Way OT and political, too

I asked:

>> What ever happened to George?

"J. Clarke" responds:

> McCarthy.

Huh?

Lew

-MIKE- wrote:

> Robatoy wrote:
>> On May 2, 1:16 am, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Robatoy wrote:
>>>> "GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last
>>>> couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
>>>> PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia
>>>> from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
>>>> THAT was her take on foreign affairs.

Please, anyone who supports a vice president who made the following
statement, ""When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on
the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of
greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened." " has absolutely zero leg to
stand on in terms of criticizing the other VP candidate. NONE.

For those who are not aware of this: FDR wasn't president when the stock
market crashed in 1929 and only experimental TV sets were in use at that
time.

>>> Maybe if she read everything someone else researched and wrote for her
>>> off the teleprompter, like the guy who got elected, she'd have done
>>> better.
>>>
>> Weak, Mike. Weak.
>>
>
> Not really. He's implying she has a lack of foreign affairs knowledge
> based on a tongue-in-cheek comment made in a television interview.
>
> Since it's common knowledge that our President reads off a teleprompter
> any time he makes a television appearance, the correlation can easily be
> made that he's not quite as intelligent and elegant about the affairs of
> which he speaks on television, as his worshipers would have us believe.
>
>

Whenever the teleprompter screws up, or doesn't have the answers, The One
is reduced to a stuttering, stammering litany of uhhhh, uhhm, aahhh,
errr's -- painfully so. The man cannot string a dozen words together if
they haven't already been written for him. That is indicative of one of
two things: either he is not all that bright and needs time to formulate
responses to just about anything (witness his inability to answer a
question regarding the executive order for Gitmo that he was signing), or
he is having to stall for time and is censoring himself to avoid saying
what he really thinks because of the backlash it would cause (as in his "I
think everybody benefits when you spread the wealth around" answer during
the campaign). Neither of these reasons is encouraging. In the first
case, it shows that POTUS can't think for himself and is reliant upon what
*somebody* has typed into TOTUS (teleprompter of the US) -- gives one lots
of re-assurance when he is going to be confronted with a problem that
requires an on-your-feet response. In the second, it shows that he is
unable to reveal his core beliefs, i.e., what he is projecting to the
nation is pure fraud and he needs to manage that image carefully in order
to prevent a backlash against his true intentions.

Yes, other presidents have used teleprompters. However, they have not
used them for such things as announcing a cabinet appointment. This
president is lost without the teleprompter.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

-MIKE- wrote:

> I have no disdain for anyone.
> My point was that Mrs. Palin has had much more executive experience
> than Mr President.

She has more executive experience than Abraham Lincoln did when he became
President too, or JFK for that matter. Would you suggest that she would
make a better potential President than either of them on that basis?

If you figure "community organizer" is the portion of Obama's life that is
the most important when assessing whether he's qualified to be President,
then why not evaluate Palin's qualifications to be Vice President on what
she was doing at an equivalent point in her career--sports reporter.

Both parties are fucking us equally. They just operate under different
agendas.

cm


"LRod" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> My nomination for Obama to place on the Supreme Court?
>
> Hillary Clinton.
>
> Just think of the permanent apoplexy that would throw Rush,
> Sean, Bill O'R, Ann, and any of your conservative
> acquaintances into.
>
> Any old body can be SecState. Heck, get Madeline Albright
> back. This is too good an opportunity to miss.
>
> You heard it here first.
>
>
> Let the sniping begin.
>
>
>
> --
> LRod
>
> Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
>
> Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
>
> http://www.woodbutcher.net
> http://www.normstools.com
>
> Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997
>
> email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
> If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
> care to correspond with you anyway.

Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:

> The rights of contract law in which a judge can set aside a contract and
>force a lender to alter the *principal* amount of a loan. Any idea how
>hard it would be to get a mortgage in the future if this happens? (Good
>news is that even the Senate wasn't stupid enough to go along with this and
>defeated it today 51-45 -- but that 45 is scary).

You do know this exists in current bankruptcy law? That mortgages on personal
residences are an exception? And that the defeated bill in the Senate merely
removed that exception? -- Doug

"evodawg" wrote
>
> Remember him saying in a debate with Wolf Blixscreen, CNN he would choose
> someone with no legal qualifications, just an ordinary person. Someone
> with no knowledge of the Constitution. Wow, Guess his next move is to do
> away with that too. Change we can believe in, shit he wants to change
> everything including our way of life!!! Wish he had spent more time in
> MEXICO. But then we have Joe DumbAss waiting behind the curtains or is he
> hiding behind them? Every time that fool opens his mouth he sticks his
> foot
> in it.
> --
Add to the list of qualification, must have swine flu.

Afterall, he has to appoint a victim to the job tomake sure that all the
rest of us are victimized. And what would be a more contemporary victim than
someone who has swine flu.

On May 3, 5:52=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On May 3, 2:19 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> What I'm saying is way simpler than this: The government's only role
> >> in markets is to ensure their transparency and integrity, and to
> >> interdict in matters of fraud. Period.
>
> > That's right. You had the Repuglicans look after 'transparency' and
> > 'integrity'.
>
> > No administration has been more secretive on all issues than BushCo.
> > So much for transparency. Say hello to Mr. Paulson.
> > The words Bush administration and the word integrity.... I'm sorry.. I
> > can't make a sentence with both words in it.
> > There has never been a more corrupt bunch of greedy bastards in a
> > single administration than in the last one, and you want those foxes
> > to guard the hen house?
>
> > Now I KNOW you've lost your mind, Timbo.
>
> You are kidding, right? =A0It was the dimwit Dems that lied and covered
> up the mess *they* created with Fannie/Freddie going back almost two
> decades ago. =A0That vile little weasel Barney Frank looked into the
> cameras and repeatedly said with a straight face something he KNEW was
> a lie: "Fannie/Freddie are not in trouble" when *BushCo* tried to warn
> folks otherwise.

Wowsers.. you drank a LOT of KoolAid. Yes indeed. BushCo, being the
upright people they were, were so concerned whilst letting billions of
dollars float through their fingers to unscrupulous contractors in
Iraq...oh wait.. those were their friends... my bad.

On May 4, 11:50=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> O'Reilly (for example) has had Barney Frank, Jesse Jackson, Barak Obama, =
and
> other liberals on his show. Has Olberman ever had Newt Gingrich, Ann
> Coulter, George Bush or similar on his?

Of course not. They're not that stupid. Olbermann would eat them
alive. I could just imagine Ann Coulter on Rachel Maddow.... Rachel
had Colin Powell on... that was fun. Did you see that one?

Bet you like Glenn Beck too, eh? (AKA Harold Hill?)

On May 3, 2:19=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> What I'm saying is way simpler than this: The government's only role
> in markets is to ensure their transparency and integrity, and to
> interdict in matters of fraud. Period.

That's right. You had the Repuglicans look after 'transparency' and
'integrity'.

No administration has been more secretive on all issues than BushCo.
So much for transparency. Say hello to Mr. Paulson.
The words Bush administration and the word integrity.... I'm sorry.. I
can't make a sentence with both words in it.
There has never been a more corrupt bunch of greedy bastards in a
single administration than in the last one, and you want those foxes
to guard the hen house?

Now I KNOW you've lost your mind, Timbo.

On May 2, 2:23=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On May 2, 1:22 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Larry Blanchard wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 01 May 2009 21:50:49 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
> >>>>> Welcome to Soviet America...
> >>>> =A0 Yep, exactly the reason that the founders established the limits=
on
> >>>> government that were set in the Constitution. =A0Now this bunch want=
s to
> >>>> circumvent those limits and too many of the American people are will=
ing
> >>>> to go along with that.
> >>> One can always depend on you and Tim for a bit of unintended hilarity=
. =A0
> >>> Bush used the Bill of Rights for toilet paper for 8 years and you
> >>> defended him. =A0Now that a Democrat is in office ...
> >> A Democrat that simply wants to dispense with all limits on power
> >> imposed by the Constitution ...
>
> > And your buddy Bush did nothing to expand his powers? Your other dear
> > friend Cheney didn't either?
> > You often makes some sort of convoluted sense in your arguments,
> > sometimes you sound like a blithering idiot.
> > This is one of those times that you can't possibly believe what you
> > are saying.... me thinks you're merely stirring the pot.
>
> So your argument goes like this: =A0"Since W made at least questionable,
> and in some cases flatly wrong calls on the power of government,
> the ObamaMessiah should be given a pass when he wants to do 10x that."
>
> Bush was wrong about some things. =A0Obama has been an order of magnitude
> worse in 100 days than Bush was in 8 years. =A0Here's just one scorecard
> (there are many others):
>
> Bush =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0- $28B Bear-Stearns
> The Hopeium Dealer =A0- $4 *Trillion* and counting in just a bit under 4 =
months.
>


Dude! Where did you get all that straw?

Every business man knows that you have to spend money to make money.
BUT.. that does not include money you give to your friends at KBR/
Halliburton.
Why is your vision so revisionist? I mean... "Bush 28B Bear-Stearn"...
that's like saying that John Wayne Gacey got a parking ticket.
ALL you are willing to hang on Bush is 28B?

For chrissakes, Tim... stop trying to treat people in this newsgroup
like they're ill-informed idiots. Everybody here knows that the money
Mr. Obama is spending is to try to save the castle walls from
collapsing on top of the tunnels and holes that the Bush
administration dug all around that fine country of yours.

Big oil and big business ran amok and left a huge mess for Mr. Obama.
Now he's being picked on because he is trying to stop the bleeding. He
is a hero and a saint in my eyes for having the balls to try to do all
this good without worrying about little repugs like yourself squealing
like little piggies.

Let me put this Robbie style: Mr. Obama has umpteen times the balls
your little coke-sniffing drunk has/had. Okay? That spoiled little
asshole sold his soul. Cheney was his Lord and Master. And now your
whole country pays for not having had the balls to impeach that
satanic prick.

BTW, I just sent Keith Olbermann a cheque to help him out with that
little bill he might be running up challenging yet another repug prick
to put his money where his mouth is. Hannity and Bush... birds of a
feather.

On May 2, 10:00=A0pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:

> I will take substance over style and character over charisma every day
> of the week.
>

So do I.
What some people have to learn, is to see beyond the dazzle of the
charisma and evaluate the character without being distracted.
Just because a guy is polished in his demeanor, doesn't mean that is
all there is to the man.

Like in Bush's case, that simpleton oafishness and swagger belied the
fact that beneath all that aw-chucksiness lied a..wait, bad
example....

On May 2, 12:42=A0am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > "-MIKE-" wrote:
>
> >> What rights were taken away?
>
> > The right to look in the mirror each morning and be proud to be an
> > American rather than to be discusted at doing nothing to try to stop
> > what happened from 2000 thru 2008.
>
> > Lew
>
> =A0 That is one of the most asinine statements that the left mutters. =A0=
What
> exactly made things so bad from 2000 to 2008? =A0The fact you got to keep
> more of your money instead of paying it in taxes? =A0EVERYBODY got a tax =
cut,
> not just the wealthy few despite the continued mouthings of the left to t=
he
> contrary. =A0The fact that the US actually took the fight to terrorists a=
nd
> terrorist supporting countries after 40 years of letting crap happen and
> then issuing strongly worded condemnations? =A0The fact that the US had t=
he
> lowest unemployment rates in history during that time, dipping below the =
5%
> that was considered to be full employment? =A0The fact that the US econom=
y
> recovered spectacularly following 9/11 despite the shock upon our financi=
al
> system?
>
> =A0 Or was it simply the fact that France hated the US during that time?
> Hint: they still ain't happy with us despite the fact that The One was
> elected.
>
> --
> If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

I just love your quotes from Apologists Weekly.

Robatoy wrote:
>>
> That is to repair the damage your buddy Bush has done. Get over it.
> You had the place for 8 years, you screwed it up. Now let the majority
> of your country get to work to fix your fukkup.

That's simply not true. Under Bush, we had 23 consecutive quarters of
economic growth, low unemployment, and other good things. This in spite of
two wars, Katrina, 9-11, and Beyonce.

Then the Democrats took over Congress. In less than 18 months they managed
...

Oh, well. We'll see.

On May 10, 9:37=A0am, "todd" <[email protected]> wrote:

> =A0Just because the media
> wants to give the annointed one a pass doesn't mean that I will.
>
> todd

That will bother him quite a bit.

On May 2, 1:22=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
> > On Fri, 01 May 2009 21:50:49 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
> >>> Welcome to Soviet America...
>
> >> =A0 Yep, exactly the reason that the founders established the limits o=
n
> >> government that were set in the Constitution. =A0Now this bunch wants =
to
> >> circumvent those limits and too many of the American people are willin=
g
> >> to go along with that.
>
> > One can always depend on you and Tim for a bit of unintended hilarity. =
=A0
> > Bush used the Bill of Rights for toilet paper for 8 years and you
> > defended him. =A0Now that a Democrat is in office ...
>
> A Democrat that simply wants to dispense with all limits on power
> imposed by the Constitution ...
>

And your buddy Bush did nothing to expand his powers? Your other dear
friend Cheney didn't either?
You often makes some sort of convoluted sense in your arguments,
sometimes you sound like a blithering idiot.
This is one of those times that you can't possibly believe what you
are saying.... me thinks you're merely stirring the pot.

Han wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in news:ein0d6-7na.ln1
> @ozzie.tundraware.com:
>
>> The pieces of paper in the
>> bank are not "fake" (unless outright fraud is taking place). They
>> are tokens of value whose actual worth can only be ascertained in a
>> real, honest, and transparent market. Markets are not real, transparent,
>> nor honest when
>
> I agree completely. WHen bankers and rating agencies obfuscate the true
> value, the free market has to figure out the true value of those
> "securities debt obligations".
>
> What you are saying is that we should leave the finacial markets to the
> speculators. We should all go back to the savings and loans to earn simple
> interest at half or less market rate. Let the bnakers do the investing, so
> the Savings and Loans can thrive. Oh, wait, we were there.
>

What I'm saying is way simpler than this: The government's only role
in markets is to ensure their transparency and integrity, and to
interdict in matters of fraud. Period. It is NOT the government's
job to "encourage" bankers to lend to welfare recipients. It is NOT
the government's job to decide what a "Fair" credit card policy is.
It is NOT the government's job to bail out companies that have
committed financial suicide. It is NOT the government's job to
steal money from bond holders that have lent such companies money
and turn around and give it to the lazy union slobs that take no
risk of their own. It is NOT the job of government to decide how
much any citizens should be permitted to earn - whether CEO or
aforementioned union slob.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"J. Clarke" wrote:

> You really don't know who McCarthy was, do you?

Enlighten me.

Lew

On May 2, 6:10=A0pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >> "GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last
> >> couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
>
> >> PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see
> >> Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
>
> >> THAT was her take on foreign affairs.
>
> > THAT was the take her handlers permitted.
>
> Did the words come out of her mouth, or not? =A0Why would you cut her sla=
ck
> you'd deny to someone from the other party, aside from the obvious reason=
?
> Picking Palin was a brilliant tactical move as it reversed McCain's
> declining fortunes for a time. =A0But strategically it became painfully
> obvious why they kept her away from the press as much as they could, she =
was
> as qualified to be VP as she is to be an NFL linebacker. =A0Eventually I =
think
> enough people (those not hopelessly partisan) realized that, and it cost
> McCain votes in the endgame. =A0It sure persuaded me, I was undecided unt=
il it
> became clear how screamingly unsuitable she was, and with McCain's age an=
d
> health concerns there was no way I wanted her the proverbial heartbeat aw=
ay
> from the Oval Office.

I tended slightly towards Obama early on, while my wife leaned to
McCain. My primary worry in either case wasn't experience: in
executive roles, both candidates lacked that, but that's not unusual,
nor, in my experience, is it particularly a problem.

When Palin popped up on-screen, I scratched my head. Eveyrone thought
she was "hot," whatever that means, but nowhere was there a sign of
anyone claiming her to be suitable for the office she wanted. I
listened to her a couple of times, and read a few of her responses,
and need no more head scratching. She's a JAY. Just Another Yuppie.
But with tinges of Valley Girl airhead.

My wife listened to Palin a few times, and started tilting towards my
side of the column. We both ended up voting for Obama. Part of the
influence was simple. Added to my problems dealing with the fact that
McCain has a temper on a par with mine was his age.

McCain is a couple years older than I am, and his health marginally
the same. That was worrisome with a totally unqualified and unthinking
replacement in the wings. Jack Kemp was almost certainly in better
general health than either one of us, and he died of a fast growing
cancer a day or so ago, at 73.

Combine iffy health, age and a rotten temper not always controlled,
and there are problems. I often regret blowing my stack, but it's on a
person-to-person basis, usually causing no permanent damage (beyond a
couple of broken noses). That is not a box to check on a Presidential
qualification list, though.

While I don't really like some of the things Obama is planning to do
or has done, the transparency of his administration, and his openness
about almost everything in his background, have me staying in the
current two-thirds of U.S. citizens who generally approve of the job
he's doing.

Whether or not he is going to be successful is an unfinished story.
The guy has been in office a little over three months, trying to
correct, or at least improve, a situation that was many years in
building, yet people have stuck him with handles that are as asinine
as the ones stuck on "Ape" Lincoln shortly before and after he took
office. I realize that people such as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter
are in it for the money and will say, and do, almost anything to
fatten their investment portfolios, but it is truly disheartening to
see the rancor they express become as widespread as it has among
people one would expect to have at least slightly better sense. I did
read somewhere yesterday that only 22% of Americans today classify
themselves as Republicans, which means that the noisy rancor comes
from a relatively tiny percentage, with a desire to scream about their
losses. I also note around here people are finally taking down the
McCain-Palin-Goode signs. I figure it's time for the next campaign to
begin!

I may not support all of President Obama's actions, and reserve the
right to bitch, whine, moan and whimper about thos individual actions,
in the meantime, I'm going to remain with the majority in supporting
his overall aims.

Unlike Limbaugh, I do NOT hope Obama fails.

Robatoy wrote:
> On May 3, 2:19 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> What I'm saying is way simpler than this: The government's only role
>> in markets is to ensure their transparency and integrity, and to
>> interdict in matters of fraud. Period.
>
> That's right. You had the Repuglicans look after 'transparency' and
> 'integrity'.
>
> No administration has been more secretive on all issues than BushCo.
> So much for transparency. Say hello to Mr. Paulson.
> The words Bush administration and the word integrity.... I'm sorry.. I
> can't make a sentence with both words in it.
> There has never been a more corrupt bunch of greedy bastards in a
> single administration than in the last one, and you want those foxes
> to guard the hen house?
>
> Now I KNOW you've lost your mind, Timbo.
>
>
>

You are kidding, right? It was the dimwit Dems that lied and covered
up the mess *they* created with Fannie/Freddie going back almost two
decades ago. That vile little weasel Barney Frank looked into the
cameras and repeatedly said with a straight face something he KNEW was
a lie: "Fannie/Freddie are not in trouble" when *BushCo* tried to warn
folks otherwise.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On May 4, 2:07=A0am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > "J. Clarke" wrote:
>
> >> Lew, grow up. =A0I don't know what your problem is but nobody here is
> >> interested in playing whatever game you think it is that you're
> >> playing.
>
> > There is no game being played.
>
> > Your knowledge of mid 20th century history is obviously limited;
> > however, you chose to make non relevant comments about the subject.
>
> > By your own actions, you have demonstrated how "clueless" you are
> > about those events.
>
> > Hint:
>
> > Gen. George C Marshall, a member of Truman's staff and Joseph
> > McCarthy, a US senator, were never, to the best of my knowledge,
> > involved in any joint endeavor together.
>
> You really don't know who McCarthy was, do you?

No. He really doesn't know what Tailgunner Joe's relevance is to
Marshall and waterboarding. Nor do I.

On May 1, 6:20=A0pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Like Bush really cared about the Constitution while taking away our rig=
hts
> > over the last 8 years
> > CC
>
> What rights were taken away?
>

The right to walk with your head held high...anywhere on this planet.

You can not understand The One.

You are a prisoner of The Matrix.




Regards,

Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

On May 2, 4:51=A0pm, Steve Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > But Sarah Palin..as she reaches for the top shelf of her colouring
> > book library...in her jammies....showing just a wee bit of plumbers'
> > crack...hair all in a mess... NO talking...*deep sigh*
>
> <wide-eyed silence>
>
> Wow...
>
> Tell us another story uncle Robatoy! =A0Please? =A0PLEASE?
>
> :-)
>


ROTFLMAO

On May 1, 3:11=A0pm, LRod <[email protected]> wrote:
> My nomination for Obama to place on the Supreme Court?
>
> Hillary Clinton.
>
> Just think of the permanent apoplexy that would throw Rush,
> Sean, Bill O'R, Ann, and any of your conservative
> acquaintances into.
>
> Any old body can be SecState. Heck, get Madeline Albright
> back. This is too good an opportunity to miss.
>
> You heard it here first.
>
> Let the sniping begin.
>

The fact it woke Timbo from his slumber pretty much proves you're on
the right track.

In fact, I don't think Hillary Clinton would be a bad choice for
Supreme Court Justice.
I think she looks weak as Secretary Of State... despite her low-
hanging 'nads.

Edward G. Rendell for Secretary of State!! I *like* that guy.

On May 11, 10:26=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> No argument here. =A0When you're in a bar fight you do not have to wait u=
ntil
> someone actually hits you. If they threaten to hit you and have the
> likely means to do so, you are morally justified hitting them "preemtivel=
y"
> when the beer bottle they're holding is on the backswing.
>

That is only allowed if you write a quick, brief note of apology
first, THEN hit him so hard that he leaves his shoes behind as he
flies through the window.

On May 2, 10:01=A0pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On May 2, 9:50 pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> DGDevin wrote:
> >>> =A0It sure persuaded me, I was undecided until it
> >>> became clear how screamingly unsuitable she was, and with McCain's ag=
e and
> >>> health concerns there was no way I wanted her the proverbial heartbea=
t away
> >>> from the Oval Office.
> >> So you voted for the community organizer?
>
> > Why the disdain for a community organizer? Have you ever done any?
>
> I have no disdain for anyone.
> My point was that Mrs. Palin has had much more executive experience than
> Mr President.
>
The whole planet should be on their knees in gratitude that that her
election never happened. Regardless of yumminess.

On May 3, 5:58=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
=A0
>
> Not so intended and I apologize if I came across that way.
>

You always come across as a juggler of double-speak and fraudulent
claims of intelligence.
You're a fraud, Timbo.

No affiliation with parties left or right, just in support of those
ideas which further your anarchist greed. Never time to pay the piper
in your world. Never pulling yourself up by the bootstraps to get to
work and fix what's wrong... how could you? Everybody is wrong...
except you. I'll add to the accusation that you're a fraud... you're a
coward as well, or you'd do something about all those things that are
wrong with your country.
Never any constructive ideas, just a constant hammering at those
things that inconvenience you.
Hoard on my friend, keep all your pennies in those greedy little
hands, and then go spend them on that waterfront whore you talk about.

So, been doing any woodworking as of late? Waiting for a tree to grow,
so you can build something?

DGDevin wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> Bush was wrong about some things.
>
> Yeah, some things, those Iraqi WMDs for example, four and half
> thousands Americans have paid for that little mistake with their
> lives, not to mention three billion bucks a week for six years.
>

Oh, bother! Those who died were volunteers. They signed up knowing the risk
of death or injury, but sign up they did. For the opportunity to kill people
and blow things up. Just like mountain climbers or skydivers or race car
drivers accept similar risks for the thrill of the avocation.

Further, other figures confirm this observation. 85% of those who've served
in Iraq or Afghanistan re-enlist at the first opportunity. The remaining 15%
were killed, invalided out, retired, or married harridans.

And our nation benefited. Fully every commander now in uniform - from
sergeant to 4-star general has led troops in combat. The tip of the spear is
polished to an unbelievable gloss.

No, our warrior class trained to be there, they want to be there, they NEED
to be there. For their family. For their country. For honor's sake. For
glory's sake. They march. Into the Hot Gates they march, where Xerxes hordes
count for nothing...

DGDevin wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>>> "GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last
>>> couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
>>>
>>> PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see
>>> Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
>>>
>>> THAT was her take on foreign affairs.
>> THAT was the take her handlers permitted.
>
> Did the words come out of her mouth, or not? Why would you cut her slack
> you'd deny to someone from the other party, aside from the obvious reason?
> Picking Palin was a brilliant tactical move as it reversed McCain's
> declining fortunes for a time. But strategically it became painfully
> obvious why they kept her away from the press as much as they could, she was
> as qualified to be VP as she is to be an NFL linebacker. Eventually I think
> enough people (those not hopelessly partisan) realized that, and it cost
> McCain votes in the endgame. It sure persuaded me, I was undecided until it
> became clear how screamingly unsuitable she was, and with McCain's age and
> health concerns there was no way I wanted her the proverbial heartbeat away
> from the Oval Office.
>
>

Palin was better qualified than either Obama or Biden ... and she was not
really qualified at all...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
>> Who says they are "unlawful enemy combatants"? Regardless, they
>> are entitled
>
> The U.S. government asserts this because they: a) Engaged in combat
> upon
> our civilians and our military troops,

Except some of them were not, they were shopped to the U.S. by Afghan
warlords looking to collect rewards for Taliban or Al Qaeda fighters and
said warlords' motivation was getting paid, that and maybe settling a
personal or tribal grudge too. Many residents of Gitmo are without question
rat-bastard terrorists and guerillas, and some were just in the wrong place
at the wrong time and were held for years even when their captors had
long-since figured that out. Legalities aside, when did we decide that
simple human decency was something we no longer cared about?

On May 8, 12:10=A0pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
> > Robatoy wrote:
> >> That is to repair the damage your buddy Bush has done. Get over it.
> >> You had the place for 8 years, you screwed it up. Now let the majority
> >> of your country get to work to fix your fukkup.
>
> > That's simply not true. Under Bush, we had 23 consecutive quarters of
> > economic growth, low unemployment, and other good things. This in spite=
of
> > two wars, Katrina, 9-11, and Beyonce.
>
> Yes, under Bush we had unemployment rates under 5%, Inflation under 5%,
> Interest rates under 5%, and the stock market hit the highest levels
> ever, in the 1400's... Yet the economy was supposed to be bad.
>
>
>
> > Then the Democrats took over Congress. In less than 18 months they mana=
ged
> ...
> > Oh, well. We'll see.
>
> Yeah, now unemployment is going towards 10%, stock market down 6000
> points, GM is now Government Motors, inflation likely to look more like
> socialist Germany than capitalist America and the media thinks the
> economy is starting to look good...
>
Yup. That's what happens when a Ponzi scheme like Bush's runs out of
suckers.
But you knew that.
Now you all get to pay.

On May 10, 2:15=A0pm, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Damned fine job, LRod!
>
Damned fine job indeed. *taking notes*
LRod's Da Man!

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

> Again I ask. What rights did YOU lose under W?

How about the right to hold up his head before the world and say with a
straight face and a clear conscience that America doesn't employ torture?

An Al Qaeda leader said the single greatest recruiting tool his organization
ever had was the Abu Ghraib photos, and that tool was handed to them with a
stars-and-stripes bow wrapped around it, just friggin' lovely.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

>> "GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last
>> couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
>>
>> PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see
>> Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
>>
>> THAT was her take on foreign affairs.
>
> THAT was the take her handlers permitted.

Did the words come out of her mouth, or not? Why would you cut her slack
you'd deny to someone from the other party, aside from the obvious reason?
Picking Palin was a brilliant tactical move as it reversed McCain's
declining fortunes for a time. But strategically it became painfully
obvious why they kept her away from the press as much as they could, she was
as qualified to be VP as she is to be an NFL linebacker. Eventually I think
enough people (those not hopelessly partisan) realized that, and it cost
McCain votes in the endgame. It sure persuaded me, I was undecided until it
became clear how screamingly unsuitable she was, and with McCain's age and
health concerns there was no way I wanted her the proverbial heartbeat away
from the Oval Office.

charlieb wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> He should just go ahead and select someone from the leadership
>> of the Communist Party USA. He has all the votes he needs, why
>> bother with even the slightest pretense of caring for the
>> Constitution any longer...
>
> . . . since the last administration already did most of it in anyway?
> (torture, pre-emptive war, wire tapping without warrants, presidential
> "signings" that allowed violating existing laws - with impunity,
> Alberto
> Gonzales, ...)

And they were able to do these things *legally* courtesy of the half
dozen presidents before them. Most of what is in Patriot was already
written into law under the guise of "The War On Drugs". W merely
appropriated it for the "War On Terrrah". But you W haters don't
get that. In fact, it's become a hobby to hate him for things he
either didn't do, did legally, or had ample precedent for. I'm not
defending *him* (since I mostly oppose government meddling in things
like sex and drugs and rock-n-roll), I'm making fun of you for being
so gullible and falling for the Dems line of B.S...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Jack Stein wrote:
>
> Right now, Obama
> could probably get away with not knowing how many states are in the
> US, or even going to foreign soil and apologizing for being a US
> citizen, assuming he is one, of course.
>

You're probably referring to Obama claiming there were 57 states. In his
defense, there WERE 57 venues that got to vote in the Democratic Convention.
They were:

* The 50 states, of course,
* The District of Columbia,
* Guam,
* Puerto Rico,
* The U.S. Virgin Islands,
* The Dutchy of Grand Fenwick,
* Patagonia. and
* Rhodesia.

Chicago residents got to vote twice, and U.S. citizens abroad (unless they
were in the military) voted with their home states.

CC wrote:

>
> "-MIKE-" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> Like Bush really cared about the Constitution while taking away our
>>> rights
>>> over the last 8 years
>>> CC
>>
>> What rights were taken away?
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> -MIKE-
>>
>> "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
>> --Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
>> --
>> http://mikedrums.com
>> [email protected]
>> ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
> My right to privacy with the NSA wire tapping through AT&T and any
> other
> provider, Be it telephone, internet, or any other way of ease dropping
> they wanted.
> And it was not just only all US - overseas. Next is their ability to
> deny your rights to due process

Ummm, actually it was *only* calls from the US to an overseas number that
had been identified as linked to terrorists. It always amuses me when the
left was bleating about this loss of "privacy" when many of those people so
bleating have no qualms about loudly carrying on cell phone conversations
in public regardless of how personal the subject.


In this case, you lost zero rights as opposed to the rights that the
current administration is no kidding taking away:
The rights of contract law in which a judge can set aside a contract and
force a lender to alter the *principal* amount of a loan. Any idea how
hard it would be to get a mortgage in the future if this happens? (Good
news is that even the Senate wasn't stupid enough to go along with this and
defeated it today 51-45 -- but that 45 is scary).

The right to make whatever your employer thinks you are worth. Right now,
it's bank CEO's and employees. The administration has said that it also
wants to impose the same kinds of rules on companies that have not taken
federal money. Once they decide this for corporate officers, what's to
stop them from deciding what *you* are supposed to be making?

The administration has made no bones about looking at ways to abridge the
second amendment and take away the right to keep and bear arms.

If you are concerned about loss of privacy in cell phone or internet
communications, I would think you would really be concerned about loss of
privacy with the proposed health care database in which the fed will have
all of your health care records in their files.

> if they "think" or want to label you as a terrorist, doesn't matter if
> you are or not, just what they want
> to say you are to be able to restrain you
> CC

So then you are extremely outraged by the recently released Department of
Homeland Security memos that identified people who actually support a
constructionist interpretation of the Constitution as potential extremists?
And the extremist lexicon they just released that identifies those who
support federalism as extremists but fails to mention Islamic
fundamentalists? You are sufficiently outraged to demand that Napolitano
resign?





--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On May 9, 1:50=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
> > -MIKE- wrote:
>
> >> Robatoy wrote:
> >>> Apologist KoolAid again... Bush and his thugs did NOTHING to stave of=
f
> >>> the crap you're all in...all he did was fatten the pockets of a few h=
e
> >>> owed/sold his soul to.
> >> That's bullshit. =A0As I already replied to you in this thread...
>
> >> It's well documented that the Bush administration sent over 18 warning=
s
> >> about the eminent Fannie/Freddie collapse over several years, to the
> >> appropriate congressional/senate committees.
>
> >> The laughable hearings are on youtube in which we see Barney Frank
> >> demonize the alarm ringers as racists and fear mongers, saying "there'=
s
> >> nothing wrong with Fannie/Freddie" over and over again.
>
> > =A0 Have they put up the video of him now saying that he really thinks =
some
> > people shouldn't own homes, that was a Republican idea -- he supported
> > affordable quality rental housing all along?
>
> > =A0 If nothing else, you've got to give the little hypocrite credit for
> > audacity.
>
> Wasn't that one of his books, "The Audacity Of Hype"?
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-- -
> Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Oh Y A W N ! !

Robatoy wrote:
>>
>> Yes, GEORGE Marshall. I regret the error.
>>
>> As to the waterboarding, I got my facts from an unimpeachable source:
>>
>> "By the way, just to put waterboarding in perspective, it is the
>> hazing ritual for years at the Virginia Military Institute. George
>> Marshall was waterboarded as a cadet. Something that's not cool, but
>> it's not - you know, it's not ripping out your fingernails. And the
>> -- but that hearing would hurt the right -- would hurt the national
>> security establishment." Dick Morris on the O'Reilly Factorhttp:
>
> Okay... that does it. You get your info from O'Reilly Factor??? Same
> network as Hannity?

Right. The number one cable network show for 100 consecutive months (8+
years). O'Reilly draws more viewers than CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC combined.

As an aside, Fox News garnered the top 11 spots in the rankings for last
month. Number 12 was "Countdown" with Keith Olberman (1.24 million viewers).
O'Reilly had 3.5 million viewers during the same period, according to the
Huffington Post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/28/fox-news-claims-top-11-ca_n_192514.html

>
> Soooooooooo... when is Hannity going to do his waterboarding
> experiment?

Dunno. I think they're having trouble finding water in which Hannity will
sink.

On May 10, 2:15=A0pm, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Damned fine job, LRod!
>
> You stirred up the regular retards and even added some new names to
> the usual suspects list. =A0I've forwarded the list to the state
> department for them to begin deportation proceedings.
>
> I think that we should run one of these dumbass-tests every so often
> to give us a head count on the enemy. =A0
>
> BTW - I located where they are getting their information from. =A0I
> thought it was from rust limberger, bland cooter and faux news but
> here is the real think tank that their opinions come from:
>
> http://www.redstateupdate.com/video/100-damn-days
>
> On Fri, 01 May 2009 21:48:52 -0400, Tom Watson <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Damn LRod, this oughta stir up the dumb asses.
>
> >...and they've been so quiet for the last hundred days, or so...
>
> >On Fri, 01 May 2009 19:11:40 +0000, LRod <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>My nomination for Obama to place on the Supreme Court?
>
> >>Hillary Clinton.
>
> >>Just think of the permanent apoplexy that would throw Rush,
> >>Sean, Bill O'R, Ann, and any of your conservative
> >>acquaintances into.
>
> >>Any old body can be SecState. Heck, get Madeline Albright
> >>back. This is too good an opportunity to miss.
>
> >>You heard it here first.
>
> >>Let the sniping begin.

That sounds almost exactly like Red Stater folks at the country store
down the road. Except for the bit on the aromas. They usually smell so
bad they'd never notice a truckload of catshit.

"evodawg" wrote:

> What right did you lose? Let me count the rights I'm about to lose
> under the
> Messiah.

<snip a litney of gov't services evodawg will accept but just does not
want to pay for them.>

If the world is to survive, it requires organized societies.

To have organized societies requires government.

Government costs money, in the USA, some where around 35%-38% of GDP,
same as it was in the late 40's when I heard this same rhetoric as a
kid growing up.

Other countries either have similar or higher rates.

So basically, sit down, bitch for a while, it's the American way, then
shut up and write out the check, mail it and have a beer.

Lew

On May 2, 5:31=A0pm, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> I'll agree that Saddam was a bad actor, but beyond that I have no way of
> knowing the motivations behind choosing any country. To me it seems
> equally likely that the motivation was "he tried to whack my daddy so
> I'm gonna whack him."
>

ANYthing to gain favour from the man who saw the evil in his son and
his son being the mirror of that pearl-wearing pitbull of a mother.

Yup 100,000 people died because of a family gripe? Naaa.. he killed
because he could.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

> He should just go ahead and select someone from the leadership
> of the Communist Party USA. He has all the votes he needs, why
> bother with even the slightest pretense of caring for the
> Constitution any longer...

. . . since the last administration already did most of it in anyway?
(torture, pre-emptive war, wire tapping without warrants, presidential
"signings" that allowed violating existing laws - with impunity,
Alberto
Gonzales, ...)

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

> The tragedy here is that the Hopeium smokers still don't get what an incredible
> menace this guy is. It's what happens when the adults don't pay attention
> and drunks, drug addicts, and intellectual children control the vote...

As opposed to the borderline illiterate, Born Again, ex- cocaine and
alcohol
abuser, oblivious of the world around him, borderline moron, Deer In
The
Headlights guy that the REAL Americans voted into the office last
time?

Or the Air Head that the same folks rallied behind as the vice
presidential
candidate for their party? (I've got plenty of foreing policy
experience
- because I can SEE Russia from parts of MY state).

charlieb wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> The tragedy here is that the Hopeium smokers still don't get what an incredible
>> menace this guy is. It's what happens when the adults don't pay attention
>> and drunks, drug addicts, and intellectual children control the vote...
>
> As opposed to the borderline illiterate, Born Again, ex- cocaine and
> alcohol
> abuser, oblivious of the world around him, borderline moron, Deer In
> The
> Headlights guy that the REAL Americans voted into the office last
> time?
>
> Or the Air Head that the same folks rallied behind as the vice
> presidential
> candidate for their party? (I've got plenty of foreing policy
> experience
> - because I can SEE Russia from parts of MY state).

Even if it were true as written (and it's not, it's an exaggeration for
effect), W would still be an order of magnitude less malignant than
the ObamaSavior...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Robatoy wrote:
> On May 2, 12:49 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>> charlieb wrote:
>>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>> The tragedy here is that the Hopeium smokers still don't get what an
>>>> incredible
>>>> menace this guy is. It's what happens when the adults don't pay
>>>> attention and drunks, drug addicts, and intellectual children control the
>>>> vote...
>>> As opposed to the borderline illiterate, Born Again, ex- cocaine and
>>> alcohol
>>> abuser, oblivious of the world around him, borderline moron, Deer In
>>> The
>>> Headlights guy that the REAL Americans voted into the office last
>>> time?
>> You mean the guy whose grades were higher than both Al Gore's and John
>> Kerry's (who served in Vietnam)?
>>
>>
>>
>>> Or the Air Head that the same folks rallied behind as the vice
>>> presidential
>>> candidate for their party? (I've got plenty of foreing policy
>>> experience
>> You know, for someone who voted for a ticket with Joe Biden as the Vice
>> President, I would think you would have the intelligence to keep your head
>> low on that one. "Stand up Chuck! Oh, God, what am I saying? Everybody
>> stand up for Chuck!"
>>
>>> - because I can SEE Russia from parts of MY state).
>> Clue for the apparently clueless: the VP candidate didn't say that: Tina
>> Fey on SNL said that during a comedy skit.
>>
>> They told me if I voted for McCain, I'd get an idiot for a vice president.
>> They were right.
>>
>>
>> If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
>
> "GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last
> couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
>
> PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia
> from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
>
> THAT was her take on foreign affairs.

THAT was the take her handlers permitted.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

(speaking of the Republican Party)

> They seem to be the party of no ideas, no principles, no energy, and
> no future because they've systematically disassembled their core that
> believes in limited government and personal responsibility.

As used as I've become to automatically disagreeing with you, I have to
admit that I share this perception.

I'm not sure that there's actually been a systematic disassembly, and
I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they seem
to have lost sight of their principles - and without that common
foundation, seem unable to produce ideas about which they can reach
consensus, and without ideas to which the general electorate can say:
"Yes!" they have no energy and no political traction.

If you're a believer in personal responsibility (here it comes round
again - wait for it...) let me encourage you to involve yourself in the
process of identifying and advocating for those who /do/ have the
principles, who /can/ produce ideas that unify people in their support.

Get 'em on the ballot - 'cause if you don't, someone else will be
(re)elected. Time's already running short...

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Len wrote:

> My spouse is from communist china and as soon a she heard Mr. Bush back in
> 2000 she thought HE was the communist and totaltairan ,so go figure

Heh! What would /she/ know? ;-)

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

-MIKE- wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>> "GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last
>> couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
>>
>> PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia
>> from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
>>
>> THAT was her take on foreign affairs.
>
> Maybe if she read everything someone else researched and wrote for her
> off the teleprompter, like the guy who got elected, she'd have done better.

That would depend on who she chose to do the writing, yes?

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Mark & Juanita wrote:

> That is one of the most asinine statements that the left mutters.
> What exactly made things so bad from 2000 to 2008?

Hmm, I was in San Jose debugging silicon for a cable modem and working
with a bunch of H1B types from south Asia when Chairman Greenspan
announced his intention to "cool the tech sector". Over the next month I
watched more than 2500 newly incomeless families move out of my
apartment complex before I joined them.

It was a bit wrenching for the H1B folks too, they had to take their
jobs back to New Delhi and Mumbai where they worked harder and for less,
but /they/ had the jobs and we did not.

Suggested research: who voted for the legislation that allowed US
companies to replace currently employed Americans with less qualified
(but much cheaper) Asians?

> The fact you got to keep more of your money instead of paying it in
> taxes? EVERYBODY got a tax cut, not just the wealthy few despite the
> continued mouthings of the left to the contrary.

You may not have noticed, but those tax cuts didn't do much for the
folks whose jobs went swimming across the Pacific. Of course, neither
did we pay taxes on no income.

> The fact that the US actually took the fight to terrorists and
> terrorist supporting countries after 40 years of letting crap happen
> and then issuing strongly worded condemnations?

A masterful stroke that. An invasion plan without a success contingency.
We succeeded in cutting the European petroleum supply by something like
20%, which trashed European economies and resulted in making the
Europeans dependent on Gazprom (but it did produce a windfall in wealth
and clout for the Russian Federation) which persists to this day.

On the grounds that it was a US theater of action, we closed the door to
European (and other) countries who wanted to help with the much-needed
reconstruction, and handed out non-competitive construction contracts to
US firms with close ties to top administration officials.

AIUI, Baghdad /still/ doesn't have electricity and a working water
supply 24/7, and the US has managed to kill many times more innocents
than Al Qaida. Which reminds me to ask: "Where /is/ Osama Bin Laden
days? Will he be vacationing in the Swat Valley area?"

I wish you could tell me (and I could believe) that what we did has put
an end to "letting crap happen". AFAICT, we just stirred it around and,
in the process, got a lot on ourselves.

> The fact that the US had the lowest unemployment rates in history
> during that time, dipping below the 5% that was considered to be full
> employment?

Super-size that, sir?

> The fact that the US economy recovered spectacularly following 9/11
> despite the shock upon our financial system?

Did you notice how many Yuan that took? Spectacular, indeed!

> Or was it simply the fact that France hated the US during that time?
> Hint: they still ain't happy with us despite the fact that The One
> was elected.

If the French came to hate us, it was /after/ October 2001. I suspect
that if they caused /our/ petroleum supply to drop by as much as we
caused theirs to drop, we wouldn't be very happy with them (or with
paying a /lot/ more than $4/gallon for gas).

Awfully unreasonable of them, don't you think?

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

HeyBub wrote:

> So what? To the victor belongs the spoils.

...was as far as I needed to read to realize that you have nothing
credible to say to me - nor to anyone who believes in "Liberty and
Justice for all".

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>
>>> That is one of the most asinine statements that the left mutters.
>>> What exactly made things so bad from 2000 to 2008?
>> Hmm, I was in San Jose debugging silicon for a cable modem and working
>> with a bunch of H1B types from south Asia when Chairman Greenspan
>> announced his intention to "cool the tech sector". Over the next month I
>> watched more than 2500 newly incomeless families move out of my
>> apartment complex before I joined them.
>>
>> It was a bit wrenching for the H1B folks too, they had to take their
>> jobs back to New Delhi and Mumbai where they worked harder and for less,
>> but /they/ had the jobs and we did not.
>>
>> Suggested research: who voted for the legislation that allowed US
>> companies to replace currently employed Americans with less qualified
>> (but much cheaper) Asians?
>
> Since when is any of this the business of government?

An excellent question - worth looking into and worthy of thoughtful
consideration.

>>> The fact you got to keep more of your money instead of paying it in
>>> taxes? EVERYBODY got a tax cut, not just the wealthy few despite the
>>> continued mouthings of the left to the contrary.
>> You may not have noticed, but those tax cuts didn't do much for the
>> folks whose jobs went swimming across the Pacific. Of course, neither
>> did we pay taxes on no income.
>
> Then why did the real average income of the US worker grow during these
> years (as they did on Clinton, Bush 41, and Reagan before)?
> Peering through a microscope tends to obscure the larger picture here.

You may have seen that in Illinois - but I didn't see it next door here
in Iowa.

At this point I have to wonder if a mortgage broker is a "worker"...

> It seems likely that this trend of rising real income will stop with
> our current President.

I'll stick my neck out and opine that a great many trends were impacted
by a financial system based on false premise and empty promise.

I'll resist the impulse to quibble over "real".

>>> The fact that the US actually took the fight to terrorists and
>>> terrorist supporting countries after 40 years of letting crap happen
>>> and then issuing strongly worded condemnations?
>> A masterful stroke that. An invasion plan without a success contingency.
>
> Ever see a war that went according to plan? (Read Von Clausewitz.)

Would you care to project what /any/ of the great strategists would say
about any plan that made no provision for victory?

>> We succeeded in cutting the European petroleum supply by something like
>> 20%, which trashed European economies and resulted in making the
>
> The European economies were well on their way to being trashed
> courtesy of they addiction to socialism ... much like the current
> idiot in office here.

A non-sequitur. They may have been, but that removes neither the
causality nor the effect of US actions.

>> Europeans dependent on Gazprom (but it did produce a windfall in wealth
>> and clout for the Russian Federation) which persists to this day.
>
> Are you arguing this was intentional?

I wasn't but, since you make intention a part of the picture, I'm now
inclined to wonder just how palsy-walsy George and Vlad really were...

>> On the grounds that it was a US theater of action, we closed the door to
>> European (and other) countries who wanted to help with the much-needed
>> reconstruction, and handed out non-competitive construction contracts to
>> US firms with close ties to top administration officials.
>
> Here we agree. Then again, this has almost always been the case
> in post-war reconstruction, it's merely a matter of degree.
> Hardly uniquely a W problem. But just wait till you see what
> the current swine in congress have in store. They're setting up
> to do much the same thing with their phony environmental and energy
> programs which will made fools like Gore very wealthy. It's the
> same old cronyism, just from the other party.

I may agree with you - but not until I've seen the results and
considered the full context (which hasn't yet played out).

It may, indeed, be the same old cronyism - but I'll encourage you to
remember that /you/ bear the cost, regardless of who practices it.

>> AIUI, Baghdad /still/ doesn't have electricity and a working water
>> supply 24/7, and the US has managed to kill many times more innocents
>> than Al Qaida. Which reminds me to ask: "Where /is/ Osama Bin Laden
>> days? Will he be vacationing in the Swat Valley area?"
>
> So the only justification for going to war would have been to kill
> Bin Laden? We fail or succeed on the basis of single person being
> taken out? Breathtaking.

That's what I thought. It makes about as much sense as going to war to
kill Saddam Hussein. Actually, I think it may make /more/ sense.

>> I wish you could tell me (and I could believe) that what we did has put
>> an end to "letting crap happen". AFAICT, we just stirred it around and,
>> in the process, got a lot on ourselves.
>
> No, we did something that the Islamists had never seen before: We took
> the fight to them, on their turf, on our terms. It scared a good
> many of them into acting better. Witness the phone call from
> Quadaffi to Berluscone shortly after the Iraq invasion and Libya's
> subsequent rehabilitation. I'd say you have a very simple understanding
> of the region, dynamics, and consequences of this war. Then again,
> so do most Americans given the journalistic malpractice that has
> been performed for eight years.

My very simple understanding is probably a consequence of having lived
in the mideast for only ten years. Perhaps if I'd been there longer I
might have developed different understandings more like yours - but I
seriously doubt it.

>>> The fact that the US had the lowest unemployment rates in history
>>> during that time, dipping below the 5% that was considered to be full
>>> employment?
>>
>> Super-size that, sir?
>
> A stupid public gets stupid results. At no time during W's time
> in office did I, or anyone I know (from teenage to retirement
> age) work in a job like this ... and I travel a bunch and meet
> plenty of people. But you're going to see *lots* of this in
> the upcoming years as the ObamaMessiah and his drooling acolytes
> systematically destroy the capitalist engine that creates real
> wealth.

I have seen what you say you have not. I'm inclined to believe that you
either weren't paying adequate attention or exercised selective vision.

>>> The fact that the US economy recovered spectacularly following 9/11
>>> despite the shock upon our financial system?
>>
>> Did you notice how many Yuan that took? Spectacular, indeed!
>
> I think you vastly misunderstand global economies.

That's certainly a possibility - but I do make a point of informing
myself as best I can and drawing my conclusions from that information.
When the available information is BS, I adjust the conclusions.

The BS factor has been excessively high for too many years, and whether
the Obama administration has a good recovery strategy or not, we'll all
be experiencing the consequences of that failure of integrity for quite
a while.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:

>>> It seems likely that this trend of rising real income will stop
>>> with our current President.
>>
>> I'll stick my neck out and opine that a great many trends were
>> impacted by a financial system based on false premise and empty
>> promise.
>>
>> I'll resist the impulse to quibble over "real".
>
> I just meant in terms of actual buying power as opposed to
> phony-baloney money being printed by the Hopeium smokers.

Well, I've been giving a lot of thought to the impact of those false
premises and empty promises on this household's retirements - and
it would appear that our carefully made plans and efforts to provide for
retirement were ruined well before January.

>>> Ever see a war that went according to plan? (Read Von
>>> Clausewitz.)
>>
>> Would you care to project what /any/ of the great strategists would
>> say about any plan that made no provision for victory?
>
> You are missing a very important bit of context here. Historically,
> "victory" meant the annihilation or at least the decimation of the
> enemy to utterly neuter not just their military, but their
> infrastructure, social underpinnings, economy, and borders.

Essentially true through WWI. It was the realization that this did not
produce long-term solutions that led to the radical changes implemented
at the end of WWII.

It was interesting to me that the Soviet Union attempted to use the old
approach after WWII while the remaining Allied countries simultaneously
adopted the reconstruction approach. IMO, the results speak for themselves.

> Witness any of the major wars of the past century for many trenchant
> examples. It is iron that W tried to fight a very narrow and
> limited engagement - almost no a war but a surgical removal - and in
> so doing now gets criticized by the armchair quarterbacks because he
> didn't plan neatly enough for the needs of the people he was trying
> to leave alone.

I'm not a quarterback. I played right guard. I don't criticize
Bush/Rumsfeld for failing to plan "neatly enough" - I criticize them for
having neither a clue as to what they were getting us into, and for
failing to plan beyond "hit 'em hard".

> There is simply no way to do this. Either you blast the enemy into
> non-existence or you're faced with a messy cleanup after the fact.

It is the nature of war to produce messes, and the cleanup seems to
always be messy. We do have a range of choices in the exercise of force
and in the type and extent of the messes created. We also have a range
of choices in how the cleanup is handled.

> Go read the history of Germany and Japan in the immediate post-war
> period.

Not only have I read about it, I remember the actuality.

> Many of the issues (and worse) you grouse about were there in spades.
> Would you similarly condemn Truman/FDR they way you have W on the
> same grounds?

I reserve the right to severely criticize /anyone/ in a position of
command who causes unnecessary loss of life as a result of failing to
exercise due diligence.

> There is no question the US actions had European consequences. Maybe
> next time they'll be a bit more anxious to help and minimize the
> duration of the whole business.

Maybe next time they'll tell us to go it alone.

> Gore has already parlayed a net worth of $2M into $200M. This is a
> guy who got worse grades in college than W, who hasn't the slightest
> understanding of the science and complexities underlying his pet
> hobby horse, but has a wealth of connections in D.C. Watch and see
> what happens when crap-in-trade gets passed.

I suppose you're trying to make a rational argument here, but it comes
across more as "sour grapes".

> OK, then I'll defer to your understanding of the area. Explain to me
> what the US could or should have done in the face of:
>
> - Material support for terrorists (people who make war on civilian
> non combatants to make a point) by Yemen, Syria, Saudi, Libya, Iran,
> Iraq, ... (I'm sure I'm missing some).

(You are.)

> - Over 25 years of U.S. citizens being targeted by the
> aforementionined on planes, in hotels/bars, and most recently, in our
> own country.

My apologies, but I'm not even going to try to answer your question in a
usenet post. If we were next door neighbors with reasonable schedules, I
think we might both enjoy working our way through this, but I doubt we'd
get very far is less than six months.

I /can/ say with a high degree of confidence that there is no quick fix
- no instant gratification - and no fix of any kind without
understanding the culture(s) of the players.

> You cannot fight all the above at once. So you start to take them
> out one at a time. IMHO (and that's all it is), Iraq was chosen
> primarily because it is such a strategic lever in putting military
> pressure on Iran. Taking out the 5th largest standing army in the
> world and the dictator that ran it was just icing on the cake.

I'll agree that Saddam was a bad actor, but beyond that I have no way of
knowing the motivations behind choosing any country. To me it seems
equally likely that the motivation was "he tried to whack my daddy so
I'm gonna whack him."

>> The BS factor has been excessively high for too many years, and
>> whether the Obama administration has a good recovery strategy or
>> not, we'll all be experiencing the consequences of that failure of
>> integrity for quite a while.
>
> Fair enough, so long as you stipulate the primary "failure of
> integrity" was that of the Congress and the regulators who
> respectively created the environment that caused the problem in the
> first place and failed to provide anything resembling adequate
> oversight.

I don't so stipulate, but agree that the legislature and the regulators
seem to have not fulfilled their responsibilities.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

-MIKE- wrote:

> They were probably checking out the last skanky woman they would ever
> see, since they would soon be stuck with nothing but 72 virgins for the
> rest of eternity. :-)

I like the version with "72 Virginians" better. :->

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On May 4, 5:36=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "HeyBub" wrote:
> > Olbermann is a fluke. How can you take seriously someone who started
> > his or her career as a sporstcaster?
>
> Assume that comment above also applies to Reagan.
>
> Lew

You know, I kinda like it in this thread. Now that Timbo has recovered
from his crushing defeat and HeyBub has been relief pitching, maybe
there will be some more indications of Foot-In-Mouth disease. Nothing
like signing up for a thrashing when you publicly admit to watching
Billo "The Clown" O' Reilly... Hell, next we'll get public admissions
of these guys having wet dreams about Ann "Adams Apple" Coulter.

I'm going to make me some popcorn.

Fukkit, we're going for 300! SPARRTAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!

CC wrote:
>>
>> What rights were taken away?
>>

> My right to privacy with the NSA wire tapping through AT&T and any
> other
> provider, Be it telephone, internet, or any other way of ease dropping
> they wanted.

There is no "right to privacy" specifically listed in the Constitution. The
Supreme Court HAS found a right to privacy in the "penumbras and emanations"
of the 4th Amendment. Interestingly, this right to privacy extends only to
sexual acts in the three cases the court has ruled on:

* Contraction,
* Abortion, and
* Deviant homosexual behavior.



> And it was not just only all US - overseas. Next is their ability to
> deny your rights to due process
> if they "think" or want to label you as a terrorist, doesn't matter if
> you are or not, just what they want
> to say you are to be able to restrain you

Correct. "Due process" applies only to criminals or those charged with
criminal offenses ("In all criminal proceedings..."

The folks at Gitmo are not criminals. They have committed no crimes and they
are not being charged with crimes. As such, they are not entitled to the
benefits that criminals get: lawyers, trials, indictments, witnesses, etc.

In a similar example, hundreds of thousands of German and Italian POWs were
incarcerated, on US soil, during WW2, many of whom were US citizens (usually
dual citizenship)! Not one got a trial, lawyer, indictment by a grand jury,
or anything else along those lines.

Not that the folks at Gitmo are POWs - they are "unlawful enemy combatants."
And you're right: the president has the unfettered ability, under his
Article II powers and the customary rules of war, to designate anyone, even
you, as an "unlawful enemy combatant." There is nothing the Congress or the
courts can do about it. When this exact question was presented, some years
ago, to a court, the judge said the only recourse was to replace the
president at the next election.

Remember this: People who make war on the US are not criminals and should
not be treated as such.

On May 2, 6:20=A0pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
> >> No play there Robot - Bush was wrong on many front, but nowhere near
> >> as wrong in 8 years as the Hopeium dealer has been in 3 lousy months.
>
> > So.. people did not lose their lives because of Bush's lies? A simple
> > yes or no will suffice.....but unlikely.
>
> No, they did not.

You and Mark drink from the same well?

Robatoy wrote:
> On May 3, 10:50 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Why on earth - with view like this - would you ever want to live in
>> a market environment? Your views are much more consonant with
>> that of the former Soviet Union, the current North Korea, or Maoist
>> China. Markets mean there will be winners AND losers.
>
> Oh stop the Boogy McCarthy-istic bullshit, Tim. There are no commies
> hiding under the bed or in the White House, no matter how convenient

No, they are not communists. They are Marxists.

> it would be in order to try to scare the people back into your fold.

My "fold" is the Constitution of the US and the limitations on power
it imposes on the Federal government. It's tragic that any citizen
of this country has to be dragged back into it.

> Your side blew it. There ain't no commies. Just honest hard-working

My side was never in power and thus has never had the chance to fix
or break anything.

> Americans who have taken it upon themselves to right all the wrongs
> your side has done.

The ObamMessiah and his evil minions are niether hard-working nor honest.
They are bottom feeding Chicago political scum. The people that voted
for them are one of naive, greedy, or stupid...


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On May 3, 10:41=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Han wrote:
> > And the country will pay literally and figuratively for all those maime=
d
> > physically and mentally for decades and decades. =A0Ask anyone caring f=
or
> > veterans.
>
> > Oh the glory!
>
> But we will pay - or our great grandchildren will - far more for far long=
er
> to pick up the tab for Comrade Obama's spending spree............

He did what he had to do because what he inherited. It was a brave
thing to do.

and then you add:

> to get reelected ...

and it is those jabs which put you in the 'asshole' column.

You ARE a Repuglican. A contrary nay-sayer. A sore loser. You got your
ass handed to you. The is no party left to counter what the entire
nation has endorsed as the path to the future.
Whine and bitch all you want...and guess what? That is ALL you do.
Every post is critique, a whine, a bitch, nothing constructive.

Robatoy wrote:
> On May 10, 1:53 pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Could be true but you would have to ignore the massive effects of
>> cargo ships of Obama money headed for ACORN and getting 200% of the
>> people voting for Obama and his socialist horde.
>>
>
> And in what way is that different than Bush money being shoveled by
> the coffin-full to KBR/Halliburton and other fat-cat oil companies in
> order to get campaign contributions so they can skew the vote?
> ACORN is nothing compared to what happened in Florida in 2000. There
> the vote was skewed by denying people to vote, not messing with the
> registration numbers.
>

Sigh.

* KBR and Halliburton are not oil companies.
* Oil companies - or any corporation for that matter - may not make campaign
contributions.
* Bush won Florida in 2000 by some 500-odd votes; Acorn is responsible for
many tens of thousands.
* Vote denial in Florida was never litigated. The controversy was over the
counting of the votes.

Your objections fit the narrative but not the facts.

On May 10, 9:37=A0am, "todd" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Let's not forget that in the last but one election under 50% of the
> > voters went for The Decider, yet the big hoot from Republicans was
> >"Live with it."
> > I suggest the same now, with a President who took 53% of the vote.
>
> And that's just what the liberals did, right? =A0What an idiotic response=
. =A0In
> fact, we had just the opposite for the past 8 years. =A0Just because the =
media
> wants to give the annointed one a pass doesn't mean that I will.
>
> todd

I see where today ex-VP Cheney says he prefers Limbaugh to Powell to
lead the Republicans. That figures. He always did like having a clown
in the driver's seat.

Steve Turner wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>> On May 1, 9:40 pm, charlieb <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>> The tragedy here is that the Hopeium smokers still don't get what an
>>>> incredible
>>>> menace this guy is. It's what happens when the adults don't pay
>>>> attention
>>>> and drunks, drug addicts, and intellectual children control the vote...
>>> As opposed to the borderline illiterate, Born Again, ex- cocaine and
>>> alcohol
>>> abuser, oblivious of the world around him, borderline moron, Deer In
>>> The
>>> Headlights guy that the REAL Americans voted into the office last
>>> time?
>>>
>>> Or the Air Head that the same folks rallied behind as the vice
>>> presidential
>>> candidate for their party? (I've got plenty of foreing policy
>>> experience
>>> - because I can SEE Russia from parts of MY state).
>>
>> MY reaction to Sarah Palin is the desire to slap her on the ass and
>> ask her "WHO's your daddy?"
>> I don't care what anybody says, she is totally schtuppable.
>
> She's yummy.
>

You guys are being unfair. The Dems have Nanci Pelosi and Diane Feinstein ... how
much better could it be?

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On May 4, 8:41=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
> >> Yes, GEORGE Marshall. I regret the error.
>
> >> As to the waterboarding, I got my facts from an unimpeachable source:
>
> >> "By the way, just to put waterboarding in perspective, it is the
> >> hazing ritual for years at the Virginia Military Institute. George
> >> Marshall was waterboarded as a cadet. Something that's not cool, but
> >> it's not - you know, it's not ripping out your fingernails. And the
> >> -- but that hearing would hurt the right -- would hurt the national
> >> security establishment." Dick Morris on the O'Reilly Factorhttp:
>
> > Okay... that does it. You get your info from O'Reilly Factor??? Same
> > network as Hannity?
>
> Right. The number one cable network show for 100 consecutive months (8+
> years). O'Reilly draws more viewers than CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC combined.
>
> As an aside, Fox News garnered the top 11 spots in the rankings for last
> month. Number 12 was "Countdown" with Keith Olberman (1.24 million viewer=
s).
> O'Reilly had 3.5 million viewers during the same period, according to the
> Huffington Post.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/28/fox-news-claims-=
top-11-ca_n_...
>
That logic proves that Britney Spears out-sells Yo-Yo Ma.
That Wall-Mart is bigger than Bloomingdale's...and so on and so on....

The fact(?) that O'Reilley might out-sell Olbermann also proves that
McDonalds sells more food than Spiro's in LA.

and yet, UPS just dropped O'Reilly as a sponsor. A trend?

All of Faux News is right-wing nutbar driven, as you are, Bub.

Robatoy wrote:
> On May 1, 6:20 pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Like Bush really cared about the Constitution while taking away our rights
>>> over the last 8 years
>>> CC
>> What rights were taken away?
>>
>
> The right to walk with your head held high...anywhere on this planet.
>

If any US government could have taken that away it would have been the
government under either Johnson or Carter either of whom made any
President up to an including W look flawless. Obama is well on his
way to shattering their respective records for duplicity, stupidity,
incompetence, capitulation, and evil.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On May 2, 1:16=A0am, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > "GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last
> > couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
>
> > PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia
> > from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
>
> > THAT was her take on foreign affairs.
>
> Maybe if she read everything someone else researched and wrote for her
> off the teleprompter, like the guy who got elected, she'd have done bette=
r.
>
Weak, Mike. Weak.

LRod wrote:
> My nomination for Obama to place on the Supreme Court?
>
> Hillary Clinton.
>
> Just think of the permanent apoplexy that would throw Rush,
> Sean, Bill O'R, Ann, and any of your conservative
> acquaintances into.
>
> Any old body can be SecState. Heck, get Madeline Albright
> back. This is too good an opportunity to miss.
>
> You heard it here first.
>
>
> Let the sniping begin.
>
>
>

He should just go ahead and select someone from the leadership
of the Communist Party USA. He has all the votes he needs, why
bother with even the slightest pretense of caring for the
Constitution any longer...



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Fri, 01 May 2009 21:50:49 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>>> Welcome to Soviet America...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Yep, exactly the reason that the founders established the limits on
>> government that were set in the Constitution. Now this bunch wants to
>> circumvent those limits and too many of the American people are willing
>> to go along with that.
>
> One can always depend on you and Tim for a bit of unintended hilarity.
> Bush used the Bill of Rights for toilet paper for 8 years and you
> defended him. Now that a Democrat is in office ...
>
>
>
A Democrat that simply wants to dispense with all limits on power
imposed by the Constitution ...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Robatoy" wrote:
>
>>.......................................................
> You guys had your ass handed to you, now suck it up and try again.
> Simply being against Obama for the sake of being contrary is a weak
> position and laughable.
>>.................................................
>
> Based on today's numbers, it appears the ultra conservative Republican
> point of view is now supported by less than 20% of the electorate.

What percent do you suppose support the Extreme Left?
>
>
>

DGDevin wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> Again I ask. What rights did YOU lose under W?
>
> How about the right to hold up his head before the world and say with
> a straight face and a clear conscience that America doesn't employ
> torture?

You can still do that - that hasn't changed.

What is more distressing, however, is whether you care whether anyone
believes you. For some, the moment in their lives to which they aspire is
the time when they can shout "You like me! You really LIKE me!"

I'd like to call your attention to John Cavett Marshall. General of the
Army, Army Chief of Staff, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Silver
Star, Legion of Honor, architect of the Marshall Plan.

Marshall was waterboarded and he turned out okay.

Maybe Achmed al-BoomBoom will straighten up and do right.

On May 4, 5:42=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
> > Robatoy wrote:
> >> On May 4, 11:50 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> O'Reilly (for example) has had Barney Frank, Jesse Jackson, Barak
> >>> Obama, and other liberals on his show. Has Olberman ever had Newt
> >>> Gingrich, Ann Coulter, George Bush or similar on his?
> >> Of course not. They're not that stupid. Olbermann would eat them
> >> alive. I could just imagine Ann Coulter on Rachel Maddow.... Rachel
> >> had Colin Powell on... that was fun. Did you see that one?
>
> > Olbermann is a fluke. How can you take seriously someone who started hi=
s or
> > her career as a sporstcaster?
>
> He has the manner of a Michael Vick pitbull, but not the intellect ...
>
>
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-- -
> Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

LOL That's right.. Mr. Lufa O'Reilly is the bright one.....

On May 13, 9:24=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On May 12, 1:43 pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > [snipped the usual Steinian fishing exploits]
>
> No need to fish, the fish are jumping in the boat.
>



...... An empty fishing boat slowly floats to the shore. After it
beaches, Jack Stein climbs out.

Robatoy wrote:
> On May 2, 5:31 pm, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> I'll agree that Saddam was a bad actor, but beyond that I have no
>> way of knowing the motivations behind choosing any country. To me it
>> seems equally likely that the motivation was "he tried to whack my
>> daddy so I'm gonna whack him."
>>
>
> ANYthing to gain favour from the man who saw the evil in his son and
> his son being the mirror of that pearl-wearing pitbull of a mother.
>
> Yup 100,000 people died because of a family gripe? Naaa.. he killed
> because he could.

You say that like you think it's a bad thing?

Mark & Juanita wrote:

>>> An Al Qaeda leader said the single greatest recruiting tool his
>>> organization ever had was the Abu Ghraib photos, and that tool was
>>> handed to them with a stars-and-stripes bow wrapped around it, just
>>> friggin' lovely.
>>>
>>
>> Bullshit. One way or another, it's bullshit.
>> Either it's a made up quote, or it's bullshit from the AlQaeda guy's
>> mouth.
>>
>>
> That's just another amusing liberal meme. Like the AQ guys and their
> recruits loved the US before Abu Ghraib.

Please quote me or anyone coming within a mile of even hinting at anything
like that.

<crickets>

> The argument sort of worked
> before the surge, after the surge it has been shown for the pure BS
> it is.

And yet I heard it just yesterday (the first part, the stars and stripes bow
is my comment) on one of the Sunday morning talking-heads show, from an
American journalist who got it straight from the terrorist's mouth. Of
course in your mind that means it's just spin from the liberal media so
there's no point in searching for a quotation you'll just reject anyway.

As for the surge, do you have any idea what it really is? Are you aware the
U.S. has armed tribal militias (the so-called Awakening) and paid them to
kick Al Qaeda out of their areas, in effect creating warlords who have
secured those areas outside of the control of the Iraqi govt.? It's been
compared with some justification to the cops paying the Bloods to fight the
Crips, especially considering that not long ago those same militias were
shooting at American troops. Hey, I'm glad it's worked as well as it has.
But it's the real basis of AQ getting beat-up in Iraq, not just more U.S.
troops being there (and being used more intelligently). Wouldn't it have
been nice if Rumsfeld hadn't cut down the invasion/occupation force to a
size he was warned was inadequate to the task from the beginning? Brilliant
decision to strip it of the MP units that were to secure military arms dumps
among other key sites huh? Wouldn't it have been nice if Bremer hadn't
fired the Iraqi army (instantly producing tens of thousands pissed-off armed
men with no income)? Maybe if the occupation hadn't been a catalog of
blunders for years or so, breaking about every rule in the book of
counter-insurgency warfare, we wouldn't have four and a half thousand graves
containing American men and women who paid for those mistakes with their
lives.

On May 2, 10:19=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Steve Turner wrote:
> > Robatoy wrote:
> >> On May 1, 9:40 pm, charlieb <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >>>> The tragedy here is that the Hopeium smokers still don't get what an
> >>>> incredible
> >>>> menace this guy is. =A0It's what happens when the adults don't pay
> >>>> attention
> >>>> and drunks, drug addicts, and intellectual children control the vote=
...
> >>> =A0 =A0 As opposed to the borderline illiterate, Born Again, ex- coca=
ine and
> >>> alcohol
> >>> =A0 =A0 abuser, oblivious of the world around him, borderline moron, =
Deer In
> >>> The
> >>> =A0 =A0 Headlights guy that the REAL Americans voted into the office =
last
> >>> time?
>
> >>> =A0 =A0 Or the Air Head that the same folks rallied behind as the vic=
e
> >>> presidential
> >>> =A0 =A0 candidate for their party? =A0(I've got plenty of foreing pol=
icy
> >>> experience
> >>> =A0 =A0 - because I can SEE Russia from parts of MY state).
>
> >> MY reaction to Sarah Palin is the desire to slap her on the ass and
> >> ask her "WHO's your daddy?"
> >> I don't care what anybody says, she is totally schtuppable.
>
> > She's yummy.
>
> You guys are being unfair. =A0The Dems have Nanci Pelosi and Diane Feinst=
ein ... how
> much better could it be?
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-- -
> Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

It does not surprise me that you would find Pelosi and Feinstein at
par with Yummy Palin.
Palin is way yummier than those two. In fact, Palin is the
yummiest..'cept, of course, for Ruth Bader-Ginsberg and Janet "Waco
Whacko" Reno... and that perpetual wet dream of mine Anne "Spindle-
limbs" Coulter... although I do wish she'd have that adams apple taken
out.

But Sarah Palin..as she reaches for the top shelf of her colouring
book library...in her jammies....showing just a wee bit of plumbers'
crack...hair all in a mess... NO talking...*deep sigh*

DGDevin wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> Bush was wrong about some things.
>
> Yeah, some things, those Iraqi WMDs for example, four and half thousands
> Americans have paid for that little mistake with their lives, not to mention
> three billion bucks a week for six years.
>
>> Obama has been an order of
>> magnitude
>> worse in 100 days than Bush was in 8 years. Here's just one scorecard
>> (there are many others):
>>
>> Bush - $28B Bear-Stearns
>
> What interesting math, it seems to overlook that dear old George got behind
> spending more like three-quarters of a trillion on top of the then record
> deficit he'd already overseen. By why bother with details like what he
> signed off on before his time ran out.
>
>> The Hopeium Dealer - $4 *Trillion* and counting in just a bit under
>> 4 months.
>
> I hear he's even including the costs of two wars in the actual budget
> instead of making them a side-bet, outrageous!
>
>

At current pace, Captain Marvel will spend more by the end of next year in
the aggregate than Bush did in 8 years.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On May 1, 3:11=A0pm, LRod <[email protected]> wrote:
> My nomination for Obama to place on the Supreme Court?
>
> Hillary Clinton.
>
> Just think of the permanent apoplexy that would throw Rush,
> Sean, Bill O'R, Ann, and any of your conservative
> acquaintances into.
>
> Any old body can be SecState. Heck, get Madeline Albright
> back. This is too good an opportunity to miss.
>
> You heard it here first.
>
> Let the sniping begin.
>
> --
> LRod
>
> Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
>
> Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

Heh, heh, heh. Jesus, I'd love to be sitting to one side of and back
from Rush and Ann both when they heard about that. In Rush's case,
I've never seen a head explode from internal pressure caused by a
brain giving off gas.

I just want to ask Annie babe to give my horse back his face, though.

"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> 8) The guy who now has your job writes a long letter of apology
> even though he wasn't in the bar at the time, has never been
> in a fight, doesn't know how to do your job, and has lived off
> of others his entire life.
> 9) The world relaxes with Hope.

Sounds perfect as long as it's cash coming out of your pocket. That's really
anybody could ask for. It's whiners like you who contribute absolutely
nothing else that really deserve to be fleeced.

On May 10, 6:06=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tom Watson wrote:
> > Damned fine job, LRod!
>
> > You stirred up the regular retards and even added some new names to
> > the usual suspects list. =A0I've forwarded the list to the state
> > department for them to begin deportation proceedings.
>
> =A0 Ya know, speaking of retards, I've kind of been wondering about someo=
ne
> who sang the praises of The One and denigrated those who looked upon Him =
as
> an ivory towered elitist proclaiming that he *wanted* an elitist in offic=
e.
> That same person then later provided some eloquent, admiring posts about =
a
> particular firearm that he had purchased for himself and his son's use. =
=A0He
> then went on, when questioned about this, to assume a philosopher's
> zen-like condescension of: "Ah, grasshopper, not so simple as you
> assumed ..." and further went on to sing the praises of the NRA.
>
> =A0 Yet, the person and party whom he supported have a record of being th=
e
> most anti-gun, anti-second amendment crowd of any administration. =A0The =
One
> himself voted against a law in his home state to absolve homeowners who h=
ad
> defended themselves with a firearm. He consistently supported anti-gun
> legislation and opposed legislation supportive of 2nd amendment rights.
> His VP wrote the original scary-looking guns ban and has spoken about
> wanting it re-instituted and expanded, His attorney general has already
> made rumblings about further assaults on the second amendment, His DHS
> secretary and Secretary of State are accusing this country of providing t=
he
> weapons to Mexico that are causing so much chaos in the drug wars down
> there, distorting statistics regarding firearm tracing to support their
> position. =A0
>
> =A0 Somehow, though, in this person's mind, the NRA will make this all be=
tter
> and protect his and his son's rights to keep their firearms. =A0Really ki=
nd
> of makes one wonder who the real dumbass is.
>
>
>
> > I think that we should run one of these dumbass-tests every so often
> > to give us a head count on the enemy.
>
> > BTW - I located where they are getting their information from. =A0I
> > thought it was from rust limberger, bland cooter and faux news but
> > here is the real think tank that their opinions come from:
>
> >http://www.redstateupdate.com/video/100-damn-days
>
> > On Fri, 01 May 2009 21:48:52 -0400, Tom Watson <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> >>Damn LRod, this oughta stir up the dumb asses.
>
> >>...and they've been so quiet for the last hundred days, or so...
>
> >>On Fri, 01 May 2009 19:11:40 +0000, LRod <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>My nomination for Obama to place on the Supreme Court?
>
> >>>Hillary Clinton.
>
> >>>Just think of the permanent apoplexy that would throw Rush,
> >>>Sean, Bill O'R, Ann, and any of your conservative
> >>>acquaintances into.
>
> >>>Any old body can be SecState. Heck, get Madeline Albright
> >>>back. This is too good an opportunity to miss.
>
> >>>You heard it here first.
>
> >>>Let the sniping begin.
> >>Regards,
>
> >>Tom Watson
> >>http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
> > Regards,
>
> > Tom Watson
> >http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
>
> --
> If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

The biggest problem with a two-party system like yours, is that in
order to be in agreement with the NRA, you also have to buy into all
that other nut-bar whacko claptrap that comes with a Repuglican
membership.
As hard as it is to believe, it *IS* possible to adopt planks from a
variety of platforms without having to suck the whole salami.
They're called moderates. But nooooooooo, you can't be a moderate, you
have to buy ALL the damned options if all you want is an
ashtray..sunroof, full-sized spare..etc. The idiotic alliances you
have to subscribe to just because the party 'elders' say so is
nonsense and totally unworkable.
Which brings me to Bill O'Reilley's Lufa sponge, Rust Limburger's
(thanks for that one, Tom) viagra-driven trip to The Dominican
Republic's Boy School, etc, etc.

Mark, ol'' boy, it is about that timber the size of a railroad tie in
your eye....

On May 9, 7:53=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
> > Your ways work so well.
>
> They do.
>
> Just go to sleep. And you'll be reborn into an untroubled world.

Things seem so much more peaceful since Nov 4.
GOP down to 20% of the population... but I guess extremist right-
wingers will always be around.
But Limbaugh and Gingrich will make everything all better soon.

Looooooooooooosers,

On May 3, 2:24=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Nowhere near what Captain Feelgood is going to cost us.
>

And you figure that saturating us with those cute names for Mr. Obama
is eventually going to sway any of us to see things your way?
Is that your raison d'=EAtre? Is this your outlet for creative cute
names?
How sad.
How small.

evodawg wrote:

> But wait now we have a Community Organizer as the Commander and
> Chief.

Harvard Law specializing in international relations, professor of
constitutional law, state and federal Senator and so on. IMO he had less
experience than I would have liked, but the "community organizer" crap is,
well, crap. It's like the left claiming Bush was unqualified to be
President because he was just a former baseball team owner.

Us radical centrists are having a hell of a time. We got to enjoy the
left-wingnuts ranting about Bush for eight years (although truth be told at
least he provided good reason to rant) and now the right-wingnuts (while
still ignoring their party's abuses) foaming at the mouth over Obama being a
raving socialist who intends to destroy America and sign over the deed to
the UN blah blah blah. Whatever happened to common sense, is it really the
endangered species it appears to be?

On May 8, 9:26=A0pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On May 8, 7:44 pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Robatoy wrote:
> >>>>> Apologist KoolAid again... Bush and his thugs did NOTHING to stave =
off
> >>>>> the crap you're all in...all he did was fatten the pockets of a few=
he
> >>>>> owed/sold his soul to.
> >>>> That's bullshit. =A0As I already replied to you in this thread...
> >>> Well then. You have spoken, we'll all just have to lay down our own
> >>> views and collections of FACTS then, eh?
> >>> Barney Frank brought down the US economy...and a big chunk of the
> >>> world economy as well....check. WhatEVER, -Mike-...
> >> At least I offered some facts. =A0You offered a "whatever."
> >> That's a debate strategy a teen-aged girl would be proud of. =A0 :-)
>
> > That is assuming there was/is a debate to begin with.
> > There isn't. there won't be. There is no way I can muster enough
> > energy to combat that much KoolAid...
>
> I'm not sure how you can call into question public documents available
> on the White House website, and public congressional hearings available
> on cable TV and youtube.
>
> I'll drink that Koolaid all day long. =A0You just keep smokin that Hopium=
.
> =A0 :-)
>

Your ways work so well.

On May 11, 1:07=A0pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> > It actually works this way:
>
> > 1) He threatens to hit you.
> > 2) You warn him not to.
> > 3) He picks up and swings the bottle.
> > 4) You flatten him and pour the bottle up his nose
> > =A0 =A0demanding he tell you who else is trying to hit you.
> > 5) Your limp wristed fellow bar patrons are horrified
> > =A0 =A0by all the "violence" and "inhumanity" and blame you.
> > 6) People who live nowhere near you hear about the incident
> > =A0 =A0and vilify you as evil.
> > 7) You are run out of town on a rail.
> > 8) The guy who now has your job writes a long letter of apology
> > =A0 =A0even though he wasn't in the bar at the time, has never been
> > =A0 =A0in a fight, doesn't know how to do your job, and has lived off
> > =A0 =A0of others his entire life.
> > 9) The world relaxes with Hope.
>
> I like you.
>
> --
>
> =A0 -MIKE-
>
> =A0 "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
> =A0 =A0 =A0--Elvin Jones =A0(1927-2004)
> =A0 --
> =A0http://mikedrums.com
> =A0 [email protected]
> =A0 ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

Imagine my surprise.

>Robatoy wrote:
> On May 3, 10:41 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Han wrote:
>>> And the country will pay literally and figuratively for all those
>>> maimed physically and mentally for decades and decades. Ask anyone
>>> caring for veterans. Oh the glory!
>> But we will pay - or our great grandchildren will - far more for
>> far longer to pick up the tab for Comrade Obama's spending
>> spree............
>
> He did what he had to do because what he inherited. It was a brave
> thing to do.

Whatever was inherited and for whatever reason, it was plainly stupid
to do what he did. It will fix *nothing*. Just as FDRs asinine New
Deal (aka "Bad Deal") actually *delayed* the recovery from the Great
Depression, so too will Commander Hopium's spending spree.

>
> and then you add:
>
>> to get reelected ...
>
> and it is those jabs which put you in the 'asshole' column.

I am deeply distraught over your assessment of me, particularly given
the gentle tone, kindness, and intellectual sophistication you've
demonstrated here over the years.

All Obama knows how to run is his mouth. He uses it to constantly
run for office. His rhetoric is not that of a leader, it is that
of a politician seeking approval. When he is taken off-script/
off teleprompter he is a stammering idiot. He has hired the most
inept cabinet seen in years - perhaps ever. His Sec. Treasury
cannot even manage to pay his own taxes, and that's just the tip
of the iceburg. He has used political appointments to buy of
the extreme left of his part for whom full Marxism cannot come fast
enough. All this guy is focused on is "how do I get four more years?"


>
> You ARE a Repuglican. A contrary nay-sayer. A sore loser. You got
> your

I didn't vote for McCain either. I realize that in your tiny little
world there is only room for two possibilities politically. Among
thoughtful people, there are many other variations possible. Neither
the Ds nor the Rs respect the Constitution. Neither want to preserve
liberty. Both want to pillage the middle to pay off the crack whores
and the ultra rich. Both are revolting parties. The Rs were slightly
less obnoxious when they at least had some principle as regard to
staying out of the private sector and exhibiting some self-control
fiscally. But both of these are long in the rearview mirror.


> ass handed to you. The is no party left to counter what the entire
> nation has endorsed as the path to the future.

The "entire nation" was just under 53% of the popular vote. For
historic reasons (i.e., reasons you won't be able to grasp) the
electoral college it wired to give the appearance of far more
unanimity than actually exists in the larger voting block. No, the
"entire nation" does not speak even remotely with a single voice.

> Whine and bitch all you want...and guess what? That is ALL you do.
> Every post is critique, a whine, a bitch, nothing constructive.

Oh, I'm doing considerably more than this - more to the point it's
what I am *not* doing. I am not hiring people. I am not growing my
business. With only one or two exceptions I am not contributing to
charity any longer. As of last week I am not buying another GM product
even though I've been a lifelong fan. I am avoiding - to the degree
possible - buying new things, preferring used items where I can. In
short, I'm on strike and so are a lot of other folks I know. We who
actually keep the wheels turning are tired of getting shafted by the
pigs at the bottom and at the top of the economic ladder. You have no
idea how many people I run into that feel *exactly* the same way. More
and more people I know are preserving cash, not using consumer debt in
any form. Let the greedy little pigs in the culture and in the
government find out what happens when their lackeys refuse to
cooperate ...



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected] PGP Key:
http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On May 3, 10:41=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> DGDevin wrote:
> > Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> >> Bush was wrong about some things.
>
> > Yeah, some things, those Iraqi WMDs for example, four and half thousand=
s
> > Americans have paid for that little mistake with their lives, not to me=
ntion
> > three billion bucks a week for six years.
>
> >> =A0Obama has been an order of
> >> magnitude
> >> worse in 100 days than Bush was in 8 years. =A0Here's just one scoreca=
rd
> >> (there are many others):
>
> >> Bush =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0- $28B Bear-Stearns
>
> > What interesting math, it seems to overlook that dear old George got be=
hind
> > spending more like three-quarters of a trillion on top of the then reco=
rd
> > deficit he'd already overseen. =A0By why bother with details like what =
he
> > signed off on before his time ran out.
>
> >> The Hopeium Dealer =A0- $4 *Trillion* and counting in just a bit under
> >> 4 months.
>
> > I hear he's even including the costs of two wars in the actual budget
> > instead of making them a side-bet, outrageous!
>
> At current pace, Captain Marvel will spend more by the end of next year i=
n
> the aggregate than Bush did in 8 years.
>
That is to repair the damage your buddy Bush has done. Get over it.
You had the place for 8 years, you screwed it up. Now let the majority
of your country get to work to fix your fukkup.

"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> like sex and drugs and rock-n-roll), I'm making fun of you for being
> so gullible and falling for the Dems line of B.S...

Yeah, but it's much more fun to criticise loser freaks like you who have no
life whatsoever. You're completely gone where there's any discussion about
woodworking, but as soon as there's a thread on something political or how
the system is costing you, you're back here with a vengeance. Twelve
messages within the space of a few hours.

That's your total existence. Whine, whine, whine, sleep a bit and whine some
more. Pretty damned pathetic in any venue.

Yeah Miller, you lying asshole, I'm here insulting someone again. Funny
though, how it's usually you and Daneliuk that are on the receiving end?

On May 2, 5:36=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On May 2, 4:43 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > =A0[snipped yet more of TRimbodrivel]
> >> This is a prime example of why its impossible to have a reasoned discu=
ssion
> >> with the Bush-haters. =A0
>
> > Because they are right. He is hated. He is a criminal. He did sell his
> > soul. He is a drunk and a coke fiend.
> > There is NO redemption for that piece of dirt. Anything remotely
> > positive that came out of that asshole is totally overshadowed by all
> > the evil that scumbag possesses.
> > That man should be held accountable and hounded for the rest of his
> > days for all the lives he took under the guise of a fucking lie.
> > The man, dear Tim, is a murderer. Period.
>
> No play there Robot - Bush was wrong on many front, but nowhere near
> as wrong in 8 years as the Hopeium dealer has been in 3 lousy months.
>

So.. people did not lose their lives because of Bush's lies? A simple
yes or no will suffice.....but unlikely.

On May 2, 2:11=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On May 2, 12:49 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> charlieb wrote:
> >>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >>>> The tragedy here is that the Hopeium smokers still don't get what an
> >>>> incredible
> >>>> menace this guy is. =A0It's what happens when the adults don't pay
> >>>> attention and drunks, drug addicts, and intellectual children contro=
l the
> >>>> vote...
> >>> =A0 =A0 As opposed to the borderline illiterate, Born Again, ex- coca=
ine and
> >>> alcohol
> >>> =A0 =A0 abuser, oblivious of the world around him, borderline moron, =
Deer In
> >>> The
> >>> =A0 =A0 Headlights guy that the REAL Americans voted into the office =
last
> >>> time?
> >> =A0 You mean the guy whose grades were higher than both Al Gore's and =
John
> >> Kerry's (who served in Vietnam)?
>
> >>> =A0 =A0 Or the Air Head that the same folks rallied behind as the vic=
e
> >>> presidential
> >>> =A0 =A0 candidate for their party? =A0(I've got plenty of foreing pol=
icy
> >>> experience
> >> =A0 You know, for someone who voted for a ticket with Joe Biden as the=
Vice
> >> President, I would think you would have the intelligence to keep your =
head
> >> low on that one. =A0"Stand up Chuck! =A0Oh, God, what am I saying? =A0=
Everybody
> >> stand up for Chuck!" =A0
>
> >>> =A0 =A0 - because I can SEE Russia from parts of MY state).
> >> =A0 Clue for the apparently clueless: =A0the VP candidate didn't say t=
hat: Tina
> >> Fey on SNL said that during a comedy skit.
>
> >> =A0 They told me if I voted for McCain, I'd get an idiot for a vice pr=
esident.
> >> They were right.
>
> >> If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
>
> > "GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last
> > couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
>
> > PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia
> > from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
>
> > THAT was her take on foreign affairs.
>
> THAT was the take her handlers permitted.
>
Weak, Tim. Weak, even for you.

On May 3, 5:10=A0pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> DGDevin wrote:
> > HeyBub wrote:
>
> >>> How about the right to hold up his head before the world and say
> >>> with a straight face and a clear conscience that America doesn't
> >>> employ torture?
>
> >> You can still do that - that hasn't changed.
>
> > What color is the sky on your planet?
>
> >> What is more distressing, however, is whether you care whether anyone
> >> believes you. For some, the moment in their lives to which they
> >> aspire is the time when they can shout "You like me! You really LIKE
> >> me!"
> >> I'd like to call your attention to John Cavett Marshall. General of
> >> the Army, Army Chief of Staff, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of
> >> State, Silver Star, Legion of Honor, architect of the Marshall Plan.
>
> >> Marshall was waterboarded and he turned out okay.
>
> > Are you by any chance attempting to refer to George Catlett Marshall?
> > Your argument might be more convincing if you could at least get his
> > name right, oh, and do research that goes beyond listening to talk
> > radio.
>
> Yes, GEORGE Marshall. I regret the error.
>
> As to the waterboarding, I got my facts from an unimpeachable source:
>
> "By the way, just to put waterboarding in perspective, it is the hazing
> ritual for years at the Virginia Military Institute. George Marshall was
> waterboarded as a cadet. Something that's not cool, but it's not - you kn=
ow,
> it's not ripping out your fingernails. And the -- but that hearing would
> hurt the right -- would hurt the national security establishment." Dick
> Morris on the O'Reilly Factorhttp:

Okay... that does it. You get your info from O'Reilly Factor??? Same
network as Hannity?

Soooooooooo... when is Hannity going to do his waterboarding
experiment?
>

Nice catch! LOL

"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:b78e6f19-fb27-4460-9a47-760a4b8e9775@z19g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
On May 3, 4:38 am, "LD" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> >I previously wrote:
>
> >>> Based on today's numbers, it appears the ultra conservative Republican
> >>> point of view is now supported by less than 20% of the electorate.
>
> > LD asks:
>
> >> What percent do you suppose support the Extreme Left?
>
> > Good question, may I ask why do you ask?
>
> > Today's Democratic party contains a broad spectrum of views from very
> > conservative to very liberal.
>
> > OTOH, near as I can tell, only the ultra onservative point of view is
> > now
> > represented in the Republican party.
>
> > Everybody else has apparently bailed out.
>
> > Lew
>
> You really think the Extreme LEFT has disappeared?

That's not what Lew said, and, in fact, he didn't even imply it.

======================================================

And he didn't answer my question. What percent do you suppose support the
Extreme Left?

On May 4, 5:28=A0pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On May 4, 11:50 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> O'Reilly (for example) has had Barney Frank, Jesse Jackson, Barak
> >> Obama, and other liberals on his show. Has Olberman ever had Newt
> >> Gingrich, Ann Coulter, George Bush or similar on his?
>
> > Of course not. They're not that stupid. Olbermann would eat them
> > alive. I could just imagine Ann Coulter on Rachel Maddow.... Rachel
> > had Colin Powell on... that was fun. Did you see that one?
>
> Olbermann is a fluke. How can you take seriously someone who started his =
or
> her career as a sporstcaster?
>
You mean like your favourite Palin bitch?

Robatoy wrote:
> On May 11, 11:32 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> -MIKE- wrote:
>>
>>> While I enjoy your input on woodworking topics, when it comes to
>>> politics, you've made it quite clear that you are basically a
>>> whining name-caller with little to no substantive input.
>>
>> Cut him some slack. That's what liberal do.
>>
>> You can't quantify "feelings." They are what they are - there's no
>> explaining or justification or evidence or logic.
>
> You mean ... like faith?

If, by "faith," you mean religion, no. Religion is fact-based. For example,
Judaism and, by extension, Christianity was moved along by 100,000 eyeball
witnesses at Sinai and an unbroken tradition re-telling the event. It might
be called 'hearsay,' but that sequence has as much validity as the reporting
in the New York Times.

Or take Islam. Mohammed received communication from God via a third-party
angel, but we know it happened because his 13(?) wives testified that it
did. I don't know why a prophet's wife is more believable than the prophet
himself, but there you are.

No, religion is rational. "Feelings" are not. That's why they're called
"feelings" instead of dyspepsia.

Douglas Johnson wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> not have to be the same process as US citizens. Except for a few, we have
>>> failed to provide them any judicial process.
>>
>> Wrong, wrong, wrong, and more wrong. There have been formal military tribunals
>> in GTMO with counsel present to act exclusively in defense of the accused.
>> This is not something your arch-nemesis W invented. Military tribunals in
>> such circumstances have a long and studied history in the United States.
>> Again, a history book might be in order. Note that I'm not saying I love this
>> as a way to handle the problem, merely that it is lawful and has precedent.
>
> You again presume ignorance on the people holding different views from you. You
> weaken your arguments by such disrespect.

Not so intended and I apologize if I came across that way.

>
> But first, the tribunals you discuss -- are they the ones that the Supreme Court
> outlawed in 2006? Or the 11 planned or held military commissions since? We
> still have 223 prisoners in limbo.

That's true, and like I said, secret tribunals are not my preferred mechanism.
(I'd prefer public military hearings followed by the death sentence for the
guilty with a publicly stated policy of feeding the remains to feral pigs
so that the convicted terrorist can spend eternity as pig excrement.)
But to listen to the Left, you'd think W had *invented* tribunals and it just
ain't so.

>
> I've read far more than one history book. Tribunals, including the one that
> convicted and hanged the Lincoln assassins lean towards expediency and away from
> justice.
>

Be that as it may, they have legal standing and precedent.

> -- Doug


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

evodawg wrote:
> Tom Veatch wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 01 May 2009 13:49:41 -0700, evodawg <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Remember him saying in a debate with Wolf Blixscreen, CNN he would choose
>>> someone with no legal qualifications, just an ordinary person. ...
>> Offered without further comment:
>>
>> "President Barack Obama pledged Friday to name a Supreme Court justice
>> who combines "empathy and understanding" with an impeccable legal
>> background..."
>>
>>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090501/ap_on_go_su_co/us_scotus_souter_retiring_37
>>
>> Tom Veatch
>> Wichita, KS
>> USA
>
> He also said, "I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about
> some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book." Abstract Legal
> Theory? Is he calling the Constitution Abstract? I'm wondering what he
> thinks the Supreme Court does? Read footnotes in a case book?
>
>

He doesn't *care* what SCOTUS is supposed to do. He and his fellow radicals
are hellbent on retooling the country to get around the limits on government
power imposed upon the Constitution. Step 1 - exploit every proximate emergency
to create a greater and greater roll for the snoopy Feds. Step 2 - Overplay,
exaggerate, and outright invent "crises" as needed such as Climate Change,
Healthcare access, the current piggie flu (which, to be fair, should be
affecting more Liberals than anyone), and so forth. Step 3 - Rewrite the
Constitution implicitly by appointing SCOTUS judges that will just make
it up as they go along.

Welcome to Soviet America...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Douglas Johnson wrote:
>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The Left and the Right talk past each other: The Left sees all the
>>> issues as crimes and constitution. The Right sees the issues as war
>>> problems. The 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments deal with "crimes" as in
>>> "In all criminal proceedings..." The Left asserts that detainees and
>>> everybody else are entitled to constitutional protections.
>>
>> The 5th amendment starts "No person shall..." so you'd think it
>> applies to more than just criminals. One of the independent clauses
>> continues " nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
>> due process of law..." No crime required.
>
>"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
>crime..."
>
>Sound like it applies to criminals to me.

Your reading comprehension skills have to be better than that. Certainly it
applies to criminals. But it also applies to all people, not just criminals,
particular in the clause I quoted.


>Habeas corpus is a judicial determination of whether the original sanction
>was proper. In virtually all cases, the finding is that the original
>incarceration (be it for civil contempt, contagion, juveniles, etc.) WAS
>proper. A habeas hearing is extremely rare because all of the instances I
>named, that take place many times a day, are proper.

All proper? In every instance? Nonsense. I know Habeas is fairly rare, but it
is still a crucial check and balance. If some bureaucrat can start locking
people up without the chance of judicial review, well, I'll try and save you a
seat in the cell.

>The president, or his designee, determines whether an individual is an
>unlawful enemy combatant.

Same point. You trust some bureaucrat to make that determination fairly without
any transparency or review?

-- Doug

On May 1, 9:40=A0pm, charlieb <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> > The tragedy here is that the Hopeium smokers still don't get what an in=
credible
> > menace this guy is. =A0It's what happens when the adults don't pay atte=
ntion
> > and drunks, drug addicts, and intellectual children control the vote...
>
> =A0 =A0 As opposed to the borderline illiterate, Born Again, ex- cocaine =
and
> alcohol
> =A0 =A0 abuser, oblivious of the world around him, borderline moron, Deer=
In
> The
> =A0 =A0 Headlights guy that the REAL Americans voted into the office last
> time?
>
> =A0 =A0 Or the Air Head that the same folks rallied behind as the vice
> presidential
> =A0 =A0 candidate for their party? =A0(I've got plenty of foreing policy
> experience
> =A0 =A0 - because I can SEE Russia from parts of MY state).

MY reaction to Sarah Palin is the desire to slap her on the ass and
ask her "WHO's your daddy?"
I don't care what anybody says, she is totally schtuppable.

Han wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>> And the country will pay literally and figuratively for all those
>>> maimed physically and mentally for decades and decades. Ask anyone
>>> caring for veterans.
>>>
>>> Oh the glory!
>>>
>> But we will pay - or our great grandchildren will
>
> Yes, thanks to uncontrolled financial systems systems and uncontrolled
> greed on all sides. And almost everyone is guilty, unless now they do
> hold a useful job and have a positive net worth at the bottom of this
> recession.
>
>> - far more for far longer to pick up the tab for Comrade Obama's
>> spending spree to get reelected ...
>
> You just should NOT have re-elected that fake Bush, who charmed YOU into
> a crusade against windmills instead of doing what should have been done.
> How much have the wars cost us to date? How much do you think are all
> those poor kids going to cost us for the next 50-60 years? Who reaped
> the war profits?
>

Nowhere near what Captain Feelgood is going to cost us.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On May 2, 9:50=A0pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> DGDevin wrote:
> > =A0It sure persuaded me, I was undecided until it
> > became clear how screamingly unsuitable she was, and with McCain's age =
and
> > health concerns there was no way I wanted her the proverbial heartbeat =
away
> > from the Oval Office.
>
> So you voted for the community organizer?
>
Why the disdain for a community organizer? Have you ever done any?

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

> Gore has already parlayed a net worth of $2M into $200M. This

That should read "$2M into $100M" ...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

HeyBub wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>> The biggest problem with a two-party system like yours, is that in
>> order to be in agreement with the NRA, you also have to buy into all
>> that other nut-bar whacko claptrap that comes with a Repuglican
>> membership.
>
> No, it's all branches on the same tree. You pick one of the following two
> basic positions:
>
> * The end justifies the means, or
> * No good can come from an immoral act.
>
> Almost everything flows from those two basic principles.
>
>
>
>

There is a third, much better, proposition:

- If an action is undertaken voluntarily by an adult and that
action harms no one else, it's none of the government's business.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Larry wrote:
>> Us radical centrists are having a hell of a time. We got
>> to enjoy the left-wingnuts ranting about Bush for eight
>> years (although truth be told at least he provided good
>> reason to rant) and now the right-wingnuts (while still
>> ignoring their party's abuses) foaming at the mouth over
>> Obama being a raving socialist who intends to destroy
>> America and sign over the deed to the UN blah blah blah.
>> Whatever happened to common sense, is it really the
>> endangered species it appears to be?
>>
>>
>>
>
> In Washington it is. As far as I can tell it's extinct...

But you can't tell. Lawrence J. Peter (founder of the "Peter Principle")
once said: "I have been studying government, man and boy, for over forty
years. I have yet to discover whether we are being led by well-meaning fools
or by really intelligent people who are just putting us on."

'Course Peter was a Canadian...

"Tom Watson" wrote:

> BTW - I located where they are getting their information from. I
> thought it was from rust limberger, bland cooter and faux news but
> here is the real think tank that their opinions come from:
>
> http://www.redstateupdate.com/video/100-damn-days

Shades of Johnny Carson's character, Floyd R Turbo, American.

Damn, I miss his humor.

Lew

LRod wrote:

> My nomination for Obama to place on the Supreme Court?
>
> Hillary Clinton.
>
> Just think of the permanent apoplexy that would throw Rush,
> Sean, Bill O'R, Ann, and any of your conservative
> acquaintances into.

I was disappointed enough by his decision to make her SecState, it had every
appearance of being a payoff for someone unqualified for the job because he
wanted to appease her faction and silence potential criticism from her and
that guy who technically is still her husband. A SCOTUS seat for Hillary?
No thanks.

"Tom Watson" wrote:

> Damn LRod, this oughta stir up the dumb asses.
>
> ...and they've been so quiet for the last hundred days, or so...

Hell Tom, not many of them left these days, just look at what your
senator did.

Good grief, Strom Thurman and his State's Right Dixiecrats had a
bigger coalition in 1948 than the Republicans have today with their
hard right ideology.

Lew


.

On Fri, 01 May 2009 21:50:49 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

>> Welcome to Soviet America...
>>
>>
>>
> Yep, exactly the reason that the founders established the limits on
> government that were set in the Constitution. Now this bunch wants to
> circumvent those limits and too many of the American people are willing
> to go along with that.

One can always depend on you and Tim for a bit of unintended hilarity.
Bush used the Bill of Rights for toilet paper for 8 years and you
defended him. Now that a Democrat is in office ...



--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

evodawg wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
>> On May 1, 6:20 pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Like Bush really cared about the Constitution while taking away our
>>>> rights over the last 8 years
>>>> CC
>>>
>>> What rights were taken away?
>>>
>>
>> The right to walk with your head held high...anywhere on this planet.

> hmmmm, I have no problem with walking with my head up high, sounds
> like a personal problem. You mean to tell me a president would have
> something to do with your self esteem?

Regrettably, for many, their sense of self-worth depends entirely on the
approbation of others. For the unfortunate many, their goal is to be loved
by as many as possible. The degree to which the rest of the world holds us
in esteem is more important than virtually anything else.

-MIKE- wrote:

> Robatoy wrote:
>> Apologist KoolAid again... Bush and his thugs did NOTHING to stave off
>> the crap you're all in...all he did was fatten the pockets of a few he
>> owed/sold his soul to.
>
> That's bullshit. As I already replied to you in this thread...
>
> It's well documented that the Bush administration sent over 18 warnings
> about the eminent Fannie/Freddie collapse over several years, to the
> appropriate congressional/senate committees.
>
> The laughable hearings are on youtube in which we see Barney Frank
> demonize the alarm ringers as racists and fear mongers, saying "there's
> nothing wrong with Fannie/Freddie" over and over again.
>
>

Have they put up the video of him now saying that he really thinks some
people shouldn't own homes, that was a Republican idea -- he supported
affordable quality rental housing all along?

If nothing else, you've got to give the little hypocrite credit for
audacity. Of course, with the main stream media being so far in the tank
for these guys, he's pretty much able to tell whatever lies he
wishes, "journalists" aren't going to bother to do any fact-checking


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

>>> He should just go ahead and select someone from the leadership
>>> of the Communist Party USA. He has all the votes he needs, why
>>> bother with even the slightest pretense of caring for the
>>> Constitution any longer...
>>
>> Whatever you're doing for a living today, you're wasting your
>> talents. Hollywood desperately needs comedy writers with your
>> abilities. And no, it won't even matter that you don't know you're
>> writing comedy, the shows will be just as funny if *you* take the
>> dialogue seriously.
>>
>>
>
> I have far too much integrity, ability, brains, and conscience to
> write for Hollywood.

Brilliant! Glad to see you've taken my suggestion to heart.