|
Edward "Ted" Kennedy gone...
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 |
Edward "Ted" Kennedy gone...
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 |
Edward "Ted" Kennedy gone...
"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 |
Edward "Ted" Kennedy gone...
"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 |
Edward "Ted" Kennedy gone...
"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 |
Edward "Ted" Kennedy gone...
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. |
Edward "Ted" Kennedy gone...
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! |
Edward "Ted" Kennedy gone...
"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 |
Edward "Ted" Kennedy gone...
"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 |
Edward "Ted" Kennedy gone...
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 |
Edward "Ted" Kennedy gone...
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 |
Edward "Ted" Kennedy gone...
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 |
Edward "Ted" Kennedy gone...
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? |
Edward "Ted" Kennedy gone...
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 |
Edward "Ted" Kennedy gone...
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 |
Edward "Ted" Kennedy gone...
Don White wrote:
"D 2" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: "JLH" wrote in message ... 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... |
Edward "Ted" Kennedy gone...
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 |
Edward "Ted" Kennedy gone...
"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. |
Edward "Ted" Kennedy gone...
"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 |
Edward "Ted" Kennedy gone...
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 |
Edward "Ted" Kennedy gone...
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. |
Edward "Ted" Kennedy gone...
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? |
Edward "Ted" Kennedy gone...
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. |
Edward "Ted" Kennedy gone...
"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. |
Edward "Ted" Kennedy gone...
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? |
Edward "Ted" Kennedy gone...
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. |
Edward "Ted" Kennedy gone...
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? |
Edward "Ted" Kennedy gone...
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? |
Edward "Ted" Kennedy gone...
"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 |
Edward "Ted" Kennedy gone...
On Aug 30, 10:45*pm, BAR wrote:
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? it means far be it from me to argue with a man who believes the cuban missile crisis was sparked by the fact the scottish run their whiskey through a loaf of bread. |
Edward "Ted" Kennedy gone...
wf3h wrote:
On Aug 30, 10:45 pm, BAR wrote: 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? it means far be it from me to argue with a man who believes the cuban missile crisis was sparked by the fact the scottish run their whiskey through a loaf of bread. Nobody said anything about Scottish Whiskey being run through a loaf of bread except you. |
Edward "Ted" Kennedy gone...
On Aug 31, 8:10*am, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote: What the hell does that mean? it means far be it from me to argue with a man who believes the cuban missile crisis was sparked by the fact the scottish run their whiskey through a loaf of bread. Nobody said anything about Scottish Whiskey being run through a loaf of bread except you.- here's what you wrote yesterday: "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 being a conservative has addled your brain |
Edward "Ted" Kennedy gone...
wf3h wrote:
On Aug 31, 8:10 am, BAR wrote: wf3h wrote: What the hell does that mean? it means far be it from me to argue with a man who believes the cuban missile crisis was sparked by the fact the scottish run their whiskey through a loaf of bread. Nobody said anything about Scottish Whiskey being run through a loaf of bread except you.- here's what you wrote yesterday: "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 being a conservative has addled your brain Brain? He enlisted in the marines because he couldn't make it in college. No brain. |
Edward "Ted" Kennedy gone...
wf3h wrote:
On Aug 31, 8:10 am, BAR wrote: wf3h wrote: What the hell does that mean? it means far be it from me to argue with a man who believes the cuban missile crisis was sparked by the fact the scottish run their whiskey through a loaf of bread. Nobody said anything about Scottish Whiskey being run through a loaf of bread except you.- here's what you wrote yesterday: "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 being a conservative has addled your brain You must have missed the part where you said the scottish placed missles in turkey. If you had half a brain you would have looked up "torpedo juice." Since you are too lazy to look things up I will help you just this once: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedo_juice I'll give you credit for trying to change the whole tone of the post. But, like most of your attempts at bending the truth you have failed. |
Edward "Ted" Kennedy gone...
H the K wrote:
wf3h wrote: On Aug 31, 8:10 am, BAR wrote: wf3h wrote: What the hell does that mean? it means far be it from me to argue with a man who believes the cuban missile crisis was sparked by the fact the scottish run their whiskey through a loaf of bread. Nobody said anything about Scottish Whiskey being run through a loaf of bread except you.- here's what you wrote yesterday: "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 being a conservative has addled your brain Brain? He enlisted in the marines because he couldn't make it in college. No brain. Your rent check is due tomorrow Harry, you had better get out and pick up some more aluminum cans and turn them in for some $. |
Edward "Ted" Kennedy gone...
BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote: On Aug 31, 8:10 am, BAR wrote: wf3h wrote: What the hell does that mean? it means far be it from me to argue with a man who believes the cuban missile crisis was sparked by the fact the scottish run their whiskey through a loaf of bread. Nobody said anything about Scottish Whiskey being run through a loaf of bread except you.- here's what you wrote yesterday: "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 being a conservative has addled your brain You must have missed the part where you said the scottish placed missles in turkey. If you had half a brain you would have looked up "torpedo juice." Since you are too lazy to look things up I will help you just this once: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedo_juice I'll give you credit for trying to change the whole tone of the post. But, like most of your attempts at bending the truth you have failed. Hehehe. You were caught cold, BAR. Nice wiggle, though. |
Edward "Ted" Kennedy gone...
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote: wf3h wrote: On Aug 31, 8:10 am, BAR wrote: wf3h wrote: What the hell does that mean? it means far be it from me to argue with a man who believes the cuban missile crisis was sparked by the fact the scottish run their whiskey through a loaf of bread. Nobody said anything about Scottish Whiskey being run through a loaf of bread except you.- here's what you wrote yesterday: "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 being a conservative has addled your brain Brain? He enlisted in the marines because he couldn't make it in college. No brain. Your rent check is due tomorrow Harry, you had better get out and pick up some more aluminum cans and turn them in for some $. Your simplemindedness is...overwhelming. |
Edward "Ted" Kennedy gone...
John H. wrote:
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 John are you really trying to say that you didn't say that? |
Edward "Ted" Kennedy gone...
"SteveB" wrote in message ... "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 One of your ex-wives was a man?? It all makes sense now! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:26 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com