Idea of the muscle car is dead (Or, why Ford can't sell cars now)

> wrote in message
...
>
> The causal contribution of the Bush White House to the mortgage mess,
> the price of gasoline and food, and the weakness in the economy is
> most certainly not due to its devotion to conservative principles.
> The Bush maxim, "If someone hurts government's gotta move," is the
> polar opposite of conservatism. 180 degrees out, you might say. The
> 60% growth in the federal budget in seven years, the runup in food
> prices, and the disastrous nation-building adventure in Iraq came to
> pass for two principal reasons: one, that Bush is a buffoon, and two,
> that we had a unified government (the same party in control of both
> the White House and Congress) for most of the Bush years. These
> things, and any other Bushist disaster you care to mention, are 100%
> not due to Bush's "conservatism." I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks
> Bush is a conservative, or even that he is right of center, either
> does not know the definition of conservatism, has not been paying
> attention or thinking for himself, or is an idiot. He's probably all
> of the above.
>

Thanks for that. Conservatives have been tarnished for the past seven years,
and, in fact, the term "conservative" has been hijacked as successfully as
"patriot" or "christian." In so short a time, it seems that we've all
forgotten what the words really mean.

dwight

On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 20:17:26 -0400, "dwight" >
wrote:

>"Spike" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 21:30:36 -0400, "dwight" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Even MORE of a reason to avoide a coupe. Imagine a bunch of broken down
>>>30-somethings trying to shepherd small children in and out of that back
>>>seat. I haven't even SEEN the back seat in the Mustang since I topped 50.
>>
>> I didn't realize you were suicidal :0) "a bunch of broken down
>> 30-somethings"???? It's just possible you may never see the back seat
>> of anything with comments like that. LOL
>>
>> I feel sorry for you :0) I've seen the back seat looking up, and I've
>> seen it looking down, and sideway. Guess it's part of reliving my
>> younger days when it didn't matter which seat you were in as much as
>> it mattered who you were with and what you were doing. LOL :0)
>
>Oh, man... I haven't even WANTED to do certain things in a car since I was
>able to have my own place. Sure, there was a 1972 Pinto hatchback in my
>youth, but that was pre-apartment.
>
>Unless I was out shopping for professionals (and I'm not), there are plenty
>of far better environments than a too-small back seat in an automobile.
>
>As to all those broken-down 30-somethings, the airwaves are chock full of
>commercials for pain relievers to take care of ALL of their aches, real and
>imagined.
>
>)
>

Apartments can be nice, although, I hate listening to me screamer
neighbor at 2 am through those thin walls, and the language that was
reaching my 6 year old was.... well......

I have a home. It has 12 rooms, a garage, a patio, and a big yard with
a spa. But now and then, something different puts a bit of spice into
a relationship. Backseats, phone booths, the lake, etc, makes for a
nice change of pace and keeps boredom at bay. :0)

Yep.... and the same for men.... just don't get confused and take the
one with the side effects that give you menstral cramps. My stepson
said he'd rather have the illness or whatever than take that one.

Spike wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 21:30:36 -0400, "dwight" >
> wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Jul 31, 12:38 pm, "dwight" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have to believe that there are two major considerations in NOT
>>>> buying a Mustang.
>>>
>>>> 1. Insurance. The rates for a V8 engine are killer for young
>>>> people. Hell,
>>>> I'm an old fart, and I still pay a penalty for having a V8, one
>>>> that puts my
>>>> rates on a 1993 Mustang right up there with my wife's new 2007
>>>> Escape. I get
>>>> a break on the insurance for the convertible, because I can't
>>>> drive both cars at the same time, otherwise, I'd have to
>>>> seriously consider keeping two!
>>>
>>> But doing a little street racing in a V8 pony car on the way to
>>> get a gallon of milk is relatively cheap entertainment.
>>
>> I try to be good around the neighborhood. I really do.
>>
>>>> 2. Young people usually mean young families. I've lost count of
>>>> how many people have said that they had to sell off their
>>>> Mustangs when they had kids. To me, that's a lame excuse, since
>>>> the back seat of a Mustang isn't much good for anything BUT
>>>> kids, but it must be the whole
>>>> access-to-the-back-seat-in-a-coupe thing that makes them go
>>>> away. It's so much easier to transport children in a 4-door
>>>> sedan, minivan, or SUV.
>>>
>>> But I've read women are having kids/family at a much later age
>>> now. It's more like late 20s/30s than early 20s.
>>
>> Even MORE of a reason to avoide a coupe. Imagine a bunch of broken
>> down 30-somethings trying to shepherd small children in and out of
>> that back seat. I haven't even SEEN the back seat in the Mustang
>> since I topped 50.
>
> I didn't realize you were suicidal :0) "a bunch of broken down
> 30-somethings"???? It's just possible you may never see the back
> seat of anything with comments like that. LOL
>
> I feel sorry for you :0) I've seen the back seat looking up, and
> I've seen it looking down, and sideway. Guess it's part of reliving
> my younger days when it didn't matter which seat you were in as
> much as it mattered who you were with and what you were doing. LOL
> :0)
>>
>>>> Those of us who are kidless and have the means can look to
>>>> Mustangs, certainly, but a V8 coupe doesn't fit the needs for a
>>>> lot of the younger ones.
>>>
>>> It fits if the Mustang has a hatchback.
>>>
>>> Patrick
>>
>> It sure as hell fit ME. I always quote your line - the ultimate
>> sport utility vehicle. Unfortunately, the youngest Mustangs with a
>> hatchback are now 15 years old, and not a consideration for
>> today's booming babyers.
>>
>> dwight

At the risk of derailing someone's sexual reveries, and as a darn sure
way to stimulate snorts of derision, I want to mention the two-door
station wagon. A squared-off hatchback. A "Kammback", to coin a
(shudder) GM phrase. Picture that VEGA Kammback with decent motive
power. If it were maybe five percent bigger, just the size of a five
percent smaller Mustang.

If I had the money, I'd hire a designer and a prototype constructor to
make me a 2010 Mustang Kammback wagon.

I loved-loved-loved the look of the 1971-73 Vega Kammback. It was a
delight to drive, even with a hundred (optimistic) horsepower in a
2300-pound car. A five percent larger one would be roomy and less than
3000 pounds; with the 210-HP V6 or 300-HP V8 garden-variety engines,
good performance. If they could keep the Vega-like balance and
handling, a potentially marvelous compromise car. Like the Vega wagon.

OK, maybe ten percent larger. But lean, geddit?

A modern, right-sized domestic Volvo P1800 ES. Who could resist a
Mustang Shooting Brake?

My Vega Kammback ( I was a thirty-something family guy, carrying Mrs,
Daughter, four racing wheel/tires and camping gear to the races) :
http://home.san.rr.com/fsheff/wagon.htm

--
Frank ess

dwight wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> The causal contribution of the Bush White House to the mortgage
>> mess, the price of gasoline and food, and the weakness in the
>> economy is most certainly not due to its devotion to conservative
>> principles. The Bush maxim, "If someone hurts government's gotta
>> move," is the polar opposite of conservatism. 180 degrees out,
>> you might say. The 60% growth in the federal budget in seven
>> years, the runup in food prices, and the disastrous
>> nation-building adventure in Iraq came to pass for two principal
>> reasons: one, that Bush is a buffoon, and two, that we had a
>> unified government (the same party in control of both the White
>> House and Congress) for most of the Bush years. These things, and
>> any other Bushist disaster you care to mention, are 100% not due
>> to Bush's "conservatism." I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks Bush
>> is a conservative, or even that he is right of center, either does
>> not know the definition of conservatism, has not been paying
>> attention or thinking for himself, or is an idiot. He's probably
>> all of the above.
>
> Thanks for that. Conservatives have been tarnished for the past
> seven years, and, in fact, the term "conservative" has been
> hijacked as successfully as "patriot" or "christian." In so short a
> time, it seems that we've all forgotten what the words really mean.
>
> dwight

Part of the trouble is that the way words are used determines what
they "really mean". When your ten-year-old gets ready to vote in eight
years, s/he will never have learned any other definition of
"conservative", "patriot", or "christian". Sigh.

--
Frank ess

wrote:

> I knows these days, in this country, the constant media drumbeat is:
>
> Muslim = Terrorist
>
> And it's B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T!
>
> I've lived in a 98% Muslim country, twice, for a total of almost three
> years, and my experience is that they are some of the most friendly,
> caring, warm-hearted and family-oriented people I've ever met. I'll
> go further and say I wish our society here in American was even half
> as good. And I'll finish this by saying I could/can ramble on for
> hours (please ask me to) telling stories about how well my family and
> I were treated by the "terrible Muslims".

I'm well aware of that, a neighbor 2 houses down is Muslim.

>
>> his family is Muslim and/or
>> atheist
>
> "and/or"? Wow.
>
> FYI -- they believe in a supreme being.

By that I meant that there are members who are Muslim and those who
are atheist. IIRC I believe his mother was reported as being atheist.

>
>> and I know he attended a Christian church where he never heard a
>> *thing* the pastor said.... Long drawn out nasty story.
>
> How would you know what he heard? And of that what he agreed or
> disagreed with?

One can get a good ear full of what he heard by listening to the
pastor. And I believe Obama mentioned he didn't agree with that pastors
views, he disagreed with his good friend and pastor for many years of
attending the church. I just find that a little odd.

>
>> And though you are generally correct about character I'll just leave it at I
>> disapprove of him for a number of reasons.
>
> Fine. But realize he is one of our/America's brightest (he graduated
> from Harvard with top honors), and could have picked any law firm he
> wanted to work for (cha ching!!), yet, instead he went into public
> service.
>
> And McCain is an outstanding American too. (Though the Bush campaign
> team destroyed his character/war record back in 2000, like they later
> did to Kerry in 2004. Sad.)
>
>>> Obama is another good guy, and I think he has the potential to be a
>>> great president. That is as long as some Neanderthal doesn't
>>> assassinate him first...
>
>> Except that oil prices and taxes will likely go so high
>
> Oil prices -- like double or triple in price? What was the price of
> gas again around the year 2000? And what is it now?
>
>> that normal
>> people will not be able to afford to live.
>
> Seems anymore the Republicans spend the money (always leave with huge
> deficits) and the Democrats end up having to pay for it (balance the
> budget). Who's the "conservative" party, again?
>
>> At least McCain has not
>> admitted to wanting to raise taxes *that I've heard*, and he talks about
>> tangible things to do.
>
> Campaign promises. Even if you 'read their lips', I wouldn't bank on
> them.
>
>> Obama talks about nothing but change. When you
>> ask what change he says change for the GOOD! Well hell, how can you
>> argue with that?
>
> The fact of the matter is neither guy really knows what they can or
> can't do until they sit in the oval office.
>
> Patrick

I'll agree there, but I'd rather have someone who says he sees no
reason to raise taxes than the one who says he will.

--



From what I've seen you doing in nana.sightings this
month, I really must question your conclusions. Of
the roughly 4079 reports you posted to nana.sightings,
my favorite will remain your LART of the mail you
received from Cron, running on your own computer. - David Ritz

On Aug 7, 5:26 pm, wrote:

> The causal contribution of the Bush White House to the mortgage mess,
> the price of gasoline and food, and the weakness in the economy is
> most certainly not due to its devotion to conservative principles.
> The Bush maxim, "If someone hurts government's gotta move," is the
> polar opposite of conservatism. 180 degrees out, you might say. The
> 60% growth in the federal budget in seven years, the runup in food
> prices, and the disastrous nation-building adventure in Iraq came to
> pass for two principal reasons: one, that Bush is a buffoon, and two,
> that we had a unified government (the same party in control of both
> the White House and Congress) for most of the Bush years. These
> things, and any other Bushist disaster you care to mention, are 100%
> not due to Bush's "conservatism." I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks
> Bush is a conservative, or even that he is right of center, either
> does not know the definition of conservatism, has not been paying
> attention or thinking for himself, or is an idiot. He's probably all
> of the above.

So we agree then... that the Republicans have only been pretending to
be conservatives.

> The correct analysis in any presidential election is, who ranks the
> lowest on the scale of buffoonery/amateurism/foolishness,

lol

Intelligence, charisma and someone who articulates well.

> and which
> party has control of Congress?

> Unified government is the greatest evil of all, at least among those
> evils we can easily control. Since the Republicans have managed to
> manuver themselves out of a congressional majority for the foreseeable
> future, the choice of McCain for President is automatic.

I like McCain. But I would have to wait to see who his running mate
is because I worry about how much four years in the White House would
take out of him. If four years can age a 50 year old about a decade,
what will four years do to a 71 year old guy?

> On the buffoonery scale, Obama's promises that his administration is
> going to blow up the role of federal government, e.g., in the
> regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and in the federal takeover of
> the 20% of GDP that is the health care sector, at the same time as he
> intends to exclude the representatives of the affected industries from
> any role whatsoever in the writing of the thousands of pages of laws
> and regulations that these takeovers will require, gives him the edge
> in a walk. In fact we should retire the trophy -- after we have
> inscribed with the names of all the Obamaniacs who think it's a good
> idea to have the amateurs who actually write our laws do so without
> any input whatsoever on the part of the affected industries. How the
> f**k is that a good idea? It's nuts.

Yet, we elected Bush/Rupublicans to two terms and what has he/they
done for our country's industrial base? In a word, nothing.

I think Obama would be smart enough that once in office he'd select a
bi-partisan cabinet.

> As to all the rest of the Obama agenda, he is more and more a stealth
> candidate, a blank slate blathering generalities that each listener
> can fill in with whatever content matches his personal values. That
> is the most dangerous candidate of all.

Because, again, these two really don't know what they can do until
they sit in the big chair. Campaigns are more about sounding/looking
Presidential, than addressing specifics on issues.

> That is exactly what we have
> in President Bush -- a content-free vessel interested in only one
> thing: power.
>
> McCain is not a lot better on the buffoonery scale. But his small
> margin in this area, combined with the giganitc benefit of the divided
> government that his election would bring for at least four years, if
> not eight, makes him the far better choice of the two.

From what I seen/heard so far, I don't think the Democrats will own
Congress for very long anyway.

> Put it this way: if you want to see another eight years with a 60%
> growth in federal spending and a no-holds barred assault on personal
> liberty in the form of Big Government interference in every nook and
> cranny of our private lives, vote for Obama. Obama truly represents
> the third and fourth terms of the Bushist regime. The difference will
> be a fine-tuning in the quality of the Big Government disasters that
> we will experience, but the quantity will be the same if not greater.

I think at this point, another presidential win for the Republicans
would be pat on the back for the last 8 years of Bush.

Patrick

On Aug 7, 5:40 pm, Spike > wrote:

> >> >> God help the USA if we have a left leaning President and a left leaning
> >> >> Congress in control!

> >> > After the last 7+ painful years, I say bring it...

> >> You've got it.

> >Whew... thank you!

> >We went so far right we went right into a ditch. I say it's time we
> >yank it left to get us back on the road. Then if/when we go into the
> >ditch on the left side we can pull it back to the right again.

> >> You'll either have a left leaning "Republican"

> >I think McCain is good guy and one that can work both sides of the
> >isle... something we desperately need.

> >> or a left leaning "Muslim."

> >Religion doesn't determine a person's character. (And, not that it
> >matters, but you know he's Catholic, right?)

> It doesn't?

Nope. Not one bit. There are lot of religious people who have no
character.

Actions prove character, going church every Sunday or reading a bible,
at least not in my book.

> How about those who strap munitions to children and send them out to die in the > name of Allah?

And what about them? They're extremists. Just like there are
extremist here in the US who bomb abortion clinics, kill people
because of their race or lifestyle, run cults and have sex with
underage teenagers, and then claim they were doing the work of God.

My question is how can you condemn their Muslim religion because of
their extremist groups, yet overlook our religious extremist?

> JFK was a Catholic, too.

> >Obama is another good guy, and I think he has the potential to be a
> >great president. That is as long as some Neanderthal doesn't
> >assassinate him first...

> Hope that doesn't happen. If it does, I think we will have fire and
> blood in the streets everywhere.

But you know there are white supremacists out there who feel that if
they could kill Obama they would be doing God's work. Are they not
terrorists, terrorists with a Bible?

Patrick

On Aug 7, 6:16 pm, Spike > wrote:

> >> >>>> God help the USA if we have a left leaning President and a left leaning
> >> >>>> Congress in control!
>
> SNIP
>
> >I knows these days, in this country, the constant media drumbeat is:
>
> >Muslim = Terrorist
>
> >And it's B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T!
>
> >I've lived in a 98% Muslim country, twice, for a total of almost three
> >years, and my experience is that they are some of the most friendly,
> >caring, warm-hearted and family-oriented people I've ever met. I'll
> >go further and say I wish our society here in American was even half
> >as good. And I'll finish this by saying I could/can ramble on for
> >hours (please ask me to) telling stories about how well my family and
> >I were treated by the "terrible Muslims".

> Very likely true. I spent most of my life traveling the world. What I
> found, from the deserts of north Africa, to the rice paddies of the
> Mekong, is that "those" people are not in charge.

Yet, the connection is Muslim = terrorist. And, again, that's
bull****.

> >> his family is Muslim and/or
> >> atheist

> >"and/or"? Wow.

> >FYI -- they believe in a supreme being.

> His mother was an aethist.

So? And..? Does that automatically make her a bad person? And does
being a priest automatically make you a good person?

> Two of his fathers were Muslim and
> extremist leaning.

There's that Muslim = extremist thing, again.

> Yes they believe in a Supreme Being. Yes, many of
> the Christian biblical figures, like Noah and Abraham, figure
> prominently in their religion. Belief in a Supreme Being does not
> determine whether one is good or evil in the eyes of others.

It seems to be belief in the _same_ Supreme Being is the determining
factor -- if you're Muslim you're not one of us/the good ol' boys,
regardless of your character. Yet in this debate what is getting
glossed over is the fact that Obama is Catholic. Good job FauOX!

> >> and I know he attended a Christian church where he never heard a
> >> *thing* the pastor said.... Long drawn out nasty story.

> >How would you know what he heard? And of that what he agreed or
> >disagreed with?

> Even Oprah heard what he says he never heard. Perhaps he didn't hear
> anything because it fit with what he thought was right?

"Perhaps" is a lllllloooooonnnnnnggggg way from fact.

> >> And though you are generally correct about character I'll just leave it at I
> >> disapprove of him for a number of reasons.

> >Fine. But realize he is one of our/America's brightest (he graduated
> >from Harvard with top honors), and could have picked any law firm he
> >wanted to work for (cha ching!!), yet, instead he went into public
> >service.

> How many years did the terrorists plan to attack the WTC? Heck, they
> tried twice. How many "sleeper agents" have the Communists had in
> place in the USA awaiting orders? Being groomed to take over some
> aspect of our society to bring it down at the appropriate time? Money
> means nothing to such people. Germany did the same thing during WW2.

Holy crap! WTF does ANY of this have to do with Obama?

Factoid: The Democrats are not an extremist group. They're regular
Americans who make up about 50% of the electorate.

> >And McCain is an outstanding American too. (Though the Bush campaign
> >team destroyed his character/war record back in 2000, like they later
> >did to Kerry in 2004. Sad.)

> Kerry deserved what he got. He really deserved worse, but it would
> have been un-American for all of us who served in Vietnam to have
> lynched him for the accusations and lies he told. Talk about giving
> the enemy free publicity.

God-loving people don't lynch/kill anyone.

He fought over there. He earned the right to speak out. That's in
our constitution -- freedom of speech.

> >> > Obama is another good guy, and I think he has the potential to be a
> >> > great president. That is as long as some Neanderthal doesn't
> >> > assassinate him first...

> >> Except that oil prices and taxes will likely go so high

> >Oil prices -- like double or triple in price? What was the price of
> >gas again around the year 2000? And what is it now?

> What was it before the embargo of the 70s and what was it after the
> embargo ended? Did it ever go back down?

Nope, but the price stayed flat afterwards for more than 20 years and
we never used the time to develop alternative sources.

> >> that normal
> >> people will not be able to afford to live.

> >Seems anymore the Republicans spend the money (always leave with huge
> >deficits) and the Democrats end up having to pay for it (balance the
> >budget). Who's the "conservative" party, again?

> I hope you can still feel that way when the new "social programs"
> designed to "redistribute the wealth" have been instituted and your
> taxes go through the roof to pay for them.

And the middle class is doing good now after the last 7+ years?

> >> At least McCain has not
> >> admitted to wanting to raise taxes *that I've heard*, and he talks about
> >> tangible things to do.

> >Campaign promises. Even if you 'read their lips', I wouldn't bank on
> >them.

> But you're banking on Obama to make changes for the good of the
> nation? If what politicians promise are simply "campagne promises",
> how can you believe what either candidate says? They both make
> promises.

I'm not "banking" on either. But I think Obama has more potential to
do some/more good.

> >> Obama talks about nothing but change. When you
> >> ask what change he says change for the GOOD! Well hell, how can you
> >> argue with that?

> >The fact of the matter is neither guy really knows what they can or
> >can't do until they sit in the oval office.

> That is true. However, if the Oval Office and the Congress both lean
> the same way, I think the chances are pretty good that Checks and
> Balances are right out the window, and the little peope, as Leona
> Helmsley put it, will be the ones who pay.

So why weren't we trying to restore those checks and balances in the
Bush years?

Patrick

On Aug 7, 6:26 pm, Spike > wrote:

> >> >> God help the USA if we have a left leaning President and a left leaning
> >> >> Congress in
> >> >> control!

> >> > After the last 7+ painful years, I say bring it...

> >> Yep while they fly overhead in the Lear and Cessna Citations and flip us the
> >> bird. I assume you heard the dems was all upset that they could not get
> >> discounted gas by draining the city gas in Chicago for their convention,
> >> since city gas has no taxes on it.

> >> what the dems want is us in horses and buggies so they can commute by jet
> >> and limo

> >Sounds like the "reporting"/opinion of the FauxOX, spin zone,
> >propaganda news channel.

> How is it that anyone can say Fox is biased for the right, and CNN
> ISN'T biased to the left?

I don't know.

> How is it that people who think that way
> believe that people don't listen to both, weigh the information, and
> come to their own conclusions? That is arrogant.

Studies have shown people listen to what they believe.

And if FauOX has a snippet about Obama "perhaps" being a Muslim
terrorist...

> That's saying you're
> smarter than anyone who believes different from what you believe and
> they ares stupid sheep, etc. Yet, from the opposite approach, you
> would only accept what you are told by the left and not be a stupid
> sheep. WTF????

What I believe is that the extremist on both sides control the
airwaves and I'm caught in the middle and have to listen to their
bull****.

Patrick

On Aug 7, 7:18*pm, wrote:

<snip>

> Yet, we elected Bush/Rupublicans to two terms and what has he/they
> done for our country's industrial base? *In a word, nothing.
>
> I think Obama would be smart enough that once in office he'd select a
> bi-partisan cabinet.

<snip>

> From what I seen/heard so far, I don't think the Democrats will own
> Congress for very long anyway.

<snip>

> I think at this point, another presidential win for the Republicans
> would be pat on the back for the last 8 years of Bush.
>
> Patrick

Do yourself a favor. Go to this page -- http://abcnews.go.com/thisweek
-- and click the link "WATCH: Pelosi Drills GOP on Energy Policy" (a
characteristically misleading left-wing-biased mainstream media
headline, btw) and watch the first ten minutes of Speaker of the House
Nancy Pelosi refusing twenty different ways to answer George
Stephanolpoulos's very simple question, "Why not give offshore
drilling a chance for a debate and an up-or-down vote?" Then tell me
you want to see a Democratic President with this woman running the
House (not to mention the equally repugnant and dishonest Harry Reid
in charge of the Senate). I'm a pretty complacent guy, with a lot of
faith in the ability of this country to absorb the body blows the
federal government is constantly raining down on it. But this
prospect really frightens me to my bones.

Speaking of those Democrats in Congress, you know that it takes only
40 senators to block any given piece of legislation, right? At no
time during the Bush administration were there fewer than 40
Democratic senators. (For the past two years there have been 50 of
them, plus Joe Lieberman, who caucuses with the Democrats.) At the
same time, President Bush did not veto a single bill that Congress
sent to him for the first six years of his administration, and has not
vetoed more than two or three since then. For 7.5 years, therefore,
those 40+ Democratic senators have known to a moral certainty that
whatever they chose not to block was going to become law. Therefore
in no way do the Democrats escape a full share of the blame for
whatever misdeeds one chooses to ascribe to the Republicans and
President Bush.

Speaking of the 40 senators it takes to block legislation, there is a
possibility that the we will come out of the November election with
fewer than 40 Republican Senators. If this happens there will be no
check whatsoever on the power of the Democrats to pass any piece of
insanity they can dream up. The delusional and dishonest Nancy Pelosi
in charge of the House, 61+ Democrats in the Senate, and The Chosen
One sitting in the Oval Office -- that is a truly appalling prospect.
Images of the Antichrist and his apocalypse are not difficult to
conjure. Again, under these circumstances the choice of McCain for
President is automatic.

180 Out