Who the hell is Sarah Palin?
Jim Larson
--
Jim
Pat Welch
> Clever move, Johnny Mac. Your serve, Barackinator.
>
According to the Huffington Post blog, She's governor of Alaska, and a
Darth Vader/Dick Chenny wanna be with positions to the far right of
Attila the Hun.
Not a problem IMHO. Former Hillary supporters will run screaming away
from her when they find out her very far right positions.
-Pat
Jim Larson
I can't really see any long term sense in her selection. She has little
experience, holds reactionary views and brings no existing support base with
her. I don't know, maybe the fundies will like her, but it isn't as if they
were going to vote for Obama anyway.
--
Jim
Weirdwolf
news:Xns9B09B4D35B6B83v...@130.133.1.4:
But but but she has LADY bits!LADY BITS! This shows that McCain isn't
afraid to employ someone youthful and reforming no matter how difficult
it may be for her to get her pretty little head around matters because
she was never a POW! Well that is unless you don't count Wade vs Roe or
gun laws or well you get the picture. Remember she must be a reformer she
stopped the bridge to nowhere, isn't that description true of pretty much
all the bridges in Alaska by the way?
Be honest, McCain could have chosen satan as his VP and still win the
election, forgive me for my cynicism but I've got the feeling over the
last 20 odd years you lot couldn't pick a good un if your life depended
on it, and hey with China, Russia and the rise in foreign and domestic
terrorism and global climate change it sort of has done.
--
Stare too long into the abyss and the abyss looks like a nifty place to
hide the bodies
Tyler Trafford
I'm still unsure of how to reconcile my die-hard "don't trust anyone
over thirty" views with any of the available candidates.
--
Tyler Trafford
Let me take you a button-hole lower.
-- William Shakespeare, "Love's Labour's Lost"
Steve Brooks
"Weirdwolf" wrote
> Jim Larson wrote in
>> Pat Welch wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Larson wrote:
>>>> Clever move, Johnny Mac. Your serve, Barackinator.
>>>>
>>>
>>> According to the Huffington Post blog, She's governor of Alaska, and
>>> a Darth Vader/Dick Chenny wanna be with positions to the far right of
>>> Attila the Hun.
>>>
>>> Not a problem IMHO. Former Hillary supporters will run screaming away
>>> from her when they find out her very far right positions.
>>>
>>
>> I can't really see any long term sense in her selection. She has
>> little experience, holds reactionary views and brings no existing
>> support base with her. I don't know, maybe the fundies will like her,
>> but it isn't as if they were going to vote for Obama anyway.
>>
>
> But but but she has LADY bits!LADY BITS! This shows that McCain isn't
> afraid to employ someone youthful and reforming no matter how difficult
> it may be for her to get her pretty little head around matters because
> she was never a POW! Well that is unless you don't count Wade vs Roe or
> gun laws or well you get the picture. Remember she must be a reformer she
> stopped the bridge to nowhere, isn't that description true of pretty much
> all the bridges in Alaska by the way?
> Be honest, McCain could have chosen satan as his VP and still win the
> election, forgive me for my cynicism but I've got the feeling over the
> last 20 odd years you lot couldn't pick a good un if your life depended
> on it, and hey with China, Russia and the rise in foreign and domestic
> terrorism and global climate change it sort of has done.
ISTM it's a great time to be a VP either way.
McCain - elderly, already diagnosed with melanoma, likely to die of his own
accord.
Obama - slightly to the left of Attila the Hun, willing to consider social
reform, likely to be assassinated.
--
SB
Ken McElhaney
wrote:
> Pat Welch wrote:
> > Jim Larson wrote:
> >> Clever move, Johnny Mac. Your serve, Barackinator.
>
> > According to the Huffington Post blog, She's governor of Alaska, and a
> > Darth Vader/Dick Chenny wanna be with positions to the far right of
> > Attila the Hun.
In other words, a conservative. Love to know what the owners of the
Democratic Party...namely the Daily Kos 'n MoveOn.Org think of
her...perhaps Hitler without the mustache?
> > Not a problem IMHO. Former Hillary supporters will run screaming away
> > from her when they find out her very far right positions.
McCain is pro-life so many Hillary supporters wouldn't vote for him
anyway.
> I can't really see any long term sense in her selection. She has little
> experience, holds reactionary views and brings no existing support base with
> her.
The Republicans are now unified as her selection has woken up
conservatives who generally don't like McCain so it makes perfect
sense on that level. Being a "she" rather than a old rich white guy
helps, too.
And she certainly has more experience than Obama who has spent his few
years in the Senate running for President rather than learning
anything. If she gives a decent speech at the convention and doesn't
fold up to Joe "Blowhard" Biden's pontifications at the upcoming VP
debate, she at least won't hurt the ticket.
>I don't know, maybe the fundies will like her, but it isn't as if they
> were going to vote for Obama anyway.
The entire election is going to ride on how Obama does without a
telepromter at the debates, particularly the town hall one. Another
performance like the one he had at Saddleback and liberals across the
country can kiss the White House goodbye for another four years.
My advice to Obama, bring a teleprompter with you...even if it isn't
plugged in, it can give you hope...
Ken
Paul Richardson
"Tyler Trafford" <ttraffor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6hro8bF...@mid.individual.net...
intending to have the baby and marry the father is going to go down well
with the religious right? Might do better to perform those things in the
other order. I think she should have stuck to doing films, travel series and
Monty Python reruns.
--
Paul R
I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts
Jim Larson
From the LA Times article on this :
"Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew
would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned," Sarah and Todd Palin
said in a statement issued by the McCain campaign.
"We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to
become grandparents. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she
knows she has our unconditional love and support."
No offense to the family and all, but: BAAAAAAAWAAAAAAHAAAAAAA!!!!!!
> intending to have the baby and marry the father is going to go down well
> with the religious right? Might do better to perform those things in the
> other order. I think she should have stuck to doing films, travel series
> and Monty Python reruns.
The lumberjack song applies better than ever...
--
Jim
Weirdwolf
You know I'm sure that in the background to that statement I could heare
the soft clicking of a shotgun being cocked.
I fully expect photo's of the nervous pale and sweaty, callow youth
being held in place next to the alter rail by an extremely large secret
service man acting as his "best man" to surface anytime soon.
I do hope that she was a member of the stupid promise keepers thingy or
whatever they call it, might finally get people to realise that
abstinence only teaching isn't working.
I would feel sorry for the poor girl, but lets face it she isn't going
to face the same problems in that situation that some 17 year old kid in
the projects with no schooling,job or rich family to back her up is going
to have to deal with.
John Iwaniszek
It's interesting how they couch the situation as a choice made by
Bristol. Of course, the religious nut-bags would deny that choice to
everyone else. Also, Palin is on record supporting Abstinence-only sex
education and being absoulutely against medically based sex-ed with
discussions of controceptives. These people are a real menace.
And what kind of mother would allow her minor child to get married just
because she is pregnant? The boy has already demonstrated some fairly
irresponsible behavior and the girl is clearly not ready to make these
kinds of decisions.
Jim Larson
Apparently the evangelicals are loving it. I'm confused. Had she been a
democrat, would her daughter not have been labeled a whore by this point
rather than the poster child for pro-life?
--
Jim
Paul Richardson
"Jim Larson" <larsonjmR.E.M.O.V.E.@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9B0CD2D6C9BEC3v...@130.133.1.4...
Obviously the next campaign is going to be Just say I've got a headache
John Iwaniszek
Those people are just idiots. And what's worse is that they think we are
just as stupid.
Paul Richardson
"John Iwaniszek" <n...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9B0DC30DB1...@85.214.90.236...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9d_gxG5AuM&feature=related
brou...@aol.com
> Jim Larson <larsonjmR.E.M.O.V...@charter.net> wrote innews:Xns9B0C7C78C5BBE3v...@130.133.1.4:
>
>
>
> > Paul Richardson wrote:
>
> >> "Tyler Trafford" <ttrafford+use...@gmail.com> wrote in message
no doubt about it. stupid to have them get married since it's highly
unlikely to stick. especially since the couple had apparently broken
up before she got pregnant.
> I do hope that she was a member of the stupid promise keepers thingy or
> whatever they call it, might finally get people to realise that
> abstinence only teaching isn't working.
according to some of the newcasters reporting for the gop convention
handing out condoms doesn't work either.
> I would feel sorry for the poor girl, but lets face it she isn't going
> to face the same problems in that situation that some 17 year old kid in
> the projects with no schooling,job or rich family to back her up is going
> to have to deal with.
right she probably didn't have the idea behind her decision to "get me
a baby so i can get me some money". (direct quote from a girl at my
daughter's school)
and no one says if you get pregnant you have to keep the baby. give it
up for adoption if you don't want it.
Penni
brou...@aol.com
yes we are. we don't believe in murdering someone just because "mama"
couldn't excercise self control and keep her legs together and "daddy"
couldn't keep it in his pants. you don't want the kid give it up for
adoption.
one of the problems as i see it is when they teach sex ed in schools
they don't bother to let kids know that the main reason for sex is
procreation. (not the only reason, but the main one) they need to let
kids know that they can use all the contraception they want but
chances are still good that there will be a pregnancy somewhere along
the way.
>
> And what kind of mother would allow her minor child to get married just
> because she is pregnant? The boy has already demonstrated some fairly
> irresponsible behavior and the girl is clearly not ready to make these
> kinds of decisions.
a stupid one.
Penni
brou...@aol.com
wrote:
> John Iwaniszek wrote:
> > Weirdwolf wrote:
>
i wouldn't say we're exactly loving it. people do stupid things.
that's where forgiveness comes in. and i wouldn't call her a poster
child for pro-life. poster child for being a stupid teenager or how to
screw up your life yes. as for myself if it were one of obama's
daughters (if they were the same age as palin's daughter) i'd have the
same reaction - it's the family's problem and you can tell a kid not
to do something until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't mean
that they'll listen to you.
if my daughter came home pregnant (kelsey's 17) she knows that i would
be upset and disappointed in her, but she also knows that she still
has my unconditional love. i'm her mom that 's the way it works. would
i encourage her to to keep the baby, nope. i'd be pushing for
adoption.
Penni
Mark Morrison
>if my daughter came home pregnant (kelsey's 17) she knows that i would
>be upset and disappointed in her, but she also knows that she still
>has my unconditional love. i'm her mom that 's the way it works. would
>i encourage her to to keep the baby, nope. i'd be pushing for
>adoption.
But, but, but - Nanny Penni !!!!
John Iwaniszek
Tell it to the hand, Penni:
"ST. PAUL -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential
nominee who revealed Monday that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant,
earlier this year used her line-item veto to slash funding for a state
program benefiting teen mothers in need of a place to live."
Weirdwolf
426a0b...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
But Palin is not just against the right to terminate in this case, she is
against all terminations including those cases of rape, incest and danger to
the health of the mother.
Why on earth would you force someone to go through 9 months of pregnancy in
that case, I've helped victims of rape and incest and it is a terrible,
terrible crime making them go through a pregnancy and giving up a baby is
just punishing the wrong person.
I've had friends go through the adoption/fostering process and while it is
getting better they have some awful stories to tell, things I would never
wish to put a child through. Just saying put it up for adoption and
possibly a life in institutional care and the emotional effects it has on a
child is just as much of a cop out as saying have an abortion. The
difference being two lives are ruined and not just one, because while you
may see it as murder we both know that it is just the potential for a child,
60%-ish of fertilized ova spontaneously abort through factors such as
genetic abonormalities,improper implantation etc many many more than the
number of abortions performed in the U.S.
It's fine if your religious beliefs tell you not to have an abortion, I can
live with that, but when you start enforcing that rule on other people
that's when I start to worry.
brou...@aol.com
> "broug...@aol.com" <broug...@aol.com> wrote in news:61f7aeb7-0c4c-4cda-9fb9-
> 426a0b72a...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
has she actually come out and said she was against termination in
those cases? the last statistic i saw said that rape, incest and
endangerment to the mother's life constituted less than 1% of all
abortions performed. as far as i know endangerment to the mother's
life has always been a legal reason for abortion.
> Why on earth would you force someone to go through 9 months of pregnancy in
> that case, I've helped victims of rape and incest and it is a terrible,
> terrible crime making them go through a pregnancy and giving up a baby is
> just punishing the wrong person.
so punish the child. it couldn't help how it was conceived.
> I've had friends go through the adoption/fostering process and while it is
> getting better they have some awful stories to tell, things I would never
> wish to put a child through. Just saying put it up for adoption and
> possibly a life in institutional care and the emotional effects it has on a
> child is just as much of a cop out as saying have an abortion.
it's been made ridiculously hard to adopt in this country. if they
lessened some of the restrictions (having to have how many months
salary in the bank) we would probably have a lot more people adopting.
if those of us who had children naturally had to go through the same
hoops to have children there would be a much lower population here.
and yes i've heard horror stories about kids in foster care and even
some adoption horror stories, but how many of them have overcome those
circumstances and gone on to lead great lives.
so you're saying better to be dead than to have a life even a bad one.
The
> difference being two lives are ruined and not just one, because while you
> may see it as murder we both know that it is just the potential for a child,
> 60%-ish of fertilized ova spontaneously abort through factors such as
> genetic abonormalities,improper implantation etc many many more than the
> number of abortions performed in the U.S.
the key words being spontaneous. it wasn't one person deliberately
taking another's life.
last stat i heard for abortions performed in this country over
20,000,000.
> It's fine if your religious beliefs tell you not to have an abortion, I can
> live with that, but when you start enforcing that rule on other people
> that's when I start to worry.
funny how most people were able to live with those rules up until the
1970s.
Penni
Weirdwolf
@x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, brou...@aol.com says...
From the Anchorage Daily News,(the video is on the net):
The candidates were pressed on their stances on abortion and were even
asked what they would do if their own daughters were raped and became
pregnant.
Palin said she would support abortion only if the mother's life was in danger. When it came to her daughter, she said, "I would choose life."
She is a member of anti-abortion groups and has stated on more than one
occasion that she is totally opposed to the practice only grudgingly
allowing them if the mother was going to die.
"In an Eagle Forum Alaska questionnaire filled out during the 2006
gubernatorial race, Palin again stated that she is against abortion
unless a doctor determined that a mother's life would end due to the
pregnancy."
> > Why on earth would you force someone to go through 9 months of pregnancy in
> > that case, I've helped victims of rape and incest and it is a terrible,
> > terrible crime making them go through a pregnancy and giving up a baby is
> > just punishing the wrong person.
>
> so punish the child. it couldn't help how it was conceived.
And this is the fundamental difference in our views, it's not a child
to me but a small bundle of cells with the potential to become a child.
Even if an abortion isn't performed, the child will suffer from the
actions of its father, do you really think that a mother would treat a
child from a rape or incest the same as a child from a loving
relationship?
> > I've had friends go through the adoption/fostering process and while it is
> > getting better they have some awful stories to tell, things I would never
> > wish to put a child through. Just saying put it up for adoption and
> > possibly a life in institutional care and the emotional effects it has on a
> > child is just as much of a cop out as saying have an abortion.
>
> it's been made ridiculously hard to adopt in this country. if they
> lessened some of the restrictions (having to have how many months
> salary in the bank) we would probably have a lot more people adopting.
> if those of us who had children naturally had to go through the same
> hoops to have children there would be a much lower population here.
The hoops were put it because of some terrible crimes committed against
children, abuse was endemic in childrens homes and foster families. I
personally find it hard to accept the religious rights complaints about
protecting children and making it easier to adopt when they object at
every turn to gay couples or unmarried couples who are in stable happy
relationships from adopting.
> and yes i've heard horror stories about kids in foster care and even
> some adoption horror stories, but how many of them have overcome those
> circumstances and gone on to lead great lives.
>
> so you're saying better to be dead than to have a life even a bad one.
But they would not have existed it's not like you are snuffing out
little Dennis down the road,(although that little git deserves it what
with his catapult,backchat,silly haircut and the questions always the
questions!) they aren't people they have the potential to become people
but in this case it's just a bundle of cells.
> The
> > difference being two lives are ruined and not just one, because while you
> > may see it as murder we both know that it is just the potential for a child,
> > 60%-ish of fertilized ova spontaneously abort through factors such as
> > genetic abonormalities,improper implantation etc many many more than the
> > number of abortions performed in the U.S.
>
> the key words being spontaneous. it wasn't one person deliberately
> taking another's life.
So I take it that you are against all abortions, the death penalty and
warfare?
> last stat i heard for abortions performed in this country over
> 20,000,000.
Even if that figure was correct, and it isn't by the way and by a huge
factor:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/16/AR2008011603624.html
Nobody is saying that abortion is a good form of contraception and it
should only happen if all other methods fail. But not teaching people
about contraception and advocating abstinence only is removing the the
most important factor in stopping people from requiring an abortion a
knowledge and ability to use contraception correctly.
> > It's fine if your religious beliefs tell you not to have an abortion, I can
> > live with that, but when you start enforcing that rule on other people
> > that's when I start to worry.
>
> funny how most people were able to live with those rules up until the
> 1970s.
>
Now that is an obvious untruth, people were getting illegal abortions
for decades before then and you know it. Not only that but women were
being made infertile and dying from unscrupulous back street abortions a
situation which is still going on and would become worse if Roe vs Wade
was reversed.
The U.S. has had pro-abortion legislation before the 1970's by the way.
However all that put aside,even as a good christian you know that you
don't obey all the laws in the bible,(you'd go insane trying,) just like
social views, biblical interpretations have changed over the years. So
just as we no longer own slaves and can't beat our wives, I would no
longer have to marry my sister in law if my brother dies and can be
fairly sure that I will not be burned at the stake as an apostate. A
situation I'm sure at least I and I hope you would agree, is a change
for the better.
--
"I like the way you express yourself too, y'know, it's pithy yet
degenerate"
Woody Allen, Manhattan
John Iwaniszek
Also, note that the language Palin and her surrogates use. It's always
couched as a choice. The religious nut-bags always reserve the choice
for themselves, but want to deny it for everyone else.
It's not just the right to terminate pregnancies that they are against.
They are against medically based sex education and information about
contraception. They also lie about certain forms of contraception (the
pill) claiming it works by causing abortions. They aren't simply anti-
abortion: They are anti-female agency. It boils down to controling
female reproduction.
Another strange thing: They've controlled the US government for nearly 8
years. Yet they have done nothing to outlaw abortions on a national
scale. The two reasons for this is very clear. The majority of
Americans support the right to choose, and if they lose choice as an
issue they lose the biggest rallying cry and fundraising tool they have.
It is purely political calculation on the part of the fundies and their
GOP enablers.
John Iwaniszek
> In article <4ee202c4-e642-4e3b-a800-2e85a7261349
> @x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, brou...@aol.com says...
>> On Sep 3, 3:18 pm, Weirdwolf <h...@hooowl.com> wrote:
>>> "broug...@aol.com" <broug...@aol.com> wrote in
>>> news:61f7aeb7-0c4c-4cda- 9fb9-
>>> 426a0b72a...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Sep 1, 6:35 pm, John Iwaniszek <n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Weirdwolf wrote:
>>>>>> Jim Larson <larsonjmR.E.M.O.V...@charter.net> wrote in
>>>>>> news:Xns9B0C7C78C5BBE3v...@130.133.1.4:
>>>
>>>>>>> Paul Richardson wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> "Tyler Trafford" <ttrafford+use...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:6hro8bF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>>> Weirdwolf wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Jim Larson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Pat Welch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jim Larson wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Clever move, Johnny Mac. Your serve, Barackinator.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> According to the Huffington Post blog, She's governor of
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ala ska, and a Darth Vader/Dick Chenny wanna be with
>>>>>>>>>>>> positions to the far right of Attila the Hun.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not a problem IMHO. Former Hillary supporters will run
>>>>>>>>>>>> screa ming away from her when they find out her very far
>>>>>>>>>>>> right position s.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I can't really see any long term sense in her selection. She
>>>>>>>>>>> has little experience, holds reactionary views and brings no
>>>>>>>>>>> exis ting support base with her. I don't know, maybe the
>>>>>>>>>>> fundies will l ike her, but it isn't as if they were going
>>>>>>>>>>> to vote for Obama any way.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But but but she has LADY bits!LADY BITS! This shows that
>>>>>>>>>> McCai n isn't afraid to employ someone youthful and reforming
>>>>>>>>>> no matte r how difficult it may be for her to get her pretty
>>>>>>>>>> little head around matters because she was never a POW! Well
>>>>>>>>>> that is unles s you don't count Wade vs Roe or gun laws or
>>>>>>>>>> well you get the picture. Remember she must be a reformer she
>>>>>>>>>> stopped the bridg e to nowhere, isn't that description true
>>>>>>>>>> of pretty much all the bridges in Alaska by the way?
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Be honest, McCain could have chosen satan as his VP and sti
>>>>>>>>>> ll wi n the election, forgive me for my cynicism but I've got
>>>>>>>>>> the feel ing over the last 20 odd years you lot couldn't pick
>>>>>>>>>> a good un if your life depended on it, and hey with China,
>>>>>>>>>> Russia and the rise i n foreign and domestic terrorism and
>>>>>>>>>> global climate change it so rt of has done.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm still unsure of how to reconcile my die-hard "don't trust
>>>>>>>>> anyone over thirty" views with any of the available
>>>>>>>>> candidates.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Shirley the fact that Palin's 17 year old daughter is knocked
>>>>>>>> up and
>>>
>>>>>>> From the LA Times article on this :
>>>
>>>>>>> "Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as
>>>>>>> pare nts we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever
>>>>>>> planned," Sarah and Todd Palin said in a statement issued by the
>>>>>>> McCain campaign.
>>>
>>>>>>> "We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even
>>>>>>> prou der to become grandparents. As Bristol faces the
>>>>>>> responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our
>>>>>>> unconditional love and support."
>>>
>>>>>>> No offense to the family and all, but:
>>>>>>> BAAAAAAAWAAAAAAHAAAAAAA!!! !!!
>>>
>>>>>> You know I'm sure that in the background to that statement I co
>>>>>> uld heare the soft clicking of a shotgun being cocked.
>>>>>> I fully expect photo's of the nervous pale and sweaty, callow y
>>>>>> outh being held in place next to the alter rail by an extremely
>>>>>> large secret service man acting as his "best man" to surface
>>>>>> anytime soo n. I do hope that she was a member of the stupid
>>>>>> promise keepers thin gy or whatever they call it, might finally
>>>>>> get people to realise that abstinence only teaching isn't
>>>>>> working. I would feel sorry for the poor girl, but lets face it
>>>>>> she isn' t going to face the same problems in that situation
>>>>>> that some 17 year old kid in the projects with no schooling,job
>>>>>> or rich family to back her u p is going to have to deal with.
>>>
>>>>> It's interesting how they couch the situation as a choice made by
>>>>> Bristol. Of course, the religious nut-bags would deny that choice
>>>>> to everyone else. Also, Palin is on record supporting
>>>>> Abstinence-onl y sex education and being absoulutely against
>>>>> medically based sex-ed with discussions of controceptives. These
>>>>> people are a real menace.
>>>
>>>> yes we are. we don't believe in murdering someone just because
>>>> "mama" couldn't excercise self control and keep her legs together
>>>> and "daddy " couldn't keep it in his pants. you don't want the kid
>>>> give it up for adoption.
>>>
>>> But Palin is not just against the right to terminate in this case,
>>> she is against all terminations including those cases of rape,
>>> incest and dang er to the health of the mother.
>>
>> has she actually come out and said she was against termination in
>> those cases? the last statistic i saw said that rape, incest and
>> endangerment to the mother's life constituted less than 1% of all
>> abortions performed. as far as i know endangerment to the mother's
>> life has always been a legal reason for abortion.
>
> From the Anchorage Daily News,(the video is on the net):
>
> The candidates were pressed on their stances on abortion and were even
> asked what they would do if their own daughters were raped and became
> pregnant.
>
> Palin said she would support abortion only if the mother's life was in
> danger. When it came to her daughter, she said, "I would choose life."
> She is a member of anti-abortion groups and has stated on more than
> one
> occasion that she is totally opposed to the practice only grudgingly
> allowing them if the mother was going to die.
> "In an Eagle Forum Alaska questionnaire filled out during the 2006
> gubernatorial race, Palin again stated that she is against abortion
> unless a doctor determined that a mother's life would end due to the
> pregnancy."
>
>>> Why on earth would you force someone to go through 9 months of
>>> pregn ancy in that case, I've helped victims of rape and incest and
>>> it is a terrible, terrible crime making them go through a pregnancy
>>> and giving up a baby is just punishing the wrong person.
>>
>> so punish the child. it couldn't help how it was conceived.
>
> And this is the fundamental difference in our views, it's not a child
> to me but a small bundle of cells with the potential to become a
> child. Even if an abortion isn't performed, the child will suffer from
> the actions of its father, do you really think that a mother would
> treat a child from a rape or incest the same as a child from a loving
> relationship?
>
>>> I've had friends go through the adoption/fostering process and
>>> while it is getting better they have some awful stories to tell,
>>> things I would nev er wish to put a child through. Just saying put
>>> while y ou may see it as murder we both know that it is just the
>>> potential for a c hild, 60%-ish of fertilized ova spontaneously
>>> abort through factors such as genetic abonormalities,improper
>>> implantation etc many many more than th e number of abortions
>>> performed in the U.S.
>>
>> the key words being spontaneous. it wasn't one person deliberately
>> taking another's life.
>
> So I take it that you are against all abortions, the death penalty and
> warfare?
>
>> last stat i heard for abortions performed in this country over
>> 20,000,000.
>
> Even if that figure was correct, and it isn't by the way and by a
> huge
> factor:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/16/AR20080
> 11603624.html
> Nobody is saying that abortion is a good form of contraception and it
> should only happen if all other methods fail. But not teaching people
> about contraception and advocating abstinence only is removing the the
> most important factor in stopping people from requiring an abortion a
> knowledge and ability to use contraception correctly.
>
Palin's daughter's situation being the prime example of this. Palin has
a perfect score on the Eagle Forum's Sex Ed questionnaire. Palin is
against any kind of sex ed except "Don't have sex." That worked out very
well, for them, didn't it?
She's a nut. To pretend otherwise is to insult one's intelligence.
brou...@aol.com
> In article <4ee202c4-e642-4e3b-a800-2e85a7261349
having given birth to two children i can tell you they have very
distinct personalities very early on in the pregnancy.
if the child never knows about the father and was given up for
adoption how does the father's actions affect the child? and there are
mother's who have given birth to children of rape and incest and loved
each child the same. you also have children conceived in a "loving"
home same father and yet favoritism exists. it's something i check
myself on all the time, am i favoring one of my kids over the other. i
have been known to tell each kid their my favorite one right after the
other. : )
>
> > > I've had friends go through the adoption/fostering process and while it is
> > > getting better they have some awful stories to tell, things I would never
> > > wish to put a child through. Just saying put it up for adoption and
> > > possibly a life in institutional care and the emotional effects it has on a
> > > child is just as much of a cop out as saying have an abortion.
>
> > it's been made ridiculously hard to adopt in this country. if they
> > lessened some of the restrictions (having to have how many months
> > salary in the bank) we would probably have a lot more people adopting.
> > if those of us who had children naturally had to go through the same
> > hoops to have children there would be a much lower population here.
>
> The hoops were put it because of some terrible crimes committed against
> children, abuse was endemic in childrens homes and foster families. I
> personally find it hard to accept the religious rights complaints about
> protecting children and making it easier to adopt when they object at
> every turn to gay couples or unmarried couples who are in stable happy
> relationships from adopting.
the problem is there are good people who want to adopt but can't
because of the hoops. it's something that needs to be looked into but
probably won't as for foster care i'll admit i'm not exactly sure how
to deal with it. there are good foster parents and lousy ones. just
like there are good real parents and lousy ones.
>
> > and yes i've heard horror stories about kids in foster care and even
> > some adoption horror stories, but how many of them have overcome those
> > circumstances and gone on to lead great lives.
>
> > so you're saying better to be dead than to have a life even a bad one.
>
> But they would not have existed it's not like you are snuffing out
> little Dennis down the road,(although that little git deserves it what
> with his catapult,backchat,silly haircut and the questions always the
> questions!) they aren't people they have the potential to become people
> but in this case it's just a bundle of cells.
>
> > The
> > > difference being two lives are ruined and not just one, because while you
> > > may see it as murder we both know that it is just the potential for a child,
> > > 60%-ish of fertilized ova spontaneously abort through factors such as
> > > genetic abonormalities,improper implantation etc many many more than the
> > > number of abortions performed in the U.S.
>
> > the key words being spontaneous. it wasn't one person deliberately
> > taking another's life.
>
> So I take it that you are against all abortions, the death penalty and
> warfare?
i'm not against abortions in the case of saving the mother's life.
this is a non-issue to me. rape and incest i can understand the women
getting an abortion, i just don't condone it. i'd rather have the
child given up for adoption. i'm for the death penalty, but you better
make darn sure the person is guilty beyond any doubt. as for warfare
yes to fighting for the lives of my family, friends and to protect our
country, no to fighting to save some oil companies overseas
operations.
>
> > last stat i heard for abortions performed in this country over
> > 20,000,000.
>
> Even if that figure was correct, and it isn't by the way and by a huge
> factor:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/16/AR200...
> Nobody is saying that abortion is a good form of contraception and it
> should only happen if all other methods fail. But not teaching people
> about contraception and advocating abstinence only is removing the the
> most important factor in stopping people from requiring an abortion a
> knowledge and ability to use contraception correctly.
the figure was for abortions performed in this country since it was
legalized. not for a yearly count.
i'm not saying don't teach about other forms of contraception. what
i'm saying is teach kids that the only contraception that is 100%
infallable is abstinence. let them know good or poorly the other ones
work. i can remember condoms being the least reliable when they taught
sex ed in school.
>
> > > It's fine if your religious beliefs tell you not to have an abortion, I can
> > > live with that, but when you start enforcing that rule on other people
> > > that's when I start to worry.
>
> > funny how most people were able to live with those rules up until the
> > 1970s.
>
> Now that is an obvious untruth, people were getting illegal abortions
> for decades before then and you know it. Not only that but women were
> being made infertile and dying from unscrupulous back street abortions a
> situation which is still going on and would become worse if Roe vs Wade
> was reversed.
and yet women are still being made infertile and dying from front
street abortions. maybe not as many but it's still happening. in 7
states you don't have to be a doctor to perform an abortion. also many
women chose not to have abortions because it was illegal and they
weren't willing to take a chance in the back streets. now the attitude
seems to be "well if i get pregnant i can always get an abortion".
> The U.S. has had pro-abortion legislation before the 1970's by the way.
> However all that put aside,even as a good christian you know that you
> don't obey all the laws in the bible,(you'd go insane trying,) just like
> social views, biblical interpretations have changed over the years.
which shouldn't happen. if you change it to suit your views as opposed
to what God actually said then it's pointless and why bother to read
it at all. God said, " I am the God that does not change". (can't give
you the exact verse). His word isn't open to interpretation.
So
> just as we no longer own slaves and can't beat our wives,
no but we have people that work for us. and i'm willing to bet that
there is still slavery in parts of the world. i've never found wife
beating in the bible.
I would no
> longer have to marry my sister in law if my brother dies
if i remember correctly they only married the sister in law if the
brother died with no children. (and the only place i can think of off
the top of my head where it is even discussed is when the pharisees
were trying trap Jesus about resurrection of the dead). deut. 18:16 "
do not have sexual relations with you brother's wife, the would
dishonor you brother."
and can be
> fairly sure that I will not be burned at the stake as an apostate.
i've never read about anyone being burned at the stake in the bible.
A
> situation I'm sure at least I and I hope you would agree, is a change
> for the better.
i've always looked at it this way, if i spend my time doing the dos i
won't have time to do the don'ts. : )
Penni
brou...@aol.com
> > news:61f7aeb7-0c4c-4cda-9fb9-
> > 426a0b72a...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>
i would love for it to got to a national vote because i think you're
wrong i think it would get voted down.
Penni
Ken McElhaney
wrote:
> John Iwaniszek wrote:
> > Weirdwolf wrote:
>
Had she been a Democrat, the "mainstream" media never would've brought
up the subject. Obama said it best, leave it alone. After all, his
mother was only 18 when he was born. I would think you would listen
to your "chosen one"...:)
Ken - who wonders if McCain is supposedly "just like Bush" as liberals
say he is and if he still beats Obama, doesn't that mean that Bush
OWNS Democrats? After all, three straight losses is not just a bad run
of luck, it's a tradition. And if Bush is as stupid as Democrats say
he is and McCain still wins....well, I see a lot of whining from the
Iwaniszek contingent...:)
Mark Morrison
<mcel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Ken - who wonders if McCain is supposedly "just like Bush" as liberals
>say he is and if he still beats Obama, doesn't that mean that Bush
>OWNS Democrats? After all, three straight losses is not just a bad run
>of luck, it's a tradition. And if Bush is as stupid as Democrats say
>he is and McCain still wins....well, I see a lot of whining from the
>Iwaniszek contingent...:)
As well as the entire US when the economy REALLY goes down the shitter
after 4 more years of war.
John Iwaniszek
Ken is really, woefully, unrepetently stupid.
Pat Welch
I don't think far right wing nuts can appreciate the fact that this
country *WILL* be a Corporate Fascist State after 4 more years of
Republican crapping on the constitution.
The CEO of Exxon/Mobil will take over as CEO of USA inc. ...
Then again, that's what they really want deep down. Or not so deep.
They never could handle the concept of personal freedoms - for other
people than themselves. :(
Oh well - the Trains will run on time - oh wait, that requires fascists
who are competent in their jobs, something the Bushies have yet to
figure out how to be.
Oh, and I wonder how the trophy VP candidate really feels about her
total opposition to both birth control and Sex education, as she uses
the swell health insurance coverage she has as the Gov to pay for her
granddaughters pre-natal and after birth care?
Probably she feels entitled - Republicans have no sense of irony whatsoever.
- Patrick
John Iwaniszek
> John Iwaniszek wrote:
>> Mark Morrison wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 12:04:06 -0700 (PDT), Ken McElhaney
>>> <mcel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ken - who wonders if McCain is supposedly "just like Bush" as
>>>> liberals say he is and if he still beats Obama, doesn't that mean
>>>> that Bush OWNS Democrats? After all, three straight losses is not
>>>> just a bad run of luck, it's a tradition. And if Bush is as stupid
>>>> as Democrats say he is and McCain still wins....well, I see a lot
>>>> of whining from the Iwaniszek contingent...:)
>>> As well as the entire US when the economy REALLY goes down the
>>> shitter after 4 more years of war.
>>>
>>
>> Ken is really, woefully, unrepetently stupid.
>
> I don't think far right wing nuts can appreciate the fact that this
> country *WILL* be a Corporate Fascist State after 4 more years of
> Republican crapping on the constitution.
>
> The CEO of Exxon/Mobil will take over as CEO of USA inc. ...
>
> Then again, that's what they really want deep down. Or not so deep.
>
> They never could handle the concept of personal freedoms - for other
> people than themselves. :(
This is kind of like the recent ridicule of so-called community
organizers. It's ironic that Republicans would sneer at people who take
it upon themselves to come together to solve their problems and the
problem of others at the grass-roots level. Why do Republicans hate
democracy?
>
> Oh well - the Trains will run on time - oh wait, that requires
> fascists who are competent in their jobs, something the Bushies have
> yet to figure out how to be.
>
> Oh, and I wonder how the trophy VP candidate really feels about her
> total opposition to both birth control and Sex education, as she uses
> the swell health insurance coverage she has as the Gov to pay for her
> granddaughters pre-natal and after birth care?
No doubt. Alaska pays for everything by taxing oil production or sucking
on the federal teat. Why should Palin be any different?
>
> Probably she feels entitled - Republicans have no sense of irony
> whatsoever.
That would require the ability to reflect and consider one's words versus
one's actions and to hold more than one idea at a time in their minds.
>
> - Patrick
>
Appropos of nothing, there is this weird phenomenon of state employees
who profress a hard right, essentially corporatist ideology impervious to
logic, facts, etc. There are cadres of these kinds of people who have
never cashed a paycheck that wasn't written by a taxpayer who mouth the
same tired pseudo-libertarian BS about "confiscatory taxes" and espouse
simplistic economic models that lack even basic nuance.
Also appropos of nothing: what do you think of people who are of military
age, spend thier free time engaging in military reenactments, but support
Bush's invasion of Iraq YEARS after any reasonable rationale for the
invasion has been debunked?
I think those kind of people suck.
Just saying.
John Iwaniszek
Geeze, that was crappy: Re-write!
> Also appropos of nothing: what do you think of people who are of
> military age, spend thier free time engaging in military reenactments,
> support Bush's invasion of Iraq YEARS after any reasonable
> rationale for the invasion has been debunked but appear to be
> unwilling to put skin in the game?
Ken McElhaney
> On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 12:04:06 -0700 (PDT), Ken McElhaney
>
> >Ken - who wonders if McCain is supposedly "just like Bush" as liberals
> >say he is and if he still beats Obama, doesn't that mean that Bush
> >OWNS Democrats? After all, three straight losses is not just a bad run
> >of luck, it's a tradition. And if Bush is as stupid as Democrats say
> >he is and McCain still wins....well, I see a lot of whining from the
> >Iwaniszek contingent...:)
>
> As well as the entire US when the economy REALLY goes down the shitter
> after 4 more years of war.
Since I've heard the same "doom 'n gloom" speak in 2001 and 1991, I'll
take that bet. I predict that the ecomony will do what it always does
(unless Obama screws it up) and will be just fine four years from now.
Ken
Ken McElhaney
John is really a tool of the DailyKos/MediaMatters bunch. Too bad
being their puppet means a lifetime of being a hate-filled liberal
loon.
Betcha fifty cents if McCain wins John (and his liberal ilk) will
whine like a toddler..pretty much like four years ago.
Ken
Tyler Trafford
If McCain does win, I wonder if he'll keep on his campaign advisors
after the election like Bush did, instead of maintaining the usual
division of PR and policy advisors.
You know, if it was the McCain of 2000 in question, I don't think I
would mind it terribly if he was elected. Part of me wonders if this
newish side of him since then is just to ingratiate himself with the
current GOP leadership/funding so that he can get elected, and that
afterwards he will go back to being himself.
--
Tyler Trafford
"Humor is a drug which it's the fashion to abuse."
-- William Gilbert
John Iwaniszek
the McCain of 2000 is the McCain of 2008. The opportunism central to his
character existed then as it does now. He was able to ingratiate himself
to the press, the group he famously called his "base".
Obama's clear superiority to McCain in all areas that matter, both personal
and professionally, is obvious.
Sarah Palin is a kook he personally selected to appeal to the kooks that
now (as then) form the base of the Republican party.
The people who voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 have a lot to answer for.
But we probably will only hear bluster, denial, and blame shifting. We
will be literally paying for their mistake for a long time. That not change
we can believe in.
The tiny part of the electorate that truly believes Bush is a genius (and
more of the same that we have had in the past eight years is what we need),
coupled with the low information voters and the racists who won't vote for
a black man no matter what might tip it for McCain. It doesn't seem likely,
but it is a possibility. I guess we should never underestimate human
mendacity, self-delusion, and ignorance. In other words, the modern GOP.
Jim Larson
Here's an interesting article from a somewhat different viewpoint:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magazine/07Inequality-t.html
--
Jim
John Iwaniszek
David Frum: Ex-pat canadian, author of the phrase "The Axis of Evil"
(although, it has been atributed to his wife), and neo-facist scumbag.
Anyway, yes. the income gap has widened to the breaking point. As good
as my income is, my boss saw fit to give everyone an emergency cost of
living increase. I pity the people who don't have such compassionate
bosses, or who have jobs with that kind of income flexibility. Things
are getting bad and I live in a bubble. I can only guess at what's going
on in the midwest and places hard-hit by the housing market implosion
(pseudo-libertarians, if they have any self awareness, are recognizing
that adequate regulation and enforcement of lending standards could have
averted this problem. Who am I kidding. Their cheetoes stained hands
can't type blog entries fast enough about "borrower responsibility" on
the computers they use in the dank basements their mothers keep for
them.)
It is simple to demonstrate that republican voter registrations are down
and Democratic voter registrations are sky-rocketing. What this means in
terms of turnout, I don't know. Obama is known for his ground game. We
can only hope. In the wake of the RNC convention it is easy to lose
heart, but once the bloom is off the rose, things will change.
The rich white republicans who snickered and sneered at cute little
sarah's trashy mouth at the RNC convention very well may wonder what hit
them come november. Or even next week. Palin has all the makings of the
next spiro t agnew. Spiro threw it all away for a few thousands in bribe
money. Sarah's down fall has a 100 million dollar price tag on it.
(I speak with certainty, copletely oblivious to the record of the last 8
years notable for such luminary water carriers as Judith Miller, Fred
Hiatt, and all the media fluffers and with complete faith that landscape
has shifted in the past few months. I also wear rose colored glasses and
have no sense of irony.)
Trouble
> John Iwaniszek wrote:
>> Tyler Trafford wrote:
>>> Ken McElhaney wrote:
>>>> John Iwaniszek wrote:
>>> If McCain does win, I wonder if he'll keep on his campaign advisors
>>> after the election like Bush did, instead of maintaining the usual
>>> division of PR and policy advisors.
>>> You know, if it was the McCain of 2000 in question, I don't think I
>>> would mind it terribly if he was elected. Part of me wonders if this
>>> newish side of him since then is just to ingratiate himself with the
>>> current GOP leadership/funding so that he can get elected, and that
>>> afterwards he will go back to being himself.
>> the McCain of 2000 is the McCain of 2008. The opportunism central to
>> his character existed then as it does now. He was able to ingratiate
>> himself to the press, the group he famously called his "base".
>>
>> Obama's clear superiority to McCain in all areas that matter, both
>> personal and professionally, is obvious.
>> Sarah Palin is a kook he personally selected to appeal to the kooks that
>> now (as then) form the base of the Republican party.
> Here's an interesting article from a somewhat different viewpoint:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magazine/07Inequality-t.html
Interesting article Jim, the descriptions of Fairfax and Prince William are
completely apt. I've lived in both, can't speak to DC, I only work there.
So what interests me most, is that, economists have long tied unhappiness
to inequality in salary, CEOs earning hundreds of time what the lowest paid
worker in the company gets, etc. Ben and Jerry's tried to find a CEO that
would work for 5-10 times employee wages, but couldn't.
These are the same million dollar douchebags that brought us Enron, and the
Subprime Crisis. Hold on I do have a point.
Somewhere I read there was a distractor that kept the unhappiness of pay
inequality at bay, and that was the perception (just the perception) that
there were opportunities for upward mobility. The ideas that if you go to
school and study hard, try hard enough, you will make it.
I think the downsizing of the 80-90s destroyed the old work 40 years at
'one' job and retire mentality. The problems with social security will
destroy the work 40 years and retire part. Combine that with outsourcing,
and H1-b workers you erode confidence that the average worker can stay
competitive for 40 years.
Now nobody ever promised everybody a job, we've been lucky and with our
standard of living protected for a lot of years, but its going to be a
rocky road as the world economy flattens out.
I've read stories about the Nouveau riche in China eating delicacies from
all over the world, and developing expensive tastes for Chevys, Cadillacs,
Harleys and all kinds of things. I've read about the people in Beijing who
are protesting to make the Olympic air quality standards permanent.
Similar things are happening with the Nouveau riche in India demanding
better services from their government.
There are also stories of American companies reopening formet Soviet state
owned factories and modernizing them to be cost competitive with cheap
labor from China using only medium cost labor in Eastern Europe. Many of
these companies were forever unable to crack European markets at all, now
make half their worldwide revenues overseas.
So thankfully for us its not a race for the bottom to see how quickly we
can make the US an old fashioned 3rd world country, its a race for the
middle.
So painted against all that, we need to fix the cost of social security and
healthcare, and provide universal access to it by some means, reduce our
dependence on fossil fuels (not just foreign oil), fix education, and
figure out what we're all going to eat and drink for the next century, as
we run out of fresh water.
Those are my big four issues.
Oooh, another thing that made me smile, was a BBC article about how food
moves from where its grown to where its consumed. How long distance
shipping of food is going to be thermodynamically impossible long term
without cheap oil. The author mentioned one of the African Food Aid
agencies had stopped accepting food from America and was requiring the food
for its aid program to be bought from farmers in Africa, this is a twofold
win, as local farmers can't compete with 'free' food from America, and so
don't have much incentive for anyone to ever wean themselves off the aid. I
read this just days after reading an African economist say the best thing
we could do for Africa was to end the Aid, food, clothing, all of it. As it
has killed the market for local food and textiles.
So if the times article is right and Inequality makes people Democrats, and
equality makes people Conservatives, then when it all flattens out will we
all be Conservatives? By extension does that make any theorhetical Utopia
Republican?
John if you're reading this, is the sump pump ready, and are you prepared
for the hurricanes coming up the coast?
--
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise.
Seek what they sought."
--Basho
John Iwaniszek
Sump pump is working and I remember who you voted for in 04.
(smile)
(and rick, too. but it hardly matters in MA)
Trouble
> (pseudo-libertarians, if they have any self awareness, are recognizing
> that adequate regulation and enforcement of lending standards could
> have averted this problem. Who am I kidding. Their cheetoes stained
> hands can't type blog entries fast enough about "borrower
> responsibility" on the computers they use in the dank basements their
> mothers keep for them.)
There is something to be said for living within your means, but people will
do stupid things when everybody is doing it, and they can't imagine a real
estate boom, internet boom, stock market boom, or whatever kind of boom
passing them by like so many economic musical chairs, and they don't want
to miss out on the last cookie.
Some finance companies stayed away from Structure Investment Vehicles, just
like Warren Buffet avoided the Dot Com bubble because he didn't understand
the business model. Nobody understood SIVs either, that should have been a
clue.
Part three in this cocktail is predatory lenders that kept handing out
subprime-loans, interest only loans, and other live outside your means
financial products to group number one like candy.
Parts two and three you can fix with regulation, maybe even Hillary's FDA
labels for dangerous investments. People and their 'irrational exuberance'
you can't fix so easy.
Jim Larson
I know who he is. I found that little essay interesting in light of that.
> It is simple to demonstrate that republican voter registrations are down
> and Democratic voter registrations are sky-rocketing. What this means in
> terms of turnout, I don't know. Obama is known for his ground game. We
> can only hope. In the wake of the RNC convention it is easy to lose
> heart, but once the bloom is off the rose, things will change.
>
> The rich white republicans who snickered and sneered at cute little
> sarah's trashy mouth at the RNC convention very well may wonder what hit
> them come november. Or even next week. Palin has all the makings of the
> next spiro t agnew. Spiro threw it all away for a few thousands in bribe
> money. Sarah's down fall has a 100 million dollar price tag on it.
Palin was a publicity stunt. It worked as such. Even leaving aside any
impending scandals, I can't imagine this nonsense is sustainable for 2.5
months.
(Then again, I thought there was no way Bush could have won in 2004.)
> (I speak with certainty, copletely oblivious to the record of the last 8
> years notable for such luminary water carriers as Judith Miller, Fred
> Hiatt, and all the media fluffers and with complete faith that landscape
> has shifted in the past few months. I also wear rose colored glasses and
> have no sense of irony.)
(Lack of a sense of irony puts you in good[1] company with the attendees at
the RNC.)
--
Jim
[1] For appropriate values of good.
John Iwaniszek
and adira too.
John Iwaniszek
But that doesn't mean I don't still love you.
Trouble
> Trouble wrote:
>> John if you're reading this, is the sump pump ready, and are you
>> prepared for the hurricanes coming up the coast?
> Sump pump is working and I remember who you voted for in 04.
> (smile)
Hopefully you remeber that I didn't vote in '00 or '04 because thae areas
where I live vote overwhelmingly Democrat, I could vote 3rd party just to
increase their numbers, but otherwise I'm just wasting billable hours.
> (and rick, too. but it hardly matters in MA)
Oh, and I was going to write this, I've never met McCain, I helped one of
the guys in the office setup RealPlayer so we could watch a Senate Comittee
hearing where he asked the Deputy Secretary a question which my coworked
had to know, so he could get the answer before the next hearing.
That's one blip more than I know more about Obama, Biden, or Palin.
Same as with Kerry, I'll watch the debates, Kerry never connected with me.
Right now I just flat out don't believe Obama is going to be any more
sucessful at getting change than Pelosi and Reid have been. Sure you might
not have any Veto threat, but all I have heard is Hope and Change, and a
whole lot of nasty simple minded manipulation of the rubes from both sides.
"He called you all whiners" is not an Economic Policy the same way Bush's
"Bring it on" is not a Foreign Policy.
And I'm having a violent alergic reaction to all the hype from people
comparing JFK and MLK to Obama. Lets just Hope for everyone's sake that
they're right, and I'm wrong.
Jim Larson
(Is this all from the dossier? And did you record what I had for lunch on Oct
22, 2005? Because I have a feeling it was delicious but would like
confirmation.)
--
Jim
Trouble
> (Is this all from the dossier? And did you record what I had for lunch
> on Oct 22, 2005? Because I have a feeling it was delicious but would
> like confirmation.)
You had a slice of Birthday cake from my 33rd birthday, it was chocolate
cake with white icing.
John Iwaniszek
I was previously aware of Frum's new thesis. too bad he seems to be more
concerned about the viability of his tribe and less about broadening and
empowering the middle class.
I can't help but think it is an insincere re-positioning motivated by
self perservation. He's an old-style Mussolini[1] corporatist fascist,
but he also has a family to feed.
[1] who could have imagined that early twentieth century boogey-men would
be still shaping our political discourse in this age of flying cars and
lycra body suits? I am of the mind that modernity started during the
late roman empire so the 30's were just a few moments ago.
John Iwaniszek
Why? They were great leaders who made profound positive changes. To say
otherwise is simple dishonesty. And if you aren't aware of Obama's policy
stands then you haven't been paying attention.
Jim Larson
> Jim Larson wrote:
>
>> (Is this all from the dossier? And did you record what I had for lunch
>> on Oct 22, 2005? Because I have a feeling it was delicious but would
>> like confirmation.)
>
> You had a slice of Birthday cake from my 33rd birthday, it was chocolate
> cake with white icing.
mmmmmmmmmmcakemmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
(but not chocolate)
--
Jim
Jim Larson
Trouble
>> And I'm having a violent alergic reaction to all the hype from people
>> comparing JFK and MLK to Obama. Lets just Hope for everyone's sake
>> that they're right, and I'm wrong.
> Why? They were great leaders who made profound positive changes. To
> say otherwise is simple dishonesty. And if you aren't aware of Obama's
> policy stands then you haven't been paying attention.
JFK and MLK were, great, nobody is disputing that. I find the comparisons
to Obama premature at best, and offputting.
On the policies I guess I'll have to get back to you, maybe after "Change
We Can Believe In" comes out on September 9. I wonder if he'll give it away
for free like Kerry and Edwards did with theirs in '04.
John Iwaniszek
> John Iwaniszek wrote:
>
>>> And I'm having a violent alergic reaction to all the hype from
>>> people comparing JFK and MLK to Obama. Lets just Hope for everyone's
>>> sake that they're right, and I'm wrong.
>
>> Why? They were great leaders who made profound positive changes. To
>> say otherwise is simple dishonesty. And if you aren't aware of
>> Obama's policy stands then you haven't been paying attention.
>
> JFK and MLK were, great, nobody is disputing that. I find the
> comparisons to Obama premature at best, and offputting.
It's a little early, I'll grant you that. If he loses, he won't spiral
into moral decay like Edwards. He's the real thing.
Palin, on the other hand, is just a younger version of Phyllis Schlafly. A
disgusting fascist in pearls and an expensive hair-do. I don't believe in
"Evil", but I will certainly apply it as a metaphor to describe her
gestalt. (do I even believe in "gestalt"? maybe it makes more sense in
the original German.)
Tyler Trafford
> Trouble wrote:
>> John Iwaniszek wrote:
>>>
>>>> And I'm having a violent alergic reaction to all the hype from
>>>> people comparing JFK and MLK to Obama. Lets just Hope for
>>>> everyone's sake that they're right, and I'm wrong.
>>>
>>> Why? They were great leaders who made profound positive changes.
>>> To say otherwise is simple dishonesty. And if you aren't aware of
>>> Obama's policy stands then you haven't been paying attention.
>>
>> JFK and MLK were, great, nobody is disputing that. I find the
>> comparisons to Obama premature at best, and offputting.
>
> It's a little early, I'll grant you that. If he loses, he won't
> spiral into moral decay like Edwards. He's the real thing.
>
> Palin, on the other hand, is just a younger version of Phyllis
> Schlafly. A disgusting fascist in pearls and an expensive hair-do. I
> don't believe in "Evil", but I will certainly apply it as a metaphor
> to describe her gestalt. (do I even believe in "gestalt"? maybe it
> makes more sense in the original German.)
Speaking of Pallin, this is from my local paper:
http://tinyurl.com/57ux7d
(The first letter.)
I was banging my head against the table after reading it.
--
Tyler Trafford
Political history is far too criminal a subject to be a fit thing to
teach children.
-- W. H. Auden
Tyler Trafford
> John Iwaniszek wrote:
>> Trouble wrote:
>>> John Iwaniszek wrote:
>>>> Trouble wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And I'm having a violent alergic reaction to all the hype from
>>>>> people comparing JFK and MLK to Obama. Lets just Hope for
>>>>> everyone's sake that they're right, and I'm wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Why? They were great leaders who made profound positive changes.
>>>> To say otherwise is simple dishonesty. And if you aren't aware of
>>>> Obama's policy stands then you haven't been paying attention.
>>>
>>> JFK and MLK were, great, nobody is disputing that. I find the
>>> comparisons to Obama premature at best, and offputting.
>>
>> It's a little early, I'll grant you that. If he loses, he won't
>> spiral into moral decay like Edwards. He's the real thing.
>>
>> Palin, on the other hand, is just a younger version of Phyllis
>> Schlafly. A disgusting fascist in pearls and an expensive hair-do. I
>> don't believe in "Evil", but I will certainly apply it as a metaphor
>> to describe her gestalt. (do I even believe in "gestalt"? maybe it
>> makes more sense in the original German.)
>
> Speaking of Pallin, this is from my local paper:
> http://tinyurl.com/57ux7d
>
> (The first letter.)
>
> I was banging my head against the table after reading it.
(Also, I'm saving my vote for Harvey Dent.)
--
Tyler Trafford
Fry: Ow, my head! Ow, my feet! Ow, my head! Ow, my feet!
Professor: Keep your chin up.
Fry: Ow, my chin!
John Iwaniszek
Harvey Dent is God.
John Iwaniszek
It is quite strange.
You live in Longmeadow? We use to go to Blueberry Acres or some such for
apples when we were in school in (p'tui) Springfield.
Trouble
> Tyler Trafford wrote:
> (Also, I'm saving my vote for Harvey Dent.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCRq0oqWjbA
Tyler Trafford
> Tyler Trafford wrote:
>
>> (Also, I'm saving my vote for Harvey Dent.)
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCRq0oqWjbA
Also: http://cissie-king.livejournal.com/13838.html
--
Tyler Trafford
One nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day.
Jim Larson
> Trouble wrote:
>> Tyler Trafford wrote:
>>
>>> (Also, I'm saving my vote for Harvey Dent.)
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCRq0oqWjbA
>
> Also: http://cissie-king.livejournal.com/13838.html
(Darkseid, like, totally Is.)
--
Jim
Tyler Trafford
South Hadley, actually. That's the main paper for pretty much the whole
western half of the state though.
--
Tyler Trafford
TOO BAD YOU CAN'T BUY a voodoo globe so that you could make the earth spin
real fast and freak everybody out.
-- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.
Trouble
> Trouble wrote:
>> Tyler Trafford wrote:
>>> (Also, I'm saving my vote for Harvey Dent.)
What no Zod?
When Fedors 6 came out it was codenamed Zod, and I was all set for it to be
the best ever, it actually sucked balls on every machine I tried it on, and
so I went over to CentOS.
Oh and there is a "What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?" t-shirt now
Tyler Trafford
> Tyler Trafford wrote:
>
>> Trouble wrote:
>>> Tyler Trafford wrote:
>
>>>> (Also, I'm saving my vote for Harvey Dent.)
>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCRq0oqWjbA
>
>> Also: http://cissie-king.livejournal.com/13838.html
>
> What no Zod?
>
> When Fedors 6 came out it was codenamed Zod, and I was all set for it to be
> the best ever, it actually sucked balls on every machine I tried it on, and
> so I went over to CentOS.
>
> Oh and there is a "What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?" t-shirt now
>
I like the Darkseid tract better though.
--
Tyler Trafford
With reasonable men I will reason;
with humane men I will plead;
but to tyrants I will give no quarter.
-- William Lloyd Garrison
John Iwaniszek
Thantos rules. Darkseid drools
Jim Larson
(I don't know what we're talking about.)
--
Jim
Ken McElhaney
> Ken McElhaney wrote:
> > On Sep 5, 5:59 pm, John Iwaniszek <n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 12:04:06 -0700 (PDT), Ken McElhaney
> >> > <mcelha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> Ken - who wonders if McCain is supposedly "just like Bush" as liberals
> >> >> say he is and if he still beats Obama, doesn't that mean that Bush
> >> >> OWNS Democrats? After all, three straight losses is not just a bad run
> >> >> of luck, it's a tradition. And if Bush is as stupid as Democrats say
> >> >> he is and McCain still wins....well, I see a lot of whining from the
> >> >> Iwaniszek contingent...:)
>
> >> > As well as the entire US when the economy REALLY goes down the shitter
> >> > after 4 more years of war.
>
> >> Ken is really, woefully, unrepetently stupid.
>
> > John is really a tool of the DailyKos/MediaMatters bunch. Too bad
> > being their puppet means a lifetime of being a hate-filled liberal
> > loon.
>
> > Betcha fifty cents if McCain wins John (and his liberal ilk) will
> > whine like a toddler..pretty much like four years ago.
>
> If McCain does win, I wonder if he'll keep on his campaign advisors
> after the election like Bush did, instead of maintaining the usual
> division of PR and policy advisors.
He's stated that he would include Demos in his cabinet, including 'ol
Joe no doubt (filthy traitor!)
> You know, if it was the McCain of 2000 in question, I don't think I
> would mind it terribly if he was elected. Part of me wonders if this
> newish side of him since then is just to ingratiate himself with the
> current GOP leadership/funding so that he can get elected, and that
> afterwards he will go back to being himself.
He hasn't changed much, really. Liberal windbags keep missing the
point on Palin, thinking she was primarily to grab Hillary
supporters...WRONG. She was picked to fire up conservatives, the same
voters who turned out in record numbers to beat Kerry 'n '04. Left
wing-nuts like Johnny Boy would like to believe that Kerry was
"swiftboated", truth is the Kerry campaign turned out most Demo votes
in election history...only to be 2nd to the Repubs.
This election is going to ride on the debates probably more than any
other presidential race in the modern era, Obama had better bring his
"A" game if he expects to do well.
Ken
Ken McElhaney
> Tyler Trafford wrote:
> > Ken McElhaney wrote:
> >> On Sep 5, 5:59 pm, John Iwaniszek <n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Obama's clear superiority to McCain in all areas that matter, both personal
> and professionally, is obvious.
I suppose going to college, being an unremarkable community organizer
who's buildings he managed to fund are now boarded up, voting
"present" 140 times in the state senate, & spending his entire short
term as US Senator running for president is somehow "superior" to
McCain is something only you and your puppeteers in Media Matters can
possible believe.
You can certainly agree or disagree with the legislation McCain has
either authored or voted on. Obama's record is pretty darn thin,
especially when compared to his rhetoric. After all, Obama promised
to "cross party lines"...just when has he authored legislation in the
US Senate to do just that? I can think of at least two for McCain,
McCain-Feingold (still in effect) and McCain-Kennedy (failed miserably
and deservedly so).
> Sarah Palin is a kook he personally selected to appeal to the kooks that
> now (as then) form the base of the Republican party.
You mean the "kooks" that beat Kerry in '04? Those "kooks"?
> The people who voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 have a lot to answer for.
> But we probably will only hear bluster, denial, and blame shifting. We
> will be literally paying for their mistake for a long time. That not change
> we can believe in.
And if McCain wins, will we hear John boast about how the "liberals"
can't get it right be heard? I doubt it.
> The tiny part of the electorate that truly believes Bush is a genius (and
> more of the same that we have had in the past eight years is what we need),
> coupled with the low information voters and the racists who won't vote for
> a black man no matter what might tip it for McCain. It doesn't seem likely,
> but it is a possibility.
Yup, besides having your brain washed and dry-cleaned by DailyKos and
other left wing-nut groups, you display a big reason why liberals have
a bad name, everyone who doesn't fully agree with you is just another
idiot of the "great unwashed"...the little people desperately clinging
to their guns and religeon. Keep insulting the "common folks", John,
after all no one knows as much as you.
> I guess we should never underestimate human
> mendacity, self-delusion, and ignorance. In other words, the modern GOP.
As opposed to the out of touch, 19th century socialist, elite windbags
that run the "modern Democratic Party". Normally I would say that if
McCain won, some re-evaluation is in order for you, but given how deep
in the pile you are, I'm sure you'll console yourself with another
lame, whine filled diatrabe blaming everyone else but your "own
people".
Ken
Tyler Trafford
> Tyler Trafford wrote:
>
>> You know, if it was the McCain of 2000 in question, I don't think I
>> would mind it terribly if he was elected. Part of me wonders if this
>> newish side of him since then is just to ingratiate himself with the
>> current GOP leadership/funding so that he can get elected, and that
>> afterwards he will go back to being himself.
>
> He hasn't changed much, really.
Changed enough that the people who worked on his defeat in 200 are
suddenly all for getting him into office now.
--
Tyler Trafford
Be it our wealth, our jobs, or even our homes; nothing is safe while the
legislature is in session.
Pat Welch
Well, being right wing is certainly easier on the brain - just spew the
right wing talking points and never, ever question them.
Try this re Obama's bipartisan record in the Illinois legislature. The
source is very interesting - Fox News!
And your man McSame said he would not vote *today* for his own
emigration bill, and his campaign is so top heavy with lobbyists it is
hysterically funny when he denies he is in the pocket of the companies
the lobbyists used to (or still!) represent:
http://mediamattersaction.org/freeride/lobbyists/
- The article has a great graphic that illustrates how far into the
lobbyists pockets a McCain presidency would be.
-Pat
Jim Larson
> Ken McElhaney wrote:
>> Tyler Trafford wrote:
>>
>>> You know, if it was the McCain of 2000 in question, I don't think I
>>> would mind it terribly if he was elected. Part of me wonders if this
>>> newish side of him since then is just to ingratiate himself with the
>>> current GOP leadership/funding so that he can get elected, and that
>>> afterwards he will go back to being himself.
>>
>> He hasn't changed much, really.
>
> Changed enough that the people who worked on his defeat in 200 are
> suddenly all for getting him into office now.
Who was he running against? Septimius Severus?
(Not that it would be that much of a strech. Dude be old.)
--
Jim
John Iwaniszek
you can't defeat tribalism with reason. They are like lemmings.
John Iwaniszek
> Ken McElhaney wrote:
>> Tyler Trafford wrote:
>>
>>> You know, if it was the McCain of 2000 in question, I don't think I
>>> would mind it terribly if he was elected. Part of me wonders if this
>>> newish side of him since then is just to ingratiate himself with the
>>> current GOP leadership/funding so that he can get elected, and that
>>> afterwards he will go back to being himself.
>>
>> He hasn't changed much, really.
>
> Changed enough that the people who worked on his defeat in 200 are
> suddenly all for getting him into office now.
(would that make him a <shudder>flip-flopper?</shudder>
Mark Morrison
<mcel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>He hasn't changed much, really. Liberal windbags keep missing the
>point on Palin, thinking she was primarily to grab Hillary
>supporters...WRONG. She was picked to fire up conservatives, the same
>voters who turned out in record numbers to beat Kerry 'n '04. Left
>wing-nuts like Johnny Boy would like to believe that Kerry was
>"swiftboated", truth is the Kerry campaign turned out most Demo votes
>in election history...only to be 2nd to the Repubs.
Kerry was a terrible talker. Bush could have raped a sheep on TV, and
Kerry's condemnation of it would have sent people to sleep.
I recently rewatched the 2003/4 Daily Shows, and their coverage of the
run up and aftermath of the election. I was surprised at the exit
poll results in New York and other places, where the vote was very
close, by how many voters gave gay marriage as the reason they voted
against Kerry. I wouldn't have though they had the numbers to be
effective, but it sounds like they tipped the balance.
I see today Bush is withdrawing a few thousand troops, and leaving the
other 140,000 for the next President to worry about. I think if
McCain wins, they'll be there for a while longer.
John Iwaniszek
I think that he said 100 years.
Paul Richardson
"John Iwaniszek" <n...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9B14943BB...@85.214.90.236...
And they still won't have found any weapons of mass destruction other than a
donner kebab.
--
Paul R
I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts
Ken McElhaney
> Ken McElhaney wrote:
> > Tyler Trafford wrote:
>
> >> You know, if it was the McCain of 2000 in question, I don't think I
> >> would mind it terribly if he was elected. Part of me wonders if this
> >> newish side of him since then is just to ingratiate himself with the
> >> current GOP leadership/funding so that he can get elected, and that
> >> afterwards he will go back to being himself.
>
> > He hasn't changed much, really.
>
> Changed enough that the people who worked on his defeat in 200 are
> suddenly all for getting him into office now.
Hardly, it's just that the competition changed. McCain didn't really
stand a chance against Bush in 2000 as the conservatives of social,
religeous, & economic order backed W. McCain was doing pretty poorly
with conservatives until he got Palin on the ticket. Now all those
"nut-cases" as a certain poster might say (or worse) are fired up.
NOT for McCain but for Palin, which frees McCain up to be "McCain".
It seems that what Hillary said a few months ago about Obama may
(operative word: may) be coming true. His inexperience is showing as
the Republicans are throwing everything at him and he seems somewhat
rattled by it. Well Obama, if you can't take the heat...
Ken
Ken McElhaney
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 15:23:08 -0700 (PDT), Ken McElhaney
>
> >He hasn't changed much, really. Liberal windbags keep missing the
> >point on Palin, thinking she was primarily to grab Hillary
> >supporters...WRONG. She was picked to fire up conservatives, the same
> >voters who turned out in record numbers to beat Kerry 'n '04. Left
> >wing-nuts like Johnny Boy would like to believe that Kerry was
> >"swiftboated", truth is the Kerry campaign turned out most Demo votes
> >in election history...only to be 2nd to the Repubs.
>
> Kerry was a terrible talker. Bush could have raped a sheep on TV, and
> Kerry's condemnation of it would have sent people to sleep.
Kerry was incapable of giving a clear, concise answer to any
question. Occasionally, a president has to give a clear answer, 51%
of the voters certainly agreed.
> I recently rewatched the 2003/4 Daily Shows, and their coverage of the
> run up and aftermath of the election. I was surprised at the exit
> poll results in New York and other places, where the vote was very
> close, by how many voters gave gay marriage as the reason they voted
> against Kerry. I wouldn't have though they had the numbers to be
> effective, but it sounds like they tipped the balance.
They knew where Bush stood on the issue, no one could really figure
out Kerry's, his standard response was (to paraphrase);
I am personally against same-sex marriage, but I would let the states
decide.
First off, letting the states decide this issue would create total
chaos in the courts. But what remains unclear is what happens if the
decision was left up to Kerry. Would he actually sign an anti-same
sex marriage bill? Or not?
> I see today Bush is withdrawing a few thousand troops, and leaving the
> other 140,000 for the next President to worry about. I think if
> McCain wins, they'll be there for a while longer.
Obama is going to do the SAME THING. He stated flatly on "Meet the
Press" a few months ago that US forces would remain in Iraq to train
and aid Iraqi forces when needed based on the conditions on the
ground. That number could easily be 50,000 or more.
To Obama, there is a quantitative difference between "combat" troops &
"residual" forces, which is rather Clintonian of him.
Ken
Ken McElhaney
> Pat Welch wrote:
> > Ken McElhaney wrote:
> >> On Sep 6, 12:18 pm, John Iwaniszek <n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, being right wing is certainly easier on the brain - just spew
> > the right wing talking points and never, ever question them.
>
> > Try this re Obama's bipartisan record in the Illinois legislature. The
> > source is very interesting - Fox News!
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/5zlk2q
And what a record it is...funny it doesn't include the 140 "present"
votes he used when anything really controversial came up.
> > And your man McSame said he would not vote *today* for his own
> > emigration bill, and his campaign is so top heavy with lobbyists it is
> > hysterically funny when he denies he is in the pocket of the companies
> > the lobbyists used to (or still!) represent:
>
> >http://mediamattersaction.org/freeride/lobbyists/
Media Matters? Are you kidding me? Could you please cite a source
that's somewhat right of Stalin?
> > - The article has a great graphic that illustrates how far into the
> > lobbyists pockets a McCain presidency would be.
...hmm, how many earmarks did McCain ask for last year? Zero, right.
How many did Obama ask for? Still counting, huh?
> you can't defeat tribalism with reason. They are like lemmings.
You can't win an election by considering the majority of folks "the
great unwashed" as hard line libs like you do. Now I gotta go back
and cling to my gun 'n bible...
Ken
Tyler Trafford
is hillarious:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/33504/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-fri-sep-5-2008
--
Tyler Trafford
Keep your laws off my body!
Tyler Trafford
> Did anyone else catch the McCain "Biography" on Friday's Daily Show?
> It is hillarious:
>
> http://www.hulu.com/watch/33504/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-fri-sep-5-2008
(After the first commercial.)
--
Tyler Trafford
Shame is an improper emotion invented by pietists to oppress the human race.
-- Robert Preston, Toddy, "Victor/Victoria"
Paul Richardson
"Tyler Trafford" <ttraffor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6irchp...@mid.individual.net...
> Tyler Trafford wrote:
>
>> Did anyone else catch the McCain "Biography" on Friday's Daily Show?
>> It is hillarious:
>>
>> http://www.hulu.com/watch/33504/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-fri-sep-5-2008
>
> (After the first commercial.)
>
Tyler Trafford
>
> "Tyler Trafford" <ttraffor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6irchp...@mid.individual.net...
>> Tyler Trafford wrote:
>>
>>> Did anyone else catch the McCain "Biography" on Friday's Daily Show?
>>> It is hillarious:
>>>
>>> http://www.hulu.com/watch/33504/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-fri-sep-5-2008
>>
>> (After the first commercial.)
>
> Love to. Unfortunately only available in the US.
*Paging Mark Morrison*
--
Tyler Trafford
"Right now I'm having amnesia and deja vu at the same time."
-- Steven Wright
Mark Morrison
<paulszoo...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Tyler Trafford" <ttraffor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:6irchp...@mid.individual.net...
>> Tyler Trafford wrote:
>>
>>> Did anyone else catch the McCain "Biography" on Friday's Daily Show?
>>> It is hillarious:
>>>
>>> http://www.hulu.com/watch/33504/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-fri-sep-5-2008
>>
>> (After the first commercial.)
>>
>Love to. Unfortunately only available in the US.
I download 'em daily :)
Mark Morrison
<ttraffor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Paul Richardson wrote:
>>
>> "Tyler Trafford" <ttraffor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:6irchp...@mid.individual.net...
>>> Tyler Trafford wrote:
>>>
>>>> Did anyone else catch the McCain "Biography" on Friday's Daily Show?
>>>> It is hillarious:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.hulu.com/watch/33504/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-fri-sep-5-2008
>>>
>>> (After the first commercial.)
>>
>> Love to. Unfortunately only available in the US.
>
>*Paging Mark Morrison*
alt.binaries.multimedia.late-night-talkshows to the rescue !
Mark Morrison
<n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>And what kind of mother would allow her minor child to get married just
>because she is pregnant?
A politician, who want to prove her faith to the religious nuts in US
politics, not to mention the voters themselves.