voted. I'll tell you what though.
I didn't have a clue about what Fat Stevie was talking about when he called
you a fudge packer. That didn't dawn on me what he meant for a day or so. I
thought he was talking about something to do with real fudge or something..
Then I became curious and started to think a bit, and it finally hit me!

That's disgusting!!!!!!!!!!!

That is truely perverted!!!!!!!!!




Dumbass -


Although I'm not gay, I don't believe in discriminating against them
either.

As for Fat Steve, he just threw as much crap against the wall as
possible in the hopes of making something stick.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Paul G. wrote:
On Nov 4, 4:19 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
On Nov 4, 3:03 pm, Fred Fredburger

wrote:
Primaries and caucuses are a different game. I will admit to a good deal
of confusion about how this plays out there. The best I can do with this
is to suggest that the primary/caucus system is not optimized for
selecting electable presidents. I know, it sounds like a cop out, but
there's no way McCain looks right to be president.
What states have caucuses for republicans?

Try this link:
http://www.google.com/

With just a little effort you can find the knowledge you seek,
grasshopper. Oh wait, if you knew how to use a search engine you
wouldn't ask a stupid question like that. Here, I'll spoon feed it to
you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Results_of_the_2008_Republican_Party_presidential_ primaries

Oh, sorry, you're probably too dumb to figure out how to use a link.
OK, here's a list:

# 3.1 Iowa caucuses

# 3.5 Nevada caucuses

# 3.7 Louisiana caucuses
# 3.8 Hawaii caucuses

# 3.10 Maine caucuses

# 3.12 Alaska caucuses

# 3.16 Colorado caucuses

# 3.22 Minnesota caucuses

# 3.24 Montana caucuses

# 3.27 North Dakota caucuses

# 3.31 West Virginia caucuses
# 3.32 Kansas caucuses

# 3.34 Washington caucuses

# 3.41 American Samoa caucuses
# 3.42 Northern Mariana Islands caucuses
# 3.43 Puerto Rico caucuses

# 3.48 Guam caucuses

# 3.51 United States Virgin Islands caucuses

No, Republicans are in favor of Democracy, caucuses are undemocratic,
therefore Republicans don't do them. Only Democrats do caucuses. You and
your facts can just go to hell!

On Nov 4, 6:56*pm, "Robert" wrote:

That's disgusting!!!!!!!!!!!

That is truely perverted!!!!!!!!!

Even! More so!! When you add!!! Lots of exclamation
points!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On Nov 4, 5:56*pm, "Robert" wrote:
homophobic nonsense snipped

Bobby -

Some of us theorize that your obsession with manly biker chicks is
actually a transformation of your own latent man-loving tendencies.

Just thought you oughta know.

-rj, LCVP

On Nov 4, 4:44*pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
Paul G. wrote:
On Nov 4, 4:19 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
On Nov 4, 3:03 pm, Fred Fredburger

wrote:
Primaries and caucuses are a different game. I will admit to a good deal
of confusion about how this plays out there. The best I can do with this
is to suggest that the primary/caucus system is not optimized for
selecting electable presidents. I know, it sounds like a cop out, but
there's no way McCain looks right to be president.
What states have caucuses for republicans?

Try this link:
http://www.google.com/

With just a little effort you can find the knowledge you seek,
grasshopper. *Oh wait, if you knew how to use a search engine you
wouldn't ask a stupid question like that. Here, I'll spoon feed it to
you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Results_of_the_2008_Republican_Party_presidential_ primaries

Oh, sorry, you're probably too dumb to figure out how to use a link.
OK, here's a list:

# 3.1 Iowa caucuses

# 3.5 Nevada caucuses

# 3.7 Louisiana caucuses
# 3.8 Hawaii caucuses

# 3.10 Maine caucuses

# 3.12 Alaska caucuses

# 3.16 Colorado caucuses

# 3.22 Minnesota caucuses

# 3.24 Montana caucuses

# 3.27 North Dakota caucuses

# 3.31 West Virginia caucuses
# 3.32 Kansas caucuses

# 3.34 Washington caucuses

# 3.41 American Samoa caucuses
# 3.42 Northern Mariana Islands caucuses
# 3.43 Puerto Rico caucuses

# 3.48 Guam caucuses

# 3.51 United States Virgin Islands caucuses

No, Republicans are in favor of Democracy, caucuses are undemocratic,
therefore Republicans don't do them. Only Democrats do caucuses. You and
your facts can just go to hell!

You give up too easily. Republicans do *lots* of caucuses. See my
post. They suck cauc, so to speak. Not that that has to do with
anything... They're going to lose, big time. That matters.
-Paul