"JustWait" wrote in message
...
A few things???? Yeah, a few things like a war of choice and a war of
necessity, like ruining the economy, like taking approximately 1/3 of
his
time in office as vacation, like lying to the American public, like
spying
on Americans, like engaging in intense cronyism, like promoting and
condoning torture, and on and on and on.

yeah, and he snuck into your house and took your money, and he killed
your dog, and he sold military info to the Chinese (oh wait, that was
Clinton), well then he got caught on tape taking a bribe (oh wait..) or
he lied to congress and stated "the CIA lied" oh wait.... Oh well,
guess that was all Bush's fault too...

Again, Bush is history.


So, what you're saying is that if someone else does something wrong, then
it's ok for you to do something wrong. Now that's just wacked.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"SteveB" wrote in message
news
Sure. They count. It's worth having a discussion about how to pay for
what we need/want. It's actually pretty hard to do the math, since there
are so many different ways of adding things up. In the past, many of the
costs were hidden and/or pulled out of the budget, for example.

It's easy to say, we're running huge deficits and spending tons of money
without examining why and what we might get out of it. For example, if
you want to claim (falsely I believe) that FDR's social programs were not
what got us out of the Depression, then what did? Some say, with some
justification that massive military spending as a prelude to WWII did it.
Yet, it was gov't spending that did it.
Wow. With our debt quadrupling every year, I see a dark and stormy night
on the horizon. But I guess it's like Shopaholic Suzie .......... I got
checks and the bank has money. What's the problem. How do you suggest we
get the current crew up there to examine spending and see how we might get
out of it?


Our debt accumulating every year... A dark and stormy night... perhaps. I
guess we could go back to no gov't involvement, but I don't think anyone
with any intelligence is really suggesting that. The Dark Ages weren't all
that comfy, as I recall from the history books. I don't mind paying for
things I might not use directly. I am my brother's keeper. Who would Jesus
not cover with health insurance? Didn't He take the side of the poor, and
wasn't He against the money changers? Or, was He for big business, and
anything-goes capitalism?

I think that the "crew" is acutely aware of the issues you raise... growing
debt and potentional financial disaster. Heck, the boys in charge in the
last administration knew they had to do something.

--
Nom=de=Plume

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
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!

What's the ****ing point. We show you video, and lies Obama told during
the campaign, flat out lies, and all you do is blame it on Bush... Obama
lied because he was talking out of his all, making promises he had no
idea if he could keep. But for you it's ok because, it's all Bushes
fault Obama didn't have a clue until Jan 20,09..

You know that Plume is just another of Krausies AKAs, don't you?

thunder wrote:
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.

I understand that. But John specifically said he would say something if
someone spit on a veteran's grave. Hence my reply.

BAR wrote:
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?

When did the U.S. do that?

Jordon wrote:
NotNow wrote:
JLH wrote:
Jordon wrote:
JLH wrote:
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? --

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

If you're not a veteran, the only way you get into Arlington
is walking through the front gate.


You are missing the point.

Jordon wrote:
NotNow wrote:
JLH wrote:
Jordon wrote:
JLH wrote:
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? --

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

If you're not a veteran, the only way you get into Arlington
is walking through the front gate.


Oh, and you're wrong. Veterans, their spouses and children can be buried
there.

BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 06:52:06 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

I consider it an insult to be lumped in with a coward like Ted
Kennedy. I hope he suffered no more and no less than Miss Kopechne
and I hope his hypocrisy is judged fairly in any afterlife.

Your idea that his protracted death from cancer is comparable to a
five minute drowning is ridiculous. Look up cancer treatment side
effects, such as x-rays to the throat and never swallowing anything
solid again. Some cancer victims have had the nurses getting high on
their pain medicine while they did without.

Casady


Teddy Kennedy was an alcoholic, and it took him a long time and a good
second marriage to get that disease under control. While an active
drinker, he had a horrific automobile accident and in that an innocent
young woman died.

Teddy Kennedy should have owned up to what he had done wrong at the time
he did it. But, he was a coward and went and hid behind his family and
lawyers. Teddy should have served time in prison.

But that was only one of the albatrosses around Kennedy's neck. One of
his brothers died in World War II, and two were assassinated while in
the service of their country. There are other members of his immediate
family who suffer or suffered from various serious illnesses.

Sounds like a normal family with the exception of the assinations.
However, when you put yourself in the public eye and make as many
enemies as papa Joseph Kennedy bad things are bound to happen.

Despite all this, Teddy Kennedy was the *leading* legislator in the
United States Senate, and he was a great humanitarian, a loyal friend,
and a wonderfully decent man.

Decent? Killing MaryJo Kopechne and makeing watress sandwiches at DC
bars with Sen. Chris Dodd? Oh, and let's not forget about that incident
in southern Florida with his nephew.

He may have been trying to atone for his sins but, he was hardly decent.


I didn't know him at all, though I did get to meet him at a couple of
holiday parties in the early 2000's...where he had nothing to drink,
and we did nod at each other when he was out walking his dogs. His
walks would often take him to an office building near Union Station
where I worked as a consultant. He had many old friends who worked in
that building, and in the late afternoon, he'd stop by sometimes to
see them and, I would guess, to visit the men's room.

You happened to see Teddy at a party and he didn't have a drink in your
presence and that is supposed to impress us? Oh, and he nodded at you
when he walked his dogs. Wow, you almost had me switch political parties
on that one but, I came to my senses.

The twerps who are raving against Kennedy here are nothing more than
the sort of vermin you'd see crawling in the dirt if you lifted up a
rotting log. The really funny thing is that there are *no*
high-quality or even memorable U.S. senators on their side of the
political fence.

Your view of the Senate is through a jaundiced eye.

Hehehehe!!! More lies from Harry!!!!

The Fish wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:24:29 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"JLH" wrote in message
...
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.
I believe that is from a right-wing talking point. There's no shortage of
criticism of Obama from the left.

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.
And, as I've said, I'm willing and able to call Obama on crap that's either
a hold-over from the Bush years or newly implemented along the same lines.
There are very few people who believe that Obama is perfect, I certainly am
not among them.

As I've said before, for you guys - yourself, w3fh, Harry, etc. - a
'debate' consists of personal insults and name-calling.
I absolutely reject that line of reasoning or implication. I don't engage in
such behavior. Feel free to show otherwise. I can't speak for others.

I may stand corrected. If so, I apologize. You're much different from
the pack.
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.
A few things???? Yeah, a few things like a war of choice and a war of
necessity, like ruining the economy, like taking approximately 1/3 of his
time in office as vacation, like lying to the American public, like spying
on Americans, like engaging in intense cronyism, like promoting and
condoning torture, and on and on and on.

Again, Bush is history.

--
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

So everything in history gets erased?

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"SteveB" wrote in message
news
Sure. They count. It's worth having a discussion about how to pay for
what we need/want. It's actually pretty hard to do the math, since there
are so many different ways of adding things up. In the past, many of the
costs were hidden and/or pulled out of the budget, for example.

It's easy to say, we're running huge deficits and spending tons of money
without examining why and what we might get out of it. For example, if
you want to claim (falsely I believe) that FDR's social programs were
not what got us out of the Depression, then what did? Some say, with
some justification that massive military spending as a prelude to WWII
did it. Yet, it was gov't spending that did it.
Wow. With our debt quadrupling every year, I see a dark and stormy night
on the horizon. But I guess it's like Shopaholic Suzie .......... I got
checks and the bank has money. What's the problem. How do you suggest
we get the current crew up there to examine spending and see how we might
get out of it?


Our debt accumulating every year... A dark and stormy night... perhaps. I
guess we could go back to no gov't involvement, but I don't think anyone
with any intelligence is really suggesting that. The Dark Ages weren't all
that comfy, as I recall from the history books. I don't mind paying for
things I might not use directly. I am my brother's keeper. Who would Jesus
not cover with health insurance? Didn't He take the side of the poor, and
wasn't He against the money changers? Or, was He for big business, and
anything-goes capitalism?

I think that the "crew" is acutely aware of the issues you raise...
growing debt and potentional financial disaster. Heck, the boys in charge
in the last administration knew they had to do something.

--
Nom=de=Plume

I have been a registered libertarian all my voting life. I guess I'm one of
those who doesn't have any real intelligence because I think government's
role should be minimal as stated in the Constitution. Now they have taken
"regulate commerce" to mean any time a dollar changes hands in the us, they
want their juice. And to get into all things and businesses that they
should have never been allowed to incrementally infest.

The boys on the hill know what's up. Always have. They just want their
cut, and to bring some back to the pack, like wild dogs. It's just now that
there's a feeding frenzy as the trough dries up to plunder whatever is left,
and that is getting thin.


steve