Little Suzy had a box of very small kittens that she was trying to give
away, so she had them out on the street corner with a sign "FREE KITTENS"
next to them.
Suddenly a big line of big black cars came up with a policeman on a
motorcycle in front. The cars all stopped and a tall man stepped out from
the biggest car.
"Hi, little girl, what do you have there in the box?" he asked.
"Kittens" Little Suzy says. "They're so small, their eyes are not even open
yet."
"What kind of kittens are they?" he asked.
"Democrats" says Little Suzy.
The tall man smiled, returned to his car and they drove away. Sensing a good
photo opportunity, Sen. Obama called his campaign manager and told him about
the little girl and the kittens. It was planned that they would return the
next day, have all the media there and tell everyone about these great
kittens. The next day, Little Suzy is standing out on the corner with her
box of kittens with the "FREE KITTENS" sign and the big motorcade of black
cars pulled up with all the vans and trucks from ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN.
Everyone had their cameras ready and then, Sen. Obama got out of his limo
and walked up to Little Suzy.
"Now, don't be frightened," he said, "I just want you to tell all these nice
news people just what kind of kittens you're giving away today."
"Yes sir," Suzy said, "The are all REPUBLICAN kittens."
Taken by surprise, Sen. Obama said, "But yesterday, you told me that they
were DEMOCRATS."
Little Suzy says, "Yes, I know. But today, they have their eyes open!
(eat your heart out, jo4hn!) ;)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/27/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Apr 20, 3:00 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 20, 2:12 pm, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 19, 10:49 pm, [email protected] (Rhonda G) wrote:
>
> > > Now I loved this...eyes opened now...He hee!! Smart girl..I posted it in
> > > my group..Hope you don't mind.. I am Rhonda and live in Missouri
>
> > > My Support and Friendly Group
> > > news:alt.discuss.clubs.public.family.support.trinity-faith2
>
> > > Friendly Christian Group
> > > news:alt.discuss.clubs.public.religion.protestant.louisa1930
>
> > Over the last seven years how many politicians have opened
> > their eyes and switched parties? Which way did each go?
>
> > --
>
> > FF
>
> You mean Lieberman?
No, because he has yet to join another party after leaving his
previous one.
--
FF
Now I loved this...eyes opened now...He hee!! Smart girl..I posted it in
my group..Hope you don't mind.. I am Rhonda and live in Missouri
My Support and Friendly Group
news:alt.discuss.clubs.public.family.support.trinity-faith2
Friendly Christian Group
news:alt.discuss.clubs.public.religion.protestant.louisa1930
On Apr 14, 10:37 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> charlie b wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Because both parties are bought and paid for.
>
That pretty much sums it up.
The (they) CAN-SPAM (you) ACT of 2003 (S-877) which was hastily
passed (almost but unanimously) by the Congress in the Fall of 2003,
specifically to pre-empt a California law [1] that actually made spam
illegal in California, is a good example of that.
Count on the Congress to keep the internet safe for spammers!
Yes, some spammer shave been successfully prosecuted,
under state and Federal Laws, but always for other crimes
incidental to spamming per se.
>
> > - a war which is bankrupting the country, both financially
> > and morally, is six years into it - with no end in site,
> > making things worse AND the guys we WERE after
> > and who were the excuse for this war - are still sitting
> > in the mountains of Pakistan
>
> Then Reason prevailed and someone who can do elementary
> math figured out that the cost for this is small
> compared to aforementioned entitlements.
It is the other costs of the war with Iraq that hurt us
so.
>
> > - we still have a president who thinks that health
> > care matters should be between the individual
> > and his or her doctor - oblivious to the fact that
> > pushing 50 million people don't have a doctor because
> > they can't afford to see one, even in an emergency
> > room
>
> Because a good many citizens are moochers who don't care
> that the Constitution provides no enumerated right for the
> Federal government to intervene in healthcare matters.
Excepting, of course, healthcare that is part of of or affects
interstate commerce. After all (as Thomas pointed out)
if the ICC can justify a Federa Law criminalizing the local
production and consumption of a agricultural commodity
that is not (legally) bought or sold at all, let alone accross
state lines, and which does not even compete with anything
bought or sold accross state lines, or for that matter, even
locally, then the ICC can be used to justify Federal jurisdiction
over almost anything.
> And, of course, healthcare SHOULDN't be between a doctor
> and their patients. It should be between a patient and
> their government - much like the DMV or TSA.
On that point both parties agree.
>
> > - the Bill of Rights now has so many "exceptions" thanks
> > to "signing statements" that we're down to just one
> > or two - and that's iffy.
Presidential signing statements do not exempt anyone
from anything. Their most obvious legal use would be
to demonstrate mens rea in an impeachment or
criminal prosecution.
>
> And we can thank both parties for this insofar as they
> supported the War On Drugs which set the standard for
> abusing civil liberties.
Uh, yeah. See above.
>
> > - we're doing things that in earlier days got people
> > convicted and executed as war criminals.
>
> Yes, embarassing people in a war zone prison is now the
> moral equivalent of sawing people's heads off.
Don't change the subject.
Dilawar and Habibulah were tortured to death over a
period of several days. At his court-marital Brant
stipulated that shortly before his death he struck one
of the victims FORTY times while his hands were
chained to the ceiling and his feet shackled to the floor.
For his role in murdering an innocent civilian Brant was
allowed to plead guilty to lesser included offenses, and
received a ridiculously light sentence that later was
further reduced--to honorable discharge!
I use Brant as an example because he received the
harshest punishment of any of the murderers convicted
at Baghram. When I compare their sentences to
those handed out to Grainer and others implicated in
far less serious crimes I conclude that Brant's actions
were at best, condoned, if not ordered.
How many nations beside the US forbid the ICRC from
visiting any of their prisons holding international prisoners?
>
> > - we've had 6 - or is it 7, Joint Chiefs of Staff Heads
>
> Because they serve at the pleasure of the CIC. This
> is still a better plan than letting the military have
> no accountability to civilian authority. It is, in fact,
> an entirely bogus issue.
The point, as you well know, is that the rank and file
of the officer corps of the US military is fed up at the
reckless, capricious and outright illegal acts of the
Bush administration.
Case in point: Five of the six acting Judge Advocates
General signed an open letter opposing passage of the
administrations proposed Military Commissions Act of
2006, all six testified against it during the Congressional
hearings. Not since the revolt of the admirals has there
been such opposition within the military to a CIC, not
even when a bona fide draft-dodger was in the oval office.
These men were not politicians, or pundits and plainly
they were NOT bucking for promotion. They were concientious
men, dedicated to the law, to the military, and to their
country who went right up to the point of insubordination
in their effort to wake this country up. To no avail, however.
If only at least one of them had big tits.
>
> > - thanks to some guy they call Rummy our military is
> > stretched to the snapping point - but their finally
> > getting some of the stuff they should have had
> > when they were told to go fight.
>
> Because the previous president was more interested in
> chasing tail than maintaining a rational defense posture.
> He not only gutted the military, he turned down the
> opportunity - multiple times - to take out the bad guy
> who precipitated this whole mess.
> When he did respond, he bombed aspirin factories.
>
That is a pack of lies.
The claim that the Clinton administration turned down
an offer to deliver bin Laden is a distortion of a supposed
offer by arms dealer who claims that he offered, for a fee,
to convince Bashir to extradite bin to Saudi Arabia (not the
US). Two reasons why the plan fell through include the
offeror's past history of failure (withou offering a refund) and the
Saudi King's refusal to cooperate. As Clinton pointed out,
at the time, the US had no intelligence implicating bin Laden
in plots against the US so there was no reason to even offer
to extradite him here.
AFTER bin Laden was implicated in the African embassy
bombings then Clinton later rescinded the prohibition on
assassination specifically for bin Laden. He established
a bin Laden task force to get him. There were four publicly
aknowledged attempts to kill or capture bin Laden during the
Clinton administration. Yet people like you criticized him
for trying to kill bin Laden and destroy his assets, calling it
'wagging the dog', and bombing aspirin factories. And
the Republicans held up funding for armed Predators so
that later when bin Laden was spotted by a Predator,
it was not possible to fire on him.
Bin Laden was implicated in the bombing of the Cole in
February, 2000, shortly after Bush took office. Within
six months, the bin Laden task force had been disbanded
and his name taken off of the official list of international
'terrorists'. I would not go so far as to suggest that was
payback to bin Laden for bombing the Cole, thereby embaressing
the Clinton administration (and by implication, the democrats
and Gore) thus helping to swing a close election to Bush.
But I do suspect that he was getting tired of the frequent
attempts on his life and wanted to see the administration
changed.
The military objectives in Bosnia and Kosovo were accomplished
with minimal casualties, and with the support and cooperation of
our NATO Allies. Those nations are now peaceful and prosperous--
at least compared with Iraq.
The rapid and successful Afghanistan Campaign illustrates the
capability of the US military at the end of the Clinton
Administration.
Need I remind you who it was who SENT US troops into
Somalia, when, and why?
> > - are still trying to see the logic in "You go to war
> > with the army you have." when YOU pick the war
> > and when to start it.
>
> Because, as we all know, war is a rational process
> that is managed with the genius of the Harvard and
> Yale faculty input, and implemented by Sean Penn
> talking dirty.
It was the Clinton Administration that began purchasing
the M1117 to replace the Humvee for use in areas where
personnel were at risk of coming under fire. Rumsfeld,
citing 'other priorities', CANCELED the program in 2002,
during the preparations for the invasion of Iraq 2002.
It was later resumed, not after the invasion began, not
after 'mission accomplished', not after the rise of the
insurgency, but only after the Bush administration began
to take heavy criticism for the poor protection afforded
US troops.
>
> > - some outfit called Bear Stearns, apparently a
> > BIGGEE in the financial game had to be rescued
> > from bankruptcy by the Federal Government
> > - there's a "Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis" that no
> > one who was supposed to see it coming saw
> > coming
>
> Because the greedy citizens decided that they had
> a right to own the property they wanted, not the
> one they could afford. When they got caught short,
> they demanded the Federal government - again with
> no enumerated power to do so - keep them in
> homes they could not afford.
>
Don't forget the greedy lenders who decided to
make mortgages with insufficient equity to cover
their risk in lending to marginal customers.
When they got caught short,
they demanded the Federal government
keep them in homes they obviously were not
competent or honest enough to manage.
Oh, and there is that pesky ICC thing again. There
is interstate commerce in the mortgage industry
after all.
>
> > - Enron had a significant part in setting our
> > national "energy policy" - then gouged the
> > crap out of California, took the money and
> > ran - then went bankrupt
> > :
> > :
> > :
> > :
>
> Because the state of California regulated one
> side of the energy supply chain while deregulating
> the other side. In so doing, they guaranteed
> economic failure which - given the profound
> economic stupidity of the citizenry - they then
> blamed on the oil bidness.
Enron committed fraud because they were
managed by criminals California regulations
had nothing to do with it. An entire slate of
witnesses testifying before the Congress lied
about meeting with Cheney because the Republicans
on the Committee unanimously voted to not
require that they testify under oath. It is still
a crime to lie in Congressional testimony, oath
or affirmation notwithwstanding. Oddly enough
however, the Bush DOJ did not pursue the matter.
>
> > - we had a president who can't pronounce the
> > word nuclear
>
> But who had better grades than the people who
> opposed him in the election cycle
Damn near dead even vs Kerry, and at the same school,
and within a few years of being the same time. They also
had virtually identical SAT scores. So it is reasonable
to conclude that they are close to equal in intelligence.
One may therefor also conclude that the appearance of
a difference in intelligence is an artifact of their choice of
how they appeal to those whom they regard as their
base voters.
So it would appear that Bush's handlers thought acting
dumb would make a favorable impression on those from
whom he needed votes.
> and who - for
> all his many shortcomings - has been completely
> consistent and honest in telling the population
> what he intended to do.
Bullshit and lies.
He asked for the Authorization for the Use of Military Force
against Iraq as a means to force Saddam Husseing to open
Iraq up to inspections and disarm. The implication was that
he would only invade in Hussein did not comply. Hussein
did comply. the UNMOVIC had 'unprecedented' (Blix's
exact words) access to Iraqi facilities including those that
had been off-limits to UNSCOM. For the first time ever,
inspectors used unescorted helicopters to arrive on site
within hours of receiving the latest intelligence. The IAEA
unambiguously declared Iraq to be in compliance with the
restrictions on nuclear materials. The yellowcake, reactor
fuel and other materials were still secure under IAEA seal at
Tuwaitha. Regarding the Iraqi missile program, Hussein
agreed to destroy missles that were, at worse, marginally
over the allowed limits. On the chemical and biological
weapons side, inspectors found no evidence of renewed
production or repaired facilities and were making progress
on documenting the destruction of earlier materials.
Then Bush declared that Iraq was obstructing the inspections,
when in fact it was the Bush adminstration that was obstructing
the inspections by foisting false information onto the inspectors,
and invaded anyways.
Bush said that anyone involved in leaking Valery Plame's
identity would be prosecuted, or at least fired, or maybe
asked to eventually resign, or no, maybe what he really
was saying all along was that anyone convicted of crimes
that obstructed the investigation would have his sentence
commuted, or maybe what he really said was he'll pardon
him.
You can tell a politician is lying because you can see his
(or her) lips move. If Bush has told us fewer lies than
other presidents that is mainly because he holds fewer
press conferences. Those he has told have been among
the costliest in our history. Only time will tell if they rise
to the level of Tonkin Bay.
>
> > The kittens are now independents - leaning
> > heavily away from the "republican" party.
>
> The kittens are now disgusted with BOTH parties
Give them a little more time and they will be disgusted
with ALL parties.
[1] (CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE DIVISION 7,
PART 3, CHAPTER 1 ARTICLE 1.8. Restrictions On Unsolicited
Commercial E-mail Advertisers-- Would have made it illegal to send
unsolicited commercial email (e.g. spam) to or from California. The
Federal (they) CAN SPAM (you) law merely imposes some trivially
met requirements on spammers in order to say legal.
--
FF
On Apr 14, 10:20 pm, "Lee Michaels" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...> In article <C42952D7.1214%[email protected]>, charlie b
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>- we had a president who can't pronounce the
> >> word nuclear
>
> > Neither could the one before him. And don't get me started on Jimmy
> > Carter.
> > Every time he tried to say it, it came out something like nuke-ie-er. No
> > hint
> > of an L anywhere.
>
> And he used to be a naval officer on a nuclear submarine too.
My experience in the nuclear industry led me to conclude
that in general veterans of the nuclear navy differed from
the public at large primarily by the confidence they had
in their misconceptions.
If I only had a nickel for every veteran who said depleted
Uranium is not radioactive.
--
FF
On Apr 14, 5:38 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > "Yes sir," Suzy said, "The are all REPUBLICAN kittens."
>
> > Taken by surprise, Sen. Obama said, "But yesterday, you told me that they
> > were DEMOCRATS."
>
> > Little Suzy says, "Yes, I know. But today, they have their eyes open!
>
> > (eat your heart out, jo4hn!) ;)
>
> There you go.
Ah, yes, Republicans. The people who gave us GWB and all his wonderful
accomplishments.
On Apr 16, 4:30 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 14, 10:39 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Lee Michaels wrote:
>
> >> ...
>
> >>> And he used to be a naval officer on a nuclear submarine too.
> >> Was he in contact with Hamas then too, I wonder?
>
> > Doubtful.
>
> > But as long as we are on that subject, let's not forget
> > Bush's false claim to be a supported of Democracy in
> > the Mid East. Hamas, evil as they are, were elected
> > in a free an fair election. To their credit, they also had
> > halted suicide bombings against Israel (and to their
> > credit the Israelis had reciprocated by halting helicopter
> > gunship attacks )
>
> > Hammas replaced the fractionated, and utterly corrupt
> > Fattah as the legitimately elected government in the
> > Palestinian Authority.
>
> > Bush refused to recognize the results of that free and
> > fair election. So it would seem that he only supports
> > Democracy when the voters elect people who meet
> > with his approval.
>
> > I would not go so far as to suggest that Hamas receive
> > anything beyond that recognition But denying it was not
> > a rejection of Democracy itself, plain and simple.
>
> > The support of Democracy demands that one accept the
> > election of devil himself, if he is fairly elected.
>
> "Democracy" as the term is ordinarily used by Western politicians
> implies the idea something more than just mob rule.
Indeed. As commonly used it implies a government whose
policies they like at the moment.
> In particular
> it implies the idea that the elected will serve the electorate
> to defend a free, just, and civil society.
We disagree. I daresay you are confabulating moral responsibility
with Democracy. A politician who is elected on the basis of lies
has no less a claim to office than an honest one.
> Yes, Hamas was
> democratically elected.
We agree.
> No, they are not defenders of freedom,
> justice, or civil behavior.
We agree.
> They are swine, and any American
> politician - in office or out - is similarly swine for having
> any discourse with them under the current circumstances.
We disagree both as to the utility of infantile name-calling and
the meaning behind your use thereof. Among other things we
want the Palestinian people and their government to recognize
the State of Israel. Had we recognized the Hamas government,
we could have demanded that the Palestinian people and
government recognize the State of Israel. Since we did not
recognize them, we had no one with whom to communicate
that demand.
>
> Carter has gone from being the nation's Sunday School teacher
> and (arguable) moral compass, to just another has been politician
> who misses the action.
>
He's got a lot more on the ball than you. Perhaps he
doesn't watch "the View".
--
FF
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> charlie b wrote:
>
> Not quite - the kittens wonder why they are considered
> cynical and accused of reaching for guns whenever
> times are tough. They look at their nation's history
> and realize that durable freedom comes from the citizens,
> not the government. That liberty comes from an honest,
> not entitled population. That the future is built on
> integrity, accountability, and self-reliance, not government
> handouts.
Exactly!
On Apr 16, 6:07 pm, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 10:04 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <C42952D7.1214%[email protected]>, charlie b <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >- we had a president who can't pronounce the
> > > word nuclear
>
> > Neither could the one before him. And don't get me started on Jimmy Carter.
> > Every time he tried to say it, it came out something like nuke-ie-er. No hint
> > of an L anywhere.
>
> Yeah, but Carter at least knew what it was.
Wheeeeee!
Seriously, there was a point during one of the 2004 Presidential
Debates when Bush began making a somewhat technical (and
technically correct) point about North Korea's nuclear program.
Then he caught himself and clammed up.
The man is NOT stupid. He does rely on the appearance of
stupidity to get a free pass for shit that no one else could.
The press has even given up on complaining about the absence
of news conferences.
--
FF
On Apr 20, 2:12=A0pm, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Apr 19, 10:49 pm, [email protected] (Rhonda G) wrote:
>
> > Now I loved this...eyes opened now...He hee!! Smart girl..I posted it in=
> > my group..Hope you don't mind.. I am Rhonda and live in Missouri
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 My Support and =A0Friendly Group
> > news:alt.discuss.clubs.public.family.support.trinity-faith2
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Friendly Christian Group
> > news:alt.discuss.clubs.public.religion.protestant.louisa1930
>
> Over the last seven years how many politicians have opened
> their eyes and switched parties? =A0Which way did each go?
>
> --
>
> FF
You mean Lieberman?
On Apr 14, 10:39 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lee Michaels wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > And he used to be a naval officer on a nuclear submarine too.
>
> Was he in contact with Hamas then too, I wonder?
>
Doubtful.
But as long as we are on that subject, let's not forget
Bush's false claim to be a supported of Democracy in
the Mid East. Hamas, evil as they are, were elected
in a free an fair election. To their credit, they also had
halted suicide bombings against Israel (and to their
credit the Israelis had reciprocated by halting helicopter
gunship attacks )
Hammas replaced the fractionated, and utterly corrupt
Fattah as the legitimately elected government in the
Palestinian Authority.
Bush refused to recognize the results of that free and
fair election. So it would seem that he only supports
Democracy when the voters elect people who meet
with his approval.
I would not go so far as to suggest that Hamas receive
anything beyond that recognition But denying it was not
a rejection of Democracy itself, plain and simple.
The support of Democracy demands that one accept the
election of devil himself, if he is fairly elected.
--
FF
"Robatoy" wrote
> > Swingman wrote:
> > >
> > > Little Suzy says, "Yes, I know. But today, they have their eyes open!
> > >
> > > (eat your heart out, jo4hn!) ;)
> > >
> >
> > Time for some rapier like repartee:
> >
> > oh YEAH!!?
> >
> You ruthless BASTARD!!
LOL ... I'm still reeling from the blow! :)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/27/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
You left off The Rest of The Story (as Paul Harvey would say)
A week later the little girl had a different response.
Seems these were pretty bright kittens. Once they could
see - and checked on the nations health and status in
the world they noted the following
- the budget surplus was gone and the national debt had
climbed at an alarming rate
- the price of oil, and therefore gasoline, had DOUBLED
- despite record making profits, oil companies were
getting "tax incentives" (read free money) to "help
them" develop new petro technologies and more oil
(which, based on the Alaska Pipeline boon doggle)
they'd sell mainly overseas
- the value of their hard earned dollar had dropped
quite a bit $1.25 for a Euro
- a war which is bankrupting the country, both financially
and morally, is six years into it - with no end in site,
making things worse AND the guys we WERE after
and who were the excuse for this war - are still sitting
in the mountains of Pakistan
- we still have a president who thinks that health
care matters should be between the individual
and his or her doctor - oblivious to the fact that
pushing 50 million people don't have a doctor because
they can't afford to see one, even in an emergency
room
- the Bill of Rights now has so many "exceptions" thanks
to "signing statements" that we're down to just one
or two - and that's iffy.
- we're doing things that in earlier days got people
convicted and executed as war criminals.
- we've had 6 - or is it 7, Joint Chiefs of Staff Heads
- thanks to some guy they call Rummy our military is
stretched to the snapping point - but their finally
getting some of the stuff they should have had
when they were told to go fight.
- are still trying to see the logic in "You go to war
with the army you have." when YOU pick the war
and when to start it.
- some outfit called Bear Stearns, apparently a
BIGGEE in the financial game had to be rescued
from bankruptcy by the Federal Government
- there's a "Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis" that no
one who was supposed to see it coming saw
coming
- Enron had a significant part in setting our
national "energy policy" - then gouged the
crap out of California, took the money and
ran - then went bankrupt
:
:
:
:
- we had a president who can't pronounce the
word nuclear
The kittens are now independents - leaning
heavily away from the "republican" party.
And now you know
The
Rest of The Story
Good Day!
In article <C42952D7.1214%[email protected]>, charlie b <[email protected]> wrote:
>- we had a president who can't pronounce the
> word nuclear
Neither could the one before him. And don't get me started on Jimmy Carter.
Every time he tried to say it, it came out something like nuke-ie-er. No hint
of an L anywhere.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Download Nfilter at http://www.milmac.com/np-120.exe
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Yes sir," Suzy said, "The are all REPUBLICAN kittens."
>
> Taken by surprise, Sen. Obama said, "But yesterday, you told me that they
> were DEMOCRATS."
>
> Little Suzy says, "Yes, I know. But today, they have their eyes open!
>
> (eat your heart out, jo4hn!) ;)
There you go.
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> On Apr 19, 10:49 pm, [email protected] (Rhonda G) wrote:
>> Now I loved this...eyes opened now...He hee!! Smart girl..I posted it in
>> my group..Hope you don't mind.. I am Rhonda and live in Missouri
>>
>> My Support and Friendly Group
>> news:alt.discuss.clubs.public.family.support.trinity-faith2
>>
>> Friendly Christian Group
>> news:alt.discuss.clubs.public.religion.protestant.louisa1930
>
> Over the last seven years how many politicians have opened
> their eyes and switched parties? Which way did each go?
You can filter the last seven years yourself:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_switching_in_the_United_States#Notable_party_switchers>
As to motives - they're politicians.
"evodawg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:W32Nj.9519$Q53.7800@trnddc08...
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Not quite - the kittens wonder why they are considered
>> cynical and accused of reaching for guns whenever
>> times are tough. They look at their nation's history
>> and realize that durable freedom comes from the citizens,
>> not the government. That liberty comes from an honest,
>> not entitled population. That the future is built on
>> integrity, accountability, and self-reliance, not government
>> handouts.
>>
> Best explanation I've heard in a long time. Here's my take on it. The
> Republicans are Democrats and the Democrats are Communist.
And you just put it into terms that a wood worker can understand.
The Jig saw was a Saber saw and the Scroll saw was a Jig saw.
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> Not quite - the kittens wonder why they are considered
> cynical and accused of reaching for guns whenever
> times are tough. They look at their nation's history
> and realize that durable freedom comes from the citizens,
> not the government. That liberty comes from an honest,
> not entitled population. That the future is built on
> integrity, accountability, and self-reliance, not government
> handouts.
>
Best explanation I've heard in a long time. Here's my take on it. The
Republicans are Democrats and the Democrats are Communist.
Rich
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
"charlie b" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:C42952D7.1214%[email protected]...
> You left off The Rest of The Story (as Paul Harvey would say)
>
> A week later the little girl had a different response.
>
> Seems these were pretty bright kittens. Once they could
> see - and checked on the nations health and status in
> the world they noted the following
>
> - the budget surplus was gone and the national debt had
> climbed at an alarming rate
> - the price of oil, and therefore gasoline, had DOUBLED
> - despite record making profits, oil companies were
> getting "tax incentives" (read free money) to "help
> them" develop new petro technologies and more oil
> (which, based on the Alaska Pipeline boon doggle)
> they'd sell mainly overseas
> - the value of their hard earned dollar had dropped
> quite a bit $1.25 for a Euro
> - a war which is bankrupting the country, both financially
> and morally, is six years into it - with no end in site,
> making things worse AND the guys we WERE after
> and who were the excuse for this war - are still sitting
> in the mountains of Pakistan
> - we still have a president who thinks that health
> care matters should be between the individual
> and his or her doctor - oblivious to the fact that
> pushing 50 million people don't have a doctor because
> they can't afford to see one, even in an emergency
> room
> - the Bill of Rights now has so many "exceptions" thanks
> to "signing statements" that we're down to just one
> or two - and that's iffy.
> - we're doing things that in earlier days got people
> convicted and executed as war criminals.
> - we've had 6 - or is it 7, Joint Chiefs of Staff Heads
> - thanks to some guy they call Rummy our military is
> stretched to the snapping point - but their finally
> getting some of the stuff they should have had
> when they were told to go fight.
> - are still trying to see the logic in "You go to war
> with the army you have." when YOU pick the war
> and when to start it.
> - some outfit called Bear Stearns, apparently a
> BIGGEE in the financial game had to be rescued
> from bankruptcy by the Federal Government
> - there's a "Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis" that no
> one who was supposed to see it coming saw
> coming
> - Enron had a significant part in setting our
> national "energy policy" - then gouged the
> crap out of California, took the money and
> ran - then went bankrupt
> :
> :
> :
> :
> - we had a president who can't pronounce the
> word nuclear
>
> The kittens are now independents - leaning
> heavily away from the "republican" party.
>
> And now you know
> The
> Rest of The Story
> Good Day!
>
AND the moral of the story is...thank goodness the Republicans are in
office. This looks like a walk in the park had the Dems been in there. ;~)
On Apr 14, 10:04 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <C42952D7.1214%[email protected]>, charlie b <[email protected]> wrote:
> >- we had a president who can't pronounce the
> > word nuclear
>
> Neither could the one before him. And don't get me started on Jimmy Carter.
> Every time he tried to say it, it came out something like nuke-ie-er. No hint
> of an L anywhere.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>
> Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
> by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
> You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
>
> Download Nfilter athttp://www.milmac.com/np-120.exe
Yeah, but Carter at least knew what it was.
On Apr 16, 4:58 pm, "Rod Jacobson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> > But as long as we are on that subject, let's not forget
> > Bush's false claim to be a supported of Democracy in
> > the Mid East. Hamas, evil as they are, were elected
> > in a free an fair election. To their credit, they also had
> > halted suicide bombings against Israel (and to their
> > credit the Israelis had reciprocated by halting helicopter
> > gunship attacks )
>
> You make some rather bizarre conclusions......One can readily ethically and
> morally support democracy without supporting "every" democracy.....history
> is replete with elected mistakes and worse!!!!!
I contend that support of Democracy requires that one
respect the rights of the electorate regardless of whether
or not YOU think they made a mistake.
Besides, how was it a mistake to elect their only alternative
to the completely corrupt and fractionated Fatah?
>
> > Hammas replaced the fractionated, and utterly corrupt
> > Fattah as the legitimately elected government in the
> > Palestinian Authority.
>
> Not all elections present good choices.
Correct and irrelevant.
> In general whom is more likely or
> able to reform..... a corrupt party or one whom is a avowed ideological
> terrorist organization?
Wrong question.
Who has the right to make that decision, the persons
being represented, or a foreigner such as you or I?
>
>
>
> > Bush refused to recognize the results of that free and
> > fair election. So it would seem that he only supports
> > Democracy when the voters elect people who meet
> > with his approval.
>
> Refusing support of a long time terrorist organization with a record of
> repeated murder and mayhem, with the express goal to exterminate a lawful
> country and those in it probably is not a bar set too high for general
> approval.
I NEVER said Hamas should be supported.
>
> > I would not go so far as to suggest that Hamas receive
> > anything beyond that recognition But denying it was not
> > a rejection of Democracy itself, plain and simple.
>
> > The support of Democracy demands that one accept the
> > election of devil himself, if he is fairly elected.
>
> Why?
Because if one rejects the result of a free and fair election
one rejects democracy itself.
> Hamas elected or not has no divine right at our recognition or
> respect...their past deeds, actions and current goals preclude such a
> outcome.
Does the electorate have rights?
> Who makes up these silly rules or demands? Rod
According to Thomas Jefferson, our Creator.
--
FF
charlie b wrote:
> You left off The Rest of The Story (as Paul Harvey would say)
>
> A week later the little girl had a different response.
>
> Seems these were pretty bright kittens. Once they could
> see - and checked on the nations health and status in
> the world they noted the following
>
> - the budget surplus was gone and the national debt had
> climbed at an alarming rate
Because over half the Federal budget was spent on
"Entitlements" - something not permitted under the
Constitution but which are guaranteed to bankrupt the nation.
> - the price of oil, and therefore gasoline, had DOUBLED
Because the Eco-tards believe that conservation involves
punishing oil companies, especially insofar as it involves
not building refineries.
> - despite record making profits, oil companies were
> getting "tax incentives" (read free money) to "help
> them" develop new petro technologies and more oil
> (which, based on the Alaska Pipeline boon doggle)
> they'd sell mainly overseas
Because both parties are bought and paid for.
> - the value of their hard earned dollar had dropped
> quite a bit $1.25 for a Euro
And thereby paying of Asian debt at a fraction of the
borrowed rate.
> - a war which is bankrupting the country, both financially
> and morally, is six years into it - with no end in site,
> making things worse AND the guys we WERE after
> and who were the excuse for this war - are still sitting
> in the mountains of Pakistan
Then Reason prevailed and someone who can do elementary
math figured out that the cost for this is small
compared to aforementioned entitlements.
> - we still have a president who thinks that health
> care matters should be between the individual
> and his or her doctor - oblivious to the fact that
> pushing 50 million people don't have a doctor because
> they can't afford to see one, even in an emergency
> room
Because a good many citizens are moochers who don't care
that the Constitution provides no enumerated right for the
Federal government to intervene in healthcare matters.
And, of course, healthcare SHOULDN't be between a doctor
and their patients. It should be between a patient and
their government - much like the DMV or TSA.
> - the Bill of Rights now has so many "exceptions" thanks
> to "signing statements" that we're down to just one
> or two - and that's iffy.
And we can thank both parties for this insofar as they
supported the War On Drugs which set the standard for
abusing civil liberties.
> - we're doing things that in earlier days got people
> convicted and executed as war criminals.
Yes, embarassing people in a war zone prison is now the
moral equivalent of sawing people's heads off.
> - we've had 6 - or is it 7, Joint Chiefs of Staff Heads
Because they serve at the pleasure of the CIC. This
is still a better plan than letting the military have
no accountability to civilian authority. It is, in fact,
an entirely bogus issue.
> - thanks to some guy they call Rummy our military is
> stretched to the snapping point - but their finally
> getting some of the stuff they should have had
> when they were told to go fight.
Because the previous president was more interested in
chasing tail than maintaining a rational defense posture.
He not only gutted the military, he turned down the
opportunity - multiple times - to take out the bad guy
who precipitated this whole mess. When he did respond,
he bombed aspirin factories.
> - are still trying to see the logic in "You go to war
> with the army you have." when YOU pick the war
> and when to start it.
Because, as we all know, war is a rational process
that is managed with the genius of the Harvard and
Yale faculty input, and implemented by Sean Penn
talking dirty.
> - some outfit called Bear Stearns, apparently a
> BIGGEE in the financial game had to be rescued
> from bankruptcy by the Federal Government
> - there's a "Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis" that no
> one who was supposed to see it coming saw
> coming
Because the greedy citizens decided that they had
a right to own the property they wanted, not the
one they could afford. When they got caught short,
they demanded the Federal government - again with
no enumerated power to do so - keep them in
homes they could not afford.
> - Enron had a significant part in setting our
> national "energy policy" - then gouged the
> crap out of California, took the money and
> ran - then went bankrupt
> :
> :
> :
> :
Because the state of California regulated one
side of the energy supply chain while deregulating
the other side. In so doing, they guaranteed
economic failure which - given the profound
economic stupidity of the citizenry - they then
blamed on the oil bidness.
> - we had a president who can't pronounce the
> word nuclear
But who had better grades than the people who
opposed him in the election cycle and who - for
all his many shortcomings - has been completely
consistent and honest in telling the population
what he intended to do. However right or wrong
he was (and he was both), he never wavered based
on the Arianna Huffington bloviation of the moment
or poll of the day. He's wrong about any number of
things, but he's many orders of magnitude more
honest than his opponents all of whom will do, say,
or pretend as necessary to get power for its own sake.
>
> The kittens are now independents - leaning
> heavily away from the "republican" party.
The kittens are now disgusted with BOTH parties
for their abandonment of the Constitution, the
elevation of Federal power, and the general tenor
of power at all costs. They are now reading
good Libertarian literature to get their nation
back from the stupid Republican party and the
very dangerous Democratic party.
>
> And now you know
> The
> Rest of The Story
> Good Day!
>
Not quite - the kittens wonder why they are considered
cynical and accused of reaching for guns whenever
times are tough. They look at their nation's history
and realize that durable freedom comes from the citizens,
not the government. That liberty comes from an honest,
not entitled population. That the future is built on
integrity, accountability, and self-reliance, not government
handouts.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
In article <[email protected]>,
jo4hn <[email protected]> wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
> [snip of mildly amusing stuff]
> >
> > Little Suzy says, "Yes, I know. But today, they have their eyes open!
> >
> > (eat your heart out, jo4hn!) ;)
> >
>
> Time for some rapier like repartee:
>
> oh YEAH!!?
>
You ruthless BASTARD!!
On Apr 19, 10:49 pm, [email protected] (Rhonda G) wrote:
> Now I loved this...eyes opened now...He hee!! Smart girl..I posted it in
> my group..Hope you don't mind.. I am Rhonda and live in Missouri
>
> My Support and Friendly Group
> news:alt.discuss.clubs.public.family.support.trinity-faith2
>
> Friendly Christian Group
> news:alt.discuss.clubs.public.religion.protestant.louisa1930
Over the last seven years how many politicians have opened
their eyes and switched parties? Which way did each go?
--
FF
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> But as long as we are on that subject, let's not forget
> Bush's false claim to be a supported of Democracy in
> the Mid East. Hamas, evil as they are, were elected
> in a free an fair election. To their credit, they also had
> halted suicide bombings against Israel (and to their
> credit the Israelis had reciprocated by halting helicopter
> gunship attacks )
You make some rather bizarre conclusions......One can readily ethically and
morally support democracy without supporting "every" democracy.....history
is replete with elected mistakes and worse!!!!!
> Hammas replaced the fractionated, and utterly corrupt
> Fattah as the legitimately elected government in the
> Palestinian Authority.
Not all elections present good choices. In general whom is more likely or
able to reform..... a corrupt party or one whom is a avowed ideological
terrorist organization?
>
> Bush refused to recognize the results of that free and
> fair election. So it would seem that he only supports
> Democracy when the voters elect people who meet
> with his approval.
Refusing support of a long time terrorist organization with a record of
repeated murder and mayhem, with the express goal to exterminate a lawful
country and those in it probably is not a bar set too high for general
approval.
> I would not go so far as to suggest that Hamas receive
> anything beyond that recognition But denying it was not
> a rejection of Democracy itself, plain and simple.
>
> The support of Democracy demands that one accept the
> election of devil himself, if he is fairly elected.
Why? Hamas elected or not has no divine right at our recognition or
respect...their past deeds, actions and current goals preclude such a
outcome. Who makes up these silly rules or demands? Rod
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> On Apr 14, 10:39 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Lee Michaels wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> And he used to be a naval officer on a nuclear submarine too.
>> Was he in contact with Hamas then too, I wonder?
>>
>
> Doubtful.
>
> But as long as we are on that subject, let's not forget
> Bush's false claim to be a supported of Democracy in
> the Mid East. Hamas, evil as they are, were elected
> in a free an fair election. To their credit, they also had
> halted suicide bombings against Israel (and to their
> credit the Israelis had reciprocated by halting helicopter
> gunship attacks )
>
> Hammas replaced the fractionated, and utterly corrupt
> Fattah as the legitimately elected government in the
> Palestinian Authority.
>
> Bush refused to recognize the results of that free and
> fair election. So it would seem that he only supports
> Democracy when the voters elect people who meet
> with his approval.
>
> I would not go so far as to suggest that Hamas receive
> anything beyond that recognition But denying it was not
> a rejection of Democracy itself, plain and simple.
>
> The support of Democracy demands that one accept the
> election of devil himself, if he is fairly elected.
>
"Democracy" as the term is ordinarily used by Western politicians
implies the idea something more than just mob rule. In particular
it implies the idea that the elected will serve the electorate
to defend a free, just, and civil society. Yes, Hamas was
democratically elected. No, they are not defenders of freedom,
justice, or civil behavior. They are swine, and any American
politician - in office or out - is similarly swine for having
any discourse with them under the current circumstances.
Carter has gone from being the nation's Sunday School teacher
and (arguable) moral compass, to just another has been politician
who misses the action.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
jo4hn wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
> [snip of mildly amusing stuff]
>>
>> Little Suzy says, "Yes, I know. But today, they have their eyes open!
>>
>> (eat your heart out, jo4hn!) ;)
>>
>
> Time for some rapier like repartee:
>
> oh YEAH!!?
>
>
> the very Idea!
> jo4hn
jo4hn, I was expecting something better from you.
Maybe along the lines of "So's your old man!"
;-)
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Lee Michaels wrote:
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In article <C42952D7.1214%[email protected]>, charlie b
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> - we had a president who can't pronounce the
>>> word nuclear
>> Neither could the one before him. And don't get me started on Jimmy
>> Carter.
>> Every time he tried to say it, it came out something like nuke-ie-er. No
>> hint
>> of an L anywhere.
>>
> And he used to be a naval officer on a nuclear submarine too.
>
>
>
Was he in contact with Hamas then too, I wonder?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <C42952D7.1214%[email protected]>, charlie b
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>- we had a president who can't pronounce the
>> word nuclear
>
> Neither could the one before him. And don't get me started on Jimmy
> Carter.
> Every time he tried to say it, it came out something like nuke-ie-er. No
> hint
> of an L anywhere.
>
And he used to be a naval officer on a nuclear submarine too.