nom=de=plume wrote:
"JLH" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:00:28 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

There's no excuse. Just because one person does something horrible, that
doesn't make it ok for others.


Well...I guess we won't be hearing any more of the 'Bush Rationale'.

Loogy, w3fh, jps, Harry,---- are you watching? Ole plum guy made a
great point.
--
John H

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those
who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Thomas Jefferson


Not sure what you mean by the Bush Rationale, since Bush's "rationale" was
based on a twisted notion of religion mixed with failed economics and
fear-stoking actions.

If you'd like to debate things that Obama has done or not done that are good
or not good for the country, and you're willing to actually cite verifiable
facts, there's room for discussion. There are plenty of facts from Bush's 8
years worthy of debate, including some things that might be construed as
"good" for America (in my opinion of course). A quick example is the African
AIDS program (except for the insertion of "abstinance" requirements). There
are a plethora of facts/decisions he and his admin made that were terrible
(my opinion and the demonstrable results)... no need to repeat them, as I'm
sure we're all familar with them.

Bush was in power for almost a decade. Obama has been in power for 3/4 of a
year. It's kind of hard to equate the two in any rational way.

But you fail to realize. In most conservative's eyes, that's all just
peachy and great because Bush was a Republican!

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:10:57 -0400, NotNow wrote:

JLH wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 09:40:21 -0700, Jordon
wrote:

Katie Ohara wrote:

If I am ever in MA, I will make a real attempt to spit on his grave
Spit on anyones grave in Arlington Cemetery (which is where
he's going) and I'm sure there will be plenty of people
around that will make sure that you see the error of your
ways.

Guards do not patrol the cemetery. Only the tomb of the unknown
soldier is guarded. There may be people walking around, but not to
enforce appropriate behavior.
--
John H

You don't think an ordinary citizen, perhaps someone visiting the grave
of a brave relative or comrade would do something to someone spitting on
graves? I damned sure would.

Ordinarily, an ordinary citizen might say something, especially if
someone spit on a soldier's grave.

But, Ted Kennedy's? Doubtful.

Besides, there are lots of times when no one is around.
--
John H

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those
who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Thomas Jefferson

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:10:32 -0700, Jordon
wrote:

JLH wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 09:40:21 -0700, Jordon
Katie Ohara wrote:

If I am ever in MA, I will make a real attempt to spit on his grave
Spit on anyones grave in Arlington Cemetery (which is where
he's going) and I'm sure there will be plenty of people
around that will make sure that you see the error of your
ways.

Guards do not patrol the cemetery. Only the tomb of the unknown
soldier is guarded. There may be people walking around, but not to
enforce appropriate behavior.

I'm well aware of the type of people you find at Arlington
and I wasn't talking about guards. I was talking about all
the living veterans that are there visiting that would not
take too kindly to someone spitting on the grave of a fellow
veteran.

I was not in the military but I have been to Arlington. I'm
not a religious guy but it was probably the closest thing to
a "religious experience" that I've ever had, and if I saw
someone spitting on the grave of a veteran, no matter their
political affiliation, at the very least, there would be
words exchanged.

And I feel the same way. But, Arlington is seldom crowded, and there
are many times when no one is around or is watching.

If I saw someone spitting on the grave of a fellow veteran, I'd react
like you would.

Ted Kennedy?
--
John H

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those
who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Thomas Jefferson

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 11:21:10 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"JLH" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:00:28 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

There's no excuse. Just because one person does something horrible, that
doesn't make it ok for others.



Well...I guess we won't be hearing any more of the 'Bush Rationale'.

Loogy, w3fh, jps, Harry,---- are you watching? Ole plum guy made a
great point.
--
John H

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those
who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Thomas Jefferson


Not sure what you mean by the Bush Rationale,

Since you'e speaking nicely...

The 'Bush Rationale' is the reason many liberals provide for any
negative critique of an Obama action.

For example, "You didn't say anything when Bush did it." Or, "Bush did
it, so it's OK if Obama does it too." Hopefully you get the idea.

As I've said before, for you guys - yourself, w3fh, Harry, etc. - a
'debate' consists of personal insults and name-calling.

And, for the record, Bush may have screwed up a few things during his
eight year tenure. But, Bush is gone. Obama is trying damn hard to
catch up in his first 3/4 of a year.

since Bush's "rationale" was
based on a twisted notion of religion mixed with failed economics and
fear-stoking actions.

If you'd like to debate things that Obama has done or not done that are good
or not good for the country, and you're willing to actually cite verifiable
facts, there's room for discussion. There are plenty of facts from Bush's 8
years worthy of debate, including some things that might be construed as
"good" for America (in my opinion of course). A quick example is the African
AIDS program (except for the insertion of "abstinance" requirements). There
are a plethora of facts/decisions he and his admin made that were terrible
(my opinion and the demonstrable results)... no need to repeat them, as I'm
sure we're all familar with them.

Bush was in power for almost a decade. Obama has been in power for 3/4 of a
year. It's kind of hard to equate the two in any rational way.

--
John H

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those
who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Thomas Jefferson

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:15:25 -0400, NotNow wrote:

nom=de=plume wrote:
"JLH" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:00:28 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

There's no excuse. Just because one person does something horrible, that
doesn't make it ok for others.


Well...I guess we won't be hearing any more of the 'Bush Rationale'.

Loogy, w3fh, jps, Harry,---- are you watching? Ole plum guy made a
great point.
--
John H

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those
who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Thomas Jefferson


Not sure what you mean by the Bush Rationale, since Bush's "rationale" was
based on a twisted notion of religion mixed with failed economics and
fear-stoking actions.

If you'd like to debate things that Obama has done or not done that are good
or not good for the country, and you're willing to actually cite verifiable
facts, there's room for discussion. There are plenty of facts from Bush's 8
years worthy of debate, including some things that might be construed as
"good" for America (in my opinion of course). A quick example is the African
AIDS program (except for the insertion of "abstinance" requirements). There
are a plethora of facts/decisions he and his admin made that were terrible
(my opinion and the demonstrable results)... no need to repeat them, as I'm
sure we're all familar with them.

Bush was in power for almost a decade. Obama has been in power for 3/4 of a
year. It's kind of hard to equate the two in any rational way.

But you fail to realize. In most conservative's eyes, that's all just
peachy and great because Bush was a Republican!

OK, I'll agree with you again.
--
John H

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those
who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Thomas Jefferson

JLH wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:10:57 -0400, NotNow wrote:

JLH wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 09:40:21 -0700, Jordon
wrote:

Katie Ohara wrote:

If I am ever in MA, I will make a real attempt to spit on his grave
Spit on anyones grave in Arlington Cemetery (which is where
he's going) and I'm sure there will be plenty of people
around that will make sure that you see the error of your
ways.
Guards do not patrol the cemetery. Only the tomb of the unknown
soldier is guarded. There may be people walking around, but not to
enforce appropriate behavior.
--
John H

You don't think an ordinary citizen, perhaps someone visiting the grave
of a brave relative or comrade would do something to someone spitting on
graves? I damned sure would.

Ordinarily, an ordinary citizen might say something, especially if
someone spit on a soldier's grave.

But, Ted Kennedy's? Doubtful.

Besides, there are lots of times when no one is around.
--
John H


There's where, thankfully, you and I differ. I would say something
anytime anyone spit on anyone's grave.

JLH wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:10:32 -0700, Jordon
wrote:

JLH wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 09:40:21 -0700, Jordon
Katie Ohara wrote:

If I am ever in MA, I will make a real attempt to spit on his grave
Spit on anyones grave in Arlington Cemetery (which is where
he's going) and I'm sure there will be plenty of people
around that will make sure that you see the error of your
ways.
Guards do not patrol the cemetery. Only the tomb of the unknown
soldier is guarded. There may be people walking around, but not to
enforce appropriate behavior.
I'm well aware of the type of people you find at Arlington
and I wasn't talking about guards. I was talking about all
the living veterans that are there visiting that would not
take too kindly to someone spitting on the grave of a fellow
veteran.

I was not in the military but I have been to Arlington. I'm
not a religious guy but it was probably the closest thing to
a "religious experience" that I've ever had, and if I saw
someone spitting on the grave of a veteran, no matter their
political affiliation, at the very least, there would be
words exchanged.

And I feel the same way. But, Arlington is seldom crowded, and there
are many times when no one is around or is watching.

If I saw someone spitting on the grave of a fellow veteran, I'd react
like you would.

Ted Kennedy?
--
John H


So if there not a veteran, it's fair game?

JLH wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:15:25 -0400, NotNow wrote:

nom=de=plume wrote:
"JLH" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:00:28 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

There's no excuse. Just because one person does something horrible, that
doesn't make it ok for others.

Well...I guess we won't be hearing any more of the 'Bush Rationale'.

Loogy, w3fh, jps, Harry,---- are you watching? Ole plum guy made a
great point.
--
John H

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those
who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Thomas Jefferson

Not sure what you mean by the Bush Rationale, since Bush's "rationale" was
based on a twisted notion of religion mixed with failed economics and
fear-stoking actions.

If you'd like to debate things that Obama has done or not done that are good
or not good for the country, and you're willing to actually cite verifiable
facts, there's room for discussion. There are plenty of facts from Bush's 8
years worthy of debate, including some things that might be construed as
"good" for America (in my opinion of course). A quick example is the African
AIDS program (except for the insertion of "abstinance" requirements). There
are a plethora of facts/decisions he and his admin made that were terrible
(my opinion and the demonstrable results)... no need to repeat them, as I'm
sure we're all familar with them.

Bush was in power for almost a decade. Obama has been in power for 3/4 of a
year. It's kind of hard to equate the two in any rational way.

But you fail to realize. In most conservative's eyes, that's all just
peachy and great because Bush was a Republican!

OK, I'll agree with you again.
--
John H


Good because it's a true statement.

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:41:29 -0400, NotNow wrote:


So if there not a veteran, it's fair game?

Ted Kennedy was a veteran.

wf3h wrote:
On Aug 27, 7:59 am, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote:
use of nuclear (for
you right wingers, that's 'nukular') missiles
And the Bay of Pigs, what kind of moron would agree to such a thing
AND then not support it once it was going? Pure Kennedy cowardice.-
actually it was stupidity. the cuban missile crisis showed that
kennedy had the cojones to go toe to toe with the russkies.
Do you understand the difference between planning and implementation?-

do you understand the concept of national credibility?

National Credibility. Is that when you put a guy in jail for life for
murdering a couple of hundred people on an airplane but then let him out
on compassionate reasons because he has terminal cancer and is going to
die in three months?