On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:09:02 -0400, NotNow wrote:

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.

I have come to realize that you really *don't* get it.


--
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...

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****.

It was sarcasm because you keep telling us how we all think about this
or that.... or what we want. I noted that your idea of what we want is
based on your own point of view. Now that that's straightened out..
Hurray, I'm going to the Nationals at Southwick tomorrow to see the big
kids race.. Stewart, Carmichael, and a host of other pros.. First time,
I am psyched!!

--
Wafa free since 2009

In article ,
says...

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!

He was being sarcastic..

--
Wafa free since 2009

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
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****.

It was sarcasm because you keep telling us how we all think about this
or that.... or what we want. I noted that your idea of what we want is
based on your own point of view. Now that that's straightened out..
Hurray, I'm going to the Nationals at Southwick tomorrow to see the big
kids race.. Stewart, Carmichael, and a host of other pros.. First time,
I am psyched!!



Don't you ever do anything with your kid that requires some intellectuality?

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 18:44:50 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

In article ,
says...

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****.

It was sarcasm because you keep telling us how we all think about this
or that.... or what we want. I noted that your idea of what we want is
based on your own point of view. Now that that's straightened out..
Hurray, I'm going to the Nationals at Southwick tomorrow to see the big
kids race.. Stewart, Carmichael, and a host of other pros.. First time,
I am psyched!!

Wish i could join you. Was going to Lake Anna, but the possibility of
more thunderstorms has the kids worried. And, they'd rather come here
for dinner anyway. So, no boating - and I have to cook.
--
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...

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 18:44:50 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

In article ,
says...

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****.

It was sarcasm because you keep telling us how we all think about this
or that.... or what we want. I noted that your idea of what we want is
based on your own point of view. Now that that's straightened out..
Hurray, I'm going to the Nationals at Southwick tomorrow to see the big
kids race.. Stewart, Carmichael, and a host of other pros.. First time,
I am psyched!!

Wish i could join you. Was going to Lake Anna, but the possibility of
more thunderstorms has the kids worried. And, they'd rather come here
for dinner anyway. So, no boating - and I have to cook.

Heh... It's suppose to pour up here tomorrow, should make for some
interesting racing. Rather see 'em race dry, but I'll take it

--
Wafa free since 2009

Don White wrote:
"D 2" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
"JLH" wrote in message
news On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:15:50 -0700 (PDT), Katie Ohara
wrote:

On Aug 26, 4:13 pm, Tim wrote:
During election time, Sen. Ted Kennedy is the first one in the polling
place . He draws the curtain shut, and is in there for a couple hours.
One of the election judges asks another what's going on?

Hey what's up with the Senator?

I don't know.

Well, go find out.

OK.

So a judge walks up to the booth to inqui

"Excuse me Senator, are you OK?"

"Yeah, whats the problem.?"

"Well Senator, we're concerned that you've been in there for almost
two hours.."

"So? I'm just getting started."

"Well Senator, I'm not trying to rush you, but there are others who
need the booth to vote as well."

Then the embarassed Senator said:

"Vote? Oh my! I thought this was a Confessional!"

All joking aside. Even though we're on the oposite sides of the isle,
thank you for your long lasting service to the country Senator. You
will be missed.
If I am ever in MA, I will make a real attempt to spit on his grave in
the name of all those who died as a result of his corruption and
misguided ideas. I would be neutral toward Jack Kennedy's grave, he
was simply stupid. I have no feelings about Robert Kennedy. However,
Ted is deserving of a special sort of contempt. Hey, maybe I can get
arrested for spitting on his grave, that'd be cool.
Now, if only Barney Frank would get Kaposi's sarcoma............
He's going to be buried in Arlington Cemetery. That's reason enough
for me *not* to be buried there.

Quantico National Cemetery is looking better and better.
--
John H


I think Arlington is for heros and those who went above & beyond the call
of duty.
What did you achieve in Vietnam... besides applying a little friendly
fire to keep US troops on their toes.
I don't think sucking on Uncle Sams teat is enough to earn a place for
you.
"I don't think"...

You got that right, at least. Go paint the dog and walk the house, dummy.


Paint this, DoggyBoy!



No surprise you picked this for your lame response.

Carry on, dummy...

On Aug 27, 6:57*am, JLH wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:12:39 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:



On Aug 26, 9:35*pm, JustWait wrote:
In article 7c821916-4cab-4713-b77b-
, says....

On Aug 26, 7:28*pm, wf3h wrote:
On Aug 26, 5:15*pm, Katie Ohara wrote:

On Aug 26, 4:13*pm, Tim wrote:

During election time, Sen. Ted Kennedy is the first one in the polling
place . He draws the curtain shut, and is in there for a couple hours.
One of the election judges asks another what's going on?

Hey what's up with the Senator?

I don't know.

Well, go find out.

OK.

So a judge walks up to the booth to inqui

"Excuse me Senator, are you OK?"

"Yeah, whats the problem.?"

"Well Senator, we're concerned that you've been in there for almost
two hours.."

*"So? I'm just getting started."

"Well Senator, I'm not trying to rush you, but there are others who
need the booth to vote as well."

Then the embarassed Senator said:

"Vote? Oh my! *I thought this was a Confessional!"

All joking aside. Even though we're on the oposite sides of the isle,
thank you for your long lasting service to the country Senator.. You
will be missed.

If I am ever in MA, I will make a real attempt to spit on his grave in
the name of all those who died as a result of his corruption and
misguided ideas. *I would be neutral toward Jack Kennedy's grave, he
was simply stupid. *I have no feelings about Robert Kennedy. *However,
Ted is deserving of a special sort of contempt. *Hey, maybe I can get
arrested for spitting on his grave, that'd be cool.
Now, if only Barney Frank would get Kaposi's sarcoma............

and i'm looking forward to taking a nice long **** on reagan's grave.
there's a man who deserves hell

for what?

For being republican. Remember, you are talking to an idiot...

--
Wafa free since 2009

OK, so what's new????

?8^ 0

Tim, what's this: *?8^ 0

I know, I'm dense. But is it a misspelled smiley face or what?

--
John H

"If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it's free!"
--Anonymous

Left to right.

?= wavy hair

8= wide eyed (or shock!)

^ = nose

0 = mouth wide open.


?8^0

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

Our nation.

"SteveB" wrote in message
...

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

Our nation.

Yep, well, in the world scheme of things, we're doing pretty well. But, it's
easy to scare people into thinking their world is ending.

--
Nom=de=Plume