>From: Cal <[log in to unmask]>
>Fascinating. Friend Giordano comparing David Duke and George Bush. If there
>was nothing to be ashamed of, why would the good folks deny supporting their
>duly elected President? Who they are supposed to (asked to) Trust?
>Hey, if elections weren't horseraces then their would be no need to vote, but
>it may be relevant to the previous observation that the British bookmakers
>have Bush at 3-1 (bet one and get three plus your one); Perot at 25-1 and
>Clinton as an odds-on favorite at 1-6 (bet six to get one).
Hmmm... I can't remember what odds were being offered, but bear in mind
that, during our own general election, the pundits and opinion pollsters
were predicting a decisive win for the Labour party. As you all know,
not only did the Tories win, they got a majority.
And now Britain is well and truly up the creek without a canoe, never mind
a paddle... do I see a connection...
KERR AVON | Work: ICL, *"To you, Baldrick, the Renaissance
aka Liam Cairney |Reading, England* was just something that happened
All e-mail to:- | Home: Glasgow, * to other people, wasn't it?"
[log in to unmask] | Scotland * -- Edmund Blackadder