On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:05:53 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

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

....a misspelled smiley face...
--
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

NotNow wrote:
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?

I thought the subject was national credibility, not US national
credibility.

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?

Obama is the president now. Why do you have to keep bringing up former
administrations?

BAR wrote:
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?

Obama is the president now. Why do you have to keep bringing up former
administrations?

Because Obama and whoever succeeds him in 2017 will *still* be cleaning
up the horrendous messes left behind by your boy Bush, whose reputation
as the worst president in this nation's history is being fortified.

"BAR" wrote in message
...

Obama is the president now. Why do you have to keep bringing up former
administrations?

Because those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it.

On Aug 30, 10:06*am, BAR wrote:
NotNow wrote:
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?

I thought the subject was national credibility, not US national
credibility.

why? did scotland put missiles in turkey in the 50's?

wf3h wrote:
On Aug 30, 10:06 am, BAR wrote:
NotNow wrote:
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?
I thought the subject was national credibility, not US national
credibility.

why? did scotland put missiles in turkey in the 50's?

Because they Scottish kept draining the fuel, running it through a loaf
of bread and drinking it. They call it rocket juice. It has more of a
kick than torpedo juice.

On Aug 30, 10:10*pm, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Aug 30, 10:06 am, BAR wrote:
NotNow wrote:
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?
I thought the subject was national credibility, not US national
credibility.

why? did scotland put missiles in turkey in the 50's?

Because they Scottish kept draining the fuel, running it through a loaf
of bread and drinking it. They call it rocket juice. It has more of a
kick than torpedo juice.

guess they didn't too many missiles, then, right?

wf3h wrote:
On Aug 30, 10:10 pm, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Aug 30, 10:06 am, BAR wrote:
NotNow wrote:
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?
I thought the subject was national credibility, not US national
credibility.
why? did scotland put missiles in turkey in the 50's?
Because they Scottish kept draining the fuel, running it through a loaf
of bread and drinking it. They call it rocket juice. It has more of a
kick than torpedo juice.

guess they didn't too many missiles, then, right?

"guess they didn't too many missiles, then, right?"

What the hell does that mean?

"Don White" wrote in message
...

"BAR" wrote in message
...

Obama is the president now. Why do you have to keep bringing up former
administrations?

Because those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it.

So, how far back do we go? Nero? Adam and Eve?

Buy a vowel. Get a clue. You sound like one of my ex wives.

Steve