JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
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.

I love it when the dim bulbs here tell us what the Bush Rational was,
when all they are really doing is spewing fourth an uninformed fairytale
of how they want things to be...

Do tell. Just how DO I want things to be?

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 09:51:56 -0400, NotNow wrote:

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?

Using Bush's actions to legitimize Obama's actions is somewhat stupid.
No, it's really stupid.

Here is an example of a stupid comment: "So everything in history
gets erased?"

--
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 Fri, 28 Aug 2009 10:20:52 -0400, NotNow wrote:

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
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.

I love it when the dim bulbs here tell us what the Bush Rational was,
when all they are really doing is spewing fourth an uninformed fairytale
of how they want things to be...

Do tell. Just how DO I want things to be?

However Obama wants them.
--
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

In article ,
says...

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
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.

I love it when the dim bulbs here tell us what the Bush Rational was,
when all they are really doing is spewing fourth an uninformed fairytale
of how they want things to be...

Do tell. Just how DO I want things to be?

Well, my words failed me. What I was referring to was the constang
"Repubs think this, or repubs want that..." Most times suggesting that
we are intentionally lying or stupid... It's old..

--
Wafa free since 2009

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
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.
I love it when the dim bulbs here tell us what the Bush Rational was,
when all they are really doing is spewing fourth an uninformed fairytale
of how they want things to be...

Do tell. Just how DO I want things to be?

Well, my words failed me. What I was referring to was the constang
"Repubs think this, or repubs want that..." Most times suggesting that
we are intentionally lying or stupid... It's old..




A. Republicans don't think.
B. You do nothing here but lie and act stupid.

SteveB wrote:
"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 yeah, I bet you'd really give those veterans a what for. Right before
you got your ass kicked, that is.

Contemplating the winner of a confrontation before knowing
anything about the combatants is a fools bet. And since
you're betting, I guess we know what that makes you, eh?

Jordon wrote:
SteveB wrote:
"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 yeah, I bet you'd really give those veterans a what for. Right
before you got your ass kicked, that is.

Contemplating the winner of a confrontation before knowing
anything about the combatants is a fools bet. And since
you're betting, I guess we know what that makes you, eh?


Most of the "vets" who post here are decades past their physical prime,
if they ever had one. Several will be taking a dirt nap in the not too
distant future. Several of the younger ones are stupid enough to punch
themselves in the nose in a fistfight.

I'm old and creaky myself, which is why I wouldn't depend upon my fists
in a fight, although I am sure I could handle two of the younger
non-vets here, Loogy and JustHate, by banging their heads together.

"John H." wrote in message
...
Using Bush's actions to legitimize Obama's actions is somewhat stupid.
No, it's really stupid.

Here is an example of a stupid comment: "So everything in history
gets erased?"


I absolutely agree with the first sentence.

I don't know if the second quoted comment is stupid or ill-informed. Orwell
had an interesting take on history... "Those who control the present control
the past." From this we certainly need to be wary. I support Obama and his
policies, but no one gets a free ride and the present administration must be
held to the same high standards that we would hold those from the past - no
revisionist history need apply. Just as those who "forget the past are
doomed to repeat it," we need to ensure that the past is accurate. Bottom
line, the facts and the lies need to be exposed to sunlight.

--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...
Using Bush's actions to legitimize Obama's actions is somewhat stupid.
No, it's really stupid.

Here is an example of a stupid comment: "So everything in history
gets erased?"


I absolutely agree with the first sentence.

I don't know if the second quoted comment is stupid or ill-informed. Orwell
had an interesting take on history... "Those who control the present control
the past." From this we certainly need to be wary. I support Obama and his
policies, but no one gets a free ride and the present administration must be
held to the same high standards that we would hold those from the past - no
revisionist history need apply. Just as those who "forget the past are
doomed to repeat it," we need to ensure that the past is accurate. Bottom
line, the facts and the lies need to be exposed to sunlight.



If we hold the Obama Admin to the same standards as the Bush Admin,
we'll be holding it to no standards at all.

"JustWait" wrote in message
...
Well, my words failed me. What I was referring to was the constang
"Repubs think this, or repubs want that..." Most times suggesting that
we are intentionally lying or stupid... It's old..


I agree with this. However, it works both ways. We (liberals of which I am
one) are contantly hearing the same things... we think this or we want that.
Comes right back to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

--
Nom=de=Plume