On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 10:55:32 -0700, "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.

Ah yes. But as you said, "Those who control the present control the
past." I assume you used the quote because you believed it.

Keep in mind then that those in control of the present will be doing
the 'exposing of the facts and lies', i.e., controlling the past.

To me, the attitudes I see are, in fact, giving Obama a free ride.
Hopefully the country will wake up to what he is doing before it is
too late. Why do you suppose so many of his appointee positions are
unfilled. Could it be that he doesn't want those doing the jobs
scrutinized, so he appoints another 'czar' to do the job?

Agree all you will.
--
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 10:55:32 -0700, "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.

Harry's post is another example of the 'Bush Rationale'.
--
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

"SteveB" wrote in message
...
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.

There are almost always situations of over-regulation. Unfortunately, lack
of regulation can and has been a huge problem, because of the abuses that
have been inflicted upon people. You can go back to feudal times if
necessary to find examples, but one really doesn't have to go back in time
very far if given half a thought. Unions, for example, were a direct result
of management deliberately exploiting people in horrible conditions for no
other reason than greed (aka one one of the deadly sins). Polluting the
environment is another example. It's easy to "blame" gov't for
over-regulation, and there's some merit to it, but removing gov't (by the
people for the people, promote the common good) isn't even close to the
solution. Intelligent gov't is the answer.

The healthcare situation in this country is a great example. We profess to
have "the best healthcare in the world." I hear this all the time, yet we
don't live as long, have as good outcomes, and we have worse infant
mortality rates than the other "rich" countries. And, we spend far more. Is
this in the best interest, for the public good? I hear, "Don't insure
illegal immigrants!" Yet, we do insure them when they show up in our ERs,
the most expensive time. And, it's not just illegals that are showing up in
ERs. There are nearly 50M Americans with no insurance. They can't afford it,
so they wait until the problem is critical. Then, we all get to pay. This
isn't right for them or fair to us. Yet a little bit of prevention, of being
able to see a doc early, would solve a lot of this. We have a vast
population of under-insured. When a catastrophy strikes, they become
destitute, perhaps forced into bankruptcy or their life-savings is wiped
out. Both of these situations cause increased economic stress for everyone.
I could go on, but I'm running out of ink. lol

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.

Mostly correct. Of course, this is on both sides of the isle. I don't know
what the solution is beside voting them out when it gets out of control.
This is easier said than done.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Jordon" wrote in message
...
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?

Contemplating the winner? Is that like betting horses. Oh, I like the
white one.

contemplate
Verb
[-plating, -plated]
1. to think deeply about
2. to consider as a possibility
3. to look at thoughtfully
4. to meditate [Latin contemplare]
contemplation n
Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins
Publishers 2004, 2006

How do those actions make one a fool?

Ut oh. Sorry. I forgot who I was talking to.

Never mind.



Steve

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"SteveB" wrote in message
...
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.

There are almost always situations of over-regulation. Unfortunately, lack
of regulation can and has been a huge problem, because of the abuses that
have been inflicted upon people. You can go back to feudal times if
necessary to find examples, but one really doesn't have to go back in time
very far if given half a thought. Unions, for example, were a direct
result of management deliberately exploiting people in horrible conditions
for no other reason than greed (aka one one of the deadly sins). Polluting
the environment is another example. It's easy to "blame" gov't for
over-regulation, and there's some merit to it, but removing gov't (by the
people for the people, promote the common good) isn't even close to the
solution. Intelligent gov't is the answer.

The healthcare situation in this country is a great example. We profess to
have "the best healthcare in the world." I hear this all the time, yet we
don't live as long, have as good outcomes, and we have worse infant
mortality rates than the other "rich" countries. And, we spend far more.
Is this in the best interest, for the public good? I hear, "Don't insure
illegal immigrants!" Yet, we do insure them when they show up in our ERs,
the most expensive time. And, it's not just illegals that are showing up
in ERs. There are nearly 50M Americans with no insurance. They can't
afford it, so they wait until the problem is critical. Then, we all get to
pay. This isn't right for them or fair to us. Yet a little bit of
prevention, of being able to see a doc early, would solve a lot of this.
We have a vast population of under-insured. When a catastrophy strikes,
they become destitute, perhaps forced into bankruptcy or their
life-savings is wiped out. Both of these situations cause increased
economic stress for everyone. I could go on, but I'm running out of ink.
lol

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.

Mostly correct. Of course, this is on both sides of the isle. I don't know
what the solution is beside voting them out when it gets out of control.
This is easier said than done.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Why do we look like two EMTs arguing over the best color for latex gloves
when our patient is laying in front of us bleeding out?

Steve

John H. wrote:
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

Um, I didn't say "Bush is history". You've said on a number of occasions
that what Bush did is irrelevant because he's not president now.

John H. wrote:
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


Do you REALLY claim to know what I want??? ****, that's WORSE than
Harry's bull****.

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..


Oh, you don't like that, huh? Probably no more than I dislike "liberals
want this, liberals want that" ****. Hell, a couple of posts ago, John
even told me I wanted whatever Obama wants!

"John H." wrote in message
...
Ah yes. But as you said, "Those who control the present control the
past." I assume you used the quote because you believed it.

I beleive it's possible. I don't believe it's happening any more so than
usual with Washington. Compared to what Bush tried to do, it's minor in
comparison.

Keep in mind then that those in control of the present will be doing
the 'exposing of the facts and lies', i.e., controlling the past.

Facts are facts. They're not something that can be controlled. Opinions and
attitudes can be manipulated, but not facts.

To me, the attitudes I see are, in fact, giving Obama a free ride.
Hopefully the country will wake up to what he is doing before it is
too late. Why do you suppose so many of his appointee positions are
unfilled. Could it be that he doesn't want those doing the jobs
scrutinized, so he appoints another 'czar' to do the job?

By whom? Certainly not Fox or CNN or ABC or even MSNBC. All of them,
especially the latter cite examples of poor decisions. I don't count Fox as
reliable, since they tend to overlook the facts.

Most of his non-filled posts are due to hold-ups by Congress... again, it's
those pesky facts that get in the way of opinion. He got rid of the drug
czar and stopped making silly claims like there's a "war on terror."

As to waking up, I believe that we woke up (finally) after nearly a decade
of heavy-duty corruption and manipulation. Whether or not we stay awake is
an open question.

Agree all you will.

Yoda?


--
Nom=de=Plume

"SteveB" wrote in message
...
Why do we look like two EMTs arguing over the best color for latex gloves
when our patient is laying in front of us bleeding out?


To which patient do you refer?

--
Nom=de=Plume