alt.energy.renewable

In article
<97e296a2-f8fc-4a6b-8828-06eb63dc1c16@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
sbm2006@shaw.ca wrote:

> On Mar 26, 4:19 pm, ray wrote:
> > In article ,
> > "Bob F" wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > "ray" wrote in message
> > >news:fsc6t001mj1@news3.newsguy.com...
> > > > In article ,
> > > > "Bob F" wrote:
> >
> > > >> "ray" wrote in message
> > > >>news:fs10sr11cca@news1.newsguy.com...
> >
> > > >> > With the help of Democrats jumping party affiliation to get McCain
> > > >> > in as
> > > >> > the Republican nominee, we have nobody that will put a stop to the
> > > >> > border problem.
> >
> > > >> You meant to say "the republicans jumping party affiliation to get
> > > >> Hillory
> > > >> in"
> > > >> didn't you?
> >
> > > > That was reactionary--not assertive. The fact of the matter is, the
> > > > party of conservatives would never elect a guy like McCain. Rush and
> > > > others led the charge that we should respond by doing exactly what the
> > > > Democrats have done to the Republican party; screw up their election.
> > > > And why not?
> >
> > > I've heard of no significant documentation of such acts in this election.
> > > Democrats are unlikely to waste a vote on McCain when they have real
> > > candidates
> > > to choose from and select. Whereas, we do have pretty good info about a
> > > republican conspiracy to do so.
> >
> > I see. So in your liberal mind, you actually believe that Republicans
> > chose the most liberal Republican in the lineup?
> >
> > Fact of the matter is, there is little difference between Hillary and
> > Obama. It doesn't matter who wins. This is why Democrats decided to
> > screw up the Republican primary by choosing the most liberal Republican.
> >
>
> There's a huge difference. One voted for the war and one didn't.


And you would base your vote on that?

--
All saints have a past--all sinners have a future

Ronald Reagan