OT -- Joe Biden is Obama's running mate

Pro-Humanist FREELOVER

unread,

Aug 23, 2008, 8:24:31 AM8/23/08

to

- - -

Foreign policy cred. Catholic. White. Male.
Experienced (in U.S. Senate for 35 years).
Overcame personal tragedy (death of first
wife and daughter) in 1972, a death which
occurred after he won his initial term as
U.S. Senator.

Age? 65.

- - -
August 23, 2008
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-biden23-2008aug23,0,1291154.story
- - -

Pro-Humanist FREELOVER

unread,

Aug 23, 2008, 8:44:57 AM8/23/08

to

- - -

In-depth report on Biden:

"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" <prohu...@ghg.net> wrote in message
news:rMydnZ4vb988nC3V...@pghconnect.com...

by Cris Barrish, Nicole Gaudino and Ginger
Gibson, The Delaware News Journal

Biden known as a blunt inquisitor
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-23-biden-profile_N.htm
- - -

Excerpt:

WASHINGTON - Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.'s
best game is foreign affairs, an arena he cherishes.

Ask about the former Soviet Union, Bosnia, Middle
East or almost any part of the globe, and he knows
the history and the players. He's visited Iraq more
than seven times.

Not bad for a kid from Pennsylvania who broke into
politics as a councilman from New Castle County.

While his blunt style is a flashpoint for criticism,
Biden's a foreign policy wonk whose uninhibited
style engenders respect among Senate colleagues
from both parties.

As Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic
nominee for president, prepared to announce his run-
ing mate this week, Biden flew to the former Soviet
territory of Georgia. U.S. interests there have clashed
with a newly resurgent Russia. It further fueled specu-
ation that Obama would select the Delaware senator
as his choice for vice president.

Never short of an opinion, Biden is a favorite of the
Sunday morning talk shows. He is a mezmerizing
figure, brazen and outspoken, and nearly untouchable
in Delaware politics. In some respects, his storybook
life rivals Obama's.

In his recent autobiography, Promises to Keep: On
Life and Politics, Biden says he began to understand
in 1972 how despair led people to "just cash it in"
and how "suicide wasn't just an option, but a rational
option."

At the time, the newly elected 30-year-old senator
had lost his wife Neilia and baby daughter Naomi in
a car crash and his two sons were badly injured. He'd
leave the hospital and walk the darkest, seediest neigh-
orhoods he could find, "always looking for a fight."

"But I'd look at Beau and Hunter asleep and wonder
what new terrors their own dreams held, and wonder
who would explain to my sons my being gone, too,"
wrote Biden, now 65. "And I knew I had no choice
but to fight to stay alive."

Written in his own candid voice, Biden's 365-page
narrative portrays some of his darkest moments - the
loss of his wife and daughter, the collapse of his 1988
presidential campaign amid plagiarism charges and the
struggle to regain his health after near-fatal brain aneur-
sms.

But it's a personal journey less about despair than sur-
iving - or, as he wrote, the need to "get up and keep
moving."

Published by Random House, the book also includes
behind-the-scenes exchanges with presidents and other
world leaders throughout his 35-year Senate career,
and sharp criticism of the Bush administration and
its prosecution of the war in Iraq.

"But I believe the president failed to lead," he wrote.
"History will judge him harshly not for the mistakes
he made - we all make mistakes - but for the oppor-
unities he squandered."

Some readers will be surprised to learn that there was
a time when Biden hated public speaking.

He got tagged with the cruel nickname "Joe Impedi-
enta" in high school because of an embarrassing stut-
er. He overcame it by memorizing long passages of
Yeats and Emerson and rehearsing the act of speaking
in front of his mirror.

Later, another memorized passage would get him in
trouble. Biden described in detail the implosion of his
1988 candidacy when he forgot to attribute a long pas-
age he recited from British Labor Party leader Neil
Kinnock.

At the time he was juggling his campaign with leading
the charge against Judge Robert Bork, President Rea-
an's Supreme Court nominee, and he didn't prepare
for the Iowa State Fair, thinking he could talk his way
through the event. "I confess to a certain amount of
arrogance," he wrote.

He regrets not telling reporters right then that he had
made a mistake, omitting Kinnock's name. He never
imagined the omission would lead to the end of his
campaign or that his character would be questioned.

"When I stopped trying to explain to everybody and
thought it through, the blame fell totally on me," he
wrote.

Biden's second wife, Jill, was the only person who
knew how devastated he was, he wrote. But his per-
pective changed after he suffered near-fatal brain
aneurysms. Out of the Senate for seven months, he
learned to be in less of a hurry, he wrote.

"The presidency, for instance, could wait," he wrote.
"There would be another time if I really wanted it."

...

- - - end excerpt - - -

Pro-Humanist FREELOVER

unread,

Aug 23, 2008, 9:04:28 AM8/23/08

to

- - -

Typos corrected on previous post:

- - -

In-depth report on Biden:

Excerpt:

ning mate this week, Biden flew to the former Soviet

territory of Georgia. U.S. interests there have clashed
with a newly resurgent Russia. It further fueled specu-

lation that Obama would select the Delaware senator

as his choice for vice president.

Never short of an opinion, Biden is a favorite of the
Sunday morning talk shows. He is a mezmerizing
figure, brazen and outspoken, and nearly untouchable
in Delaware politics. In some respects, his storybook
life rivals Obama's.

In his recent autobiography, Promises to Keep: On
Life and Politics, Biden says he began to understand
in 1972 how despair led people to "just cash it in"
and how "suicide wasn't just an option, but a rational
option."

At the time, the newly elected 30-year-old senator
had lost his wife Neilia and baby daughter Naomi in
a car crash and his two sons were badly injured. He'd
leave the hospital and walk the darkest, seediest neigh-

borhoods he could find, "always looking for a fight."

"But I'd look at Beau and Hunter asleep and wonder
what new terrors their own dreams held, and wonder
who would explain to my sons my being gone, too,"
wrote Biden, now 65. "And I knew I had no choice
but to fight to stay alive."

Written in his own candid voice, Biden's 365-page
narrative portrays some of his darkest moments - the
loss of his wife and daughter, the collapse of his 1988
presidential campaign amid plagiarism charges and the
struggle to regain his health after near-fatal brain aneur-

ysms.

But it's a personal journey less about despair than sur-

viving - or, as he wrote, the need to "get up and keep
moving."

Published by Random House, the book also includes
behind-the-scenes exchanges with presidents and other
world leaders throughout his 35-year Senate career,
and sharp criticism of the Bush administration and
its prosecution of the war in Iraq.

"But I believe the president failed to lead," he wrote.
"History will judge him harshly not for the mistakes
he made - we all make mistakes - but for the oppor-

tunities he squandered."

Some readers will be surprised to learn that there was
a time when Biden hated public speaking.

He got tagged with the cruel nickname "Joe Impedi-

menta" in high school because of an embarrassing stut-
ter. He overcame it by memorizing long passages of

Yeats and Emerson and rehearsing the act of speaking
in front of his mirror.

Later, another memorized passage would get him in
trouble. Biden described in detail the implosion of his
1988 candidacy when he forgot to attribute a long pas-

sage he recited from British Labor Party leader Neil
Kinnock.

At the time he was juggling his campaign with leading
the charge against Judge Robert Bork, President Rea-

gan's Supreme Court nominee, and he didn't prepare

for the Iowa State Fair, thinking he could talk his way
through the event. "I confess to a certain amount of
arrogance," he wrote.

He regrets not telling reporters right then that he had
made a mistake, omitting Kinnock's name. He never
imagined the omission would lead to the end of his
campaign or that his character would be questioned.

"When I stopped trying to explain to everybody and
thought it through, the blame fell totally on me," he
wrote.

Biden's second wife, Jill, was the only person who
knew how devastated he was, he wrote. But his per-

spective changed after he suffered near-fatal brain

unread,

Aug 23, 2008, 9:51:08 PM8/23/08

to

Do not forget as well, there is a reason Biden never made it out of the
primaries in past elections.. At the worst possible time, he will open
his trap and say something so stupid, even the Commies would say, "You
outdid me, man.. I'm outta here!"

bushlyed

unread,

Aug 23, 2008, 10:35:41 PM8/23/08

to

On Aug 23, 9:51 pm, Polarhound <udf78322834...@comcast.net> wrote:
> preacher wrote:
> > Polarhound <udf78322834...@comcast.net> wrote in

> outdid me, man.. I'm outta here!"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Commies? I love the old commies argument, it is so neanderthal.

Communism is deader than the southwest conference.

Biden is a terrific pick, bright, articulate, knowledgeable especially
about foreign policy. And we saw today that he can attack and attack
forcibly without seeming vicious.

bushlyed

unread,

Aug 23, 2008, 10:48:20 PM8/23/08

to

Glenn Greenwald
Friday Aug. 22, 2008 06:41 EDT

The right and men who live off their second wives' inherited wealth

What's most notable about John McCain's confusion over the number of
homes he owns isn't merely that it demonstrates that, after running
his campaign based on depicting Barack Obama as an out-of-touch
elitist and himself as the all-American Everyman, McCain lives a life
that is about as far removed from the Average American as one can get,
and has done so for decades. What's notable is how McCain was able to
live that way. McCain himself isn't actually rich. He just lives off
the inherited wealth of his much younger former mistress and now-
second-wife -- for whom he dumped his older and disfigured first wife
-- and who then used her family's money to fund McCain's political
career and keep him living in extreme luxury (after insisting that he
sign a prenuptial agreement, which would make McCain the first U.S.
President to have one).

In 2004, numerous leading right-wing pundits had many things to say
about men who do that:

Joseph Farah, World Net Daily, "President Gigolo?":
But if there is one characteristic of Kerry's life that should
disqualify him absolutely as a candidate for president, it is the fact
that he has sought out millionaire wives to take care of him. Not to
put too fine a point on it, he's a serial gigolo.

Let me ask you this: How many single women do you know worth a hundred
million dollars or more? . . . After raising children with her, Kerry
sought and received an annulment of that long-term marriage. Then he
married Teresa Heinz Kerry, the widow of a Senate colleague five years
his senior. She is worth approximately $500 million.

Is marrying well good preparation for serving as the president of the
United States? . . . . He's always had a net underneath him throughout
his political career -- in his case, a net woven of homespun 24K
gold.

And, once again, as Boteach points out, his second wife, Teresa made
him sign a prenuptial agreement when they were wed: "Which begs the
question: If his own wife doesn't trust him with her money, why should
we trust him with ours?"

Teresa Heinz Kerry is not sure about her husband's character. Are you?

Rush Limbaugh, throughout 2004:
I mean, [Kerry]'s been there, but he's basically a skirt-chaser,
folks. He's a gigolo. . . .Kerry is cheap. Most gigolos are. I mean --
I think it -- I think it goes with the, with the definition. . . .
[W]hat do you consider a fair wage? John Kerry considers a fair wage a
wife with 500 million. So, he had to find a company that had one.
Well, there aren't too many of these companies that have little
heiresses running around that are single, have 500 million that some
guy can marry into. . . .Because see, Al Gore's daddy was a senator
and Al Gore's daddy worked his way up from wealth and power to wealth
and power. I mean, he got more of it than anybody ever dreamed of for
having as little to go on. I mean, he's one of those old boys. You
know how that worked back then. Then John Kerry's daddy is his wives.
(laughter) I mean, he's a gigolo. Everybody knows this. There's nobody
in our party really has much respect for this guy and you can see it
last night, but I can't say that. I mean, you got sugar daddy wife
back then. You got sugar daddy wife now. He worked his way up from a
blue blood to a platinum American Express card, and it doesn't have
his name on it.

Knight Ridder, October 30, 2004:
In Kissimmee, Fla., when Cheney brought up Kerry's name, a listener
shouted, "He's a gigolo!" Cheney's response: "Ahhh, I'm not sure. I
got to concentrate here on my work."

Hannity & Colmes, Jan. 24, 2004:
ANN COULTER: John Kerry can't really speak to the middle class tax
cuts, inasmuch as he is ...

SEAN HANNITY: Yes.

ANN COULTER: ... a kept man. He lives off the money made by other men
and left to their daughters or wives.

Good Morning America, October 5, 2004:
CHARLES GIBSON: In going, in going through the book, John Kerry. You
refer to him as a gigolo, the male Anna Nicole Smith . . . . What does
that achieve, Ann?

ANN COULTER: Well, okay, then I don't want to hear him talk about a
middle class tax cut when he has made his living living off rich
women. I mean, it is simply a fact that he has married two heiresses.
His specialty in life, I mean, if he has an economic plan, I think the
one I'd like to hear about is how to snooker millionairesses into
marrying me and living off them. I mean, that is not an, a, a trivial
point.

New York Times, March 14, 2004:
Comedians have tried the Rich Guy persona along with a variation of
the Gold Digger, which Jay Leno used in explaining how Mr. Kerry would
eliminate the federal deficit: "He said all we have to do is find a
really rich country like Switzerland and marry it."

Rush Limbaugh Online, "John Kerry's Resume":
[Kerry] has lived the life of a millionaire living off the inherited
wealth of his two wives. As an Ivy League educated millionaire who did
not have to work for his fortune, Mr. Kerry never had to worry about
the money he earned, the taxes he paid, or the programs he and Ted
Kennedy forced the rest of us to pay for. . . . Mr. Kerry Heinz is not
effected (sic) when these neighborhoods are destroyed and working
class families lose the largest asset in their retirement plans --
their home's value.

Rabbi Smuley Boteach, World Net Daily, May 25, 2004:
Now, having a wife who provides you with a private jet and eight
multimillion-dollar vacation homes provides for a comfortable life.
But is this the right preparation for becoming president? . . .

To be sure, that does not mean Kerry never did an honest day's work in
his life. On the contrary, he was a successful prosecutor, lieutenant
governor and distinguished senator. But even while he did these jobs,
his wives' wealth always gave him a safety net. He was going to be
taken care of whether he succeeded professionally or not. . . .

Whether Kerry wins or loses the presidency, he will still be living
like a king. For most people, that would be a blessing. But for
someone who wants to be the president of the United States, having
such a significant fallback position is actually a curse.

Alas, there is yet one other important consideration that should get
us all thinking. Before they married, Teresa Heinz made John Kerry
sign a prenuptial agreement. Which begs the question: If his own wife
doesn't trust him with her money, why should we trust him with ours?

Taki Theodoracopulos, American Conservative, May 24, 2004:
If John Kerry wins in November, he will be the premiere president of
this great country of ours to be also a gigolo. The dictionary defines
"gigolo" as a man supported by a woman in return for his sexual
attentions and companionship. It might sound rough for John Kerry, but
it's right to the point. Let’s face it. The 44th president (maybe) is
as close to a gigolo as I can think of, and I have known many.

John F. Cullinan, National Review, July 15, 2004:
To the mayor's ill-considered suggestion that commuters simply work
from home, take vacation (on Menino's schedule) or just lighten up,
the Boston Herald tartly responded with an editorial aptly headlined
DNC to commuters: shut up, stay home. Howie Carr, the most irreverent
local political columnist [who routinely referred to Kerry as "Gigolo
John" and "Senator Gigolo"], greeted last week's addition of Sen. John
Edwards to the Democratic ticket with this puzzler: "For this dynamic
duo" — helpfully identified as "the gigolo and the ambulance chaser" —
"all of Boston is to be placed under house arrest for four days later
this month?

Michelle Malkin, "Limericks for John Kerry," July 24, 2007:
Lucianne’s rhyming readers have responded with their own verses. A
sample:

There once was a phony named Jawn

Who almost sailed in on a con

He thought he was shifty

But got beached by the Swifty

Now lives as the Gigolo Mon

Somehow, the deep stupidity of our political discourse actually
manages to escalate during presidential campaigns, becoming even more
vapid and idiotic than normal. But, as I argued continuously when I
did my book tour in April and May for Great American Hypocrites, this
is the kind of campaign the GOP runs every election and in which they
specialize, and there are only two options for Democrats in response:
(1) purport to "rise above it" and thus ensure that they get
slaughtered in a one-sided, one-way War of Personality Demonization
which renders issues irrelevant (hence: the all-American Everyman War
Hero versus the rich, out-of-touch, effete elitist), or (2) attack the
GOP candidate using the same lowly character themes in order to
neutralize the attacks and prevent the election from being decided on
these grounds. It's good to see the Obama campaign, finally, engaging
these issues aggressively. As I wrote in my book:
The reason why this has worked is that there are almost never any
attacks on these myths, no aggressive examination of the real lives of
these leaders. Critics of Republicans shy away from these themes.
There is a squeamishness to use their own weapons against them. . . .
It needs to be shoved into the media's faces and into our public
discourse how false and deceitful and artificial are these "Republican
Values" and personality attributes that they concoct for themselves.
To do that, the most prominent right-wing political leaders need to be
put under a microscope -- their actual lives and beliefs -- to show
how lacking they really are in the virtues they claim to exude and
revere.
There needs to be a lot more focus of this sort on John McCain's
"character," given that, from now until November, no matter what Obama
does, the Rovian disciples managing John McCain's candidacy will
ensure his campaign is about little other than these sorts of slimy,
personality-based, Freak Show attacks on Obama. It's what the GOP does
and it's what the media is capable of disseminating.

-- Glenn Greenwald

preacher

unread,

Aug 23, 2008, 10:53:21 PM8/23/08

to

Polarhound <udf7832...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:stidnVOaPps-Iy3V...@comcast.com:

> Do not forget as well, there is a reason Biden never made it out of
> the primaries in past elections.. At the worst possible time, he will
> open his trap and say something so stupid, even the Commies would say,
> "You outdid me, man.. I'm outta here!"

From what little I've read, Biden seems like a decent fellow, but having
heard him before, he's not exactly Mr. Charisma. I imagine that next to
Obama and Hillary Clinton, people kept wondering, "Why is he here?" But as
a lower visibility guy who gives advice and perspective and maybe runs some
things behind the scenes, he seems like a decent pick. I'm not with him
policy wise at all (nor Obama), but I actually think this was a solid, if
uninspiring choice. It assuages the fears of some that Obama is just too
inexperienced to be president.

As for his mouth, I think the entertainment value here is going to be
seeing who makes more off the cuff gaffes - Biden or Obama, who can really
say some funny stuff when the teleprompter is off. Of course, McCain
doesn't know how many houses he owns...

oli...@comcast.net

unread,

Aug 23, 2008, 11:15:52 PM8/23/08

to

"preacher" <n...@noway.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9B03B83DE7...@207.115.33.102...

Or democrats either for that matter. Biden's not the worst choice for veep,
and he's probably not the best. There was a moderate democrat from Texas who
emerged as a dark horse contender in the late days, Chet Edwards, but
obviously he's got two issues. Nobody really knows who he is, in spite of
the fact that he has pretty good foreign policy credentials too. And, he's
from Texas. If you read the boards elsewhere around the old info dirt road,
you'll find plenty of otherwise intelligent folks ready to blame every
single Texan for every single mistake that's been made anywhere by anybody
in at least the last eight years.

The really interesting running mate choice seems to be the one that's coming
from McCain. Pundits all over the place put Tim Pawlenty pretty high in the
running.

Most Texans I know are STILL pissed at Governor Good Hair for making
everything but your driveway a toll road AND signing a seventy five year
contract with a Mexican company to run them and take the profits. And, that
includes no few republicans.

Pawlenty did the same thing, did it first AND turned the administration over
yet another foreign nation.

I don't know many who object to toll roads, on principle, but I know many
who have little use for the idea of turning publically funded roads into
profit centers for anybody but the public... especially a foreign power.

Frankly, Preacher, I AM an Obama supporter, in spite of positions he's held
that I disagree with. Just as frankly, the prime reason is that he is not a
republican. Today... this week... this point in time, it's more than enough
for me, because I have lived through all the republican presidencies I can
afford.

The party of fiscal responsibility has demonstrated none. The party of
personal responsibility has demonstrated none. Their big tent has collapsed
and they've sunk to whining about the same tactics they used against
democrats so effectively (i.e. eliminating dissent during congressional
debate). They have, at best, selective memory on who signed the offshore
drilling moratorium. They've allowed exportation of more jobs than ALL the
Mexicans combined have "stolen," and even exported business operations
American companies could easily have done.

Are the dems any better? Probably not, but at the very least, it'll be a
different slate of liars, cheats and thieves.

preacher

unread,

Aug 24, 2008, 12:01:46 AM8/24/08

to

<oli...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:GdSdndd-XfwgUi3V...@comcast.com:

> Frankly, Preacher, I AM an Obama supporter, in spite of positions he's
> held that I disagree with. Just as frankly, the prime reason is that
> he is not a republican. Today... this week... this point in time, it's
> more than enough for me, because I have lived through all the
> republican presidencies I can afford.
>
> The party of fiscal responsibility has demonstrated none. The party of
> personal responsibility has demonstrated none. Their big tent has
> collapsed and they've sunk to whining about the same tactics they used
> against democrats so effectively (i.e. eliminating dissent during
> congressional debate). They have, at best, selective memory on who
> signed the offshore drilling moratorium. They've allowed exportation
> of more jobs than ALL the Mexicans combined have "stolen," and even
> exported business operations American companies could easily have
> done.
>
> Are the dems any better? Probably not, but at the very least, it'll be
> a different slate of liars, cheats and thieves.

Perhaps I'm cynical, but I think that's precisely what it will be - and
one that makes no pretense about building an even larger and more
powerful federal government. Just can't go there, myself.

I totally agree with you that the repubs have, for the most part,
abandoned fiscal and personal responsibility. They have eschewed serious
discussion about critical issues in favor of attack politics, just like
the demos. And their refusal to address serious budget questions (like
the democrats before them) could reasonably be called dereliction of
duty.

But I don't think the answer is turning to the democrats. Going third
party may seem unproductive, but it's certainly not worse than using my
vote to enable a party that I /know/ I disagree with on nearly every
major policy issue. Between the two major parties, I'd probably be more
republican than democrat, but that seems to mean less every year, as I
think the two major parties have become more alike - not in their stated
positions as much as their motivations, tactics and overall performance.

bushlyed

unread,

Aug 24, 2008, 12:38:29 AM8/24/08

to

On Aug 23, 11:15 pm, <oli...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Or democrats either for that matter. Biden's not the worst choice for veep,
> and he's probably not the best. There was a moderate democrat from Texas who
> emerged as a dark horse contender in the late days, Chet Edwards, but
> obviously he's got two issues. Nobody really knows who he is, in spite of
> the fact that he has pretty good foreign policy credentials too. And, he's
> from Texas. If you read the boards elsewhere around the old info dirt road,
> you'll find plenty of otherwise intelligent folks ready to blame every
> single Texan for every single mistake that's been made anywhere by anybody
> in at least the last eight years.
>

Not every single Texan, just one

Speaking as a Texan myself, Texas has produced some great leaders for
our country

Chet Edwards would have been a fine choice for VP

bushlyed

unread,

Aug 24, 2008, 12:42:05 AM8/24/08

to

On Aug 24, 12:01 am, preacher <n...@noway.com> wrote:
> <oli...@comcast.net> wrote innews:GdSdndd-XfwgUi3V...@comcast.com:

>
>
> I totally agree with you that the repubs have, for the most part,
> abandoned fiscal and personal responsibility. They have eschewed serious
> discussion about critical issues in favor of attack politics, just like
> the demos. And their refusal to address serious budget questions (like
> the democrats before them) could reasonably be called dereliction of
> duty.
>

Clinton for all his personal failings did bring down the deficit and
actually did deliver a balanced budget for the first time in forty
years (wow, the last President that did that was also a Democrat)

Polarhound

unread,

Aug 24, 2008, 12:44:32 AM8/24/08

to

bushlyed wrote:
> Glenn Greenwald
> Friday Aug. 22, 2008 06:41 EDT
>

> The left and men who live off their second wives' inherited wealth
>
> What's most notable about John Kerry's confusion over the number of

> homes he owns isn't merely that it demonstrates that, after running

> his campaign based on depicting George Bush as an out-of-touch
> elitist and himself as the all-American Everyman, Kerry lives a life

> that is about as far removed from the Average American as one can get,

> and has done so for decades. What's notable is how Kerry was able to
> live that way. Kerry himself isn't actually rich. He just lives off

> the inherited wealth of his much younger former mistress and now-

> second-wife -- for whom he dumped his first wife after guaranteeing income from her
> -- and who then used her family's money to fund Kerry's political

> career and keep him living in extreme luxury (after insisting that he

> sign a prenuptial agreement, which would make Kerry the first U.S.
> President to have one).

IFYPFY. Again.

bushlyed

unread,

Aug 24, 2008, 12:50:36 AM8/24/08

to

> IFYPFY. Again.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Wow, you cherry picked just like Bush did with Iraqi intelligence

The point for those bright enough to understand is that McCain is
precisely like Kerry and the repug attack machine thinks nothing of it

Did I say McCain is precisely like Kerry; Kerry did not cheat on and
dump a crippled wife

Which makes McCain precisely like John Edwards who the right went
after with a vengence over his affair

So in McCain, we have the worst of both worlds: a serial cheater like
Edwards who cheated on a wife with serious medical issues (at least
Edwards didn't dump his wife) and a gigolo who married wealth and is
living off it

But that's OK for O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity

Can anyone say hypocrisy

oli...@comcast.net

unread,

Aug 24, 2008, 1:50:35 AM8/24/08

to

"bushlyed" <bush...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7add5f61-600e-43c7...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

-0-

He would have been... no argument at all.

But no, I meant what I said when I noted there are plenty of people willing
to blame ALL Texans for ALL problems, and more than a fewof them. Texas also
birthed the last truly great republican president... Dwight David
Eisenhower, who clearly warned the nation against precisely what has been
happening for many years now, the military and its suppliers as a profit
center.

And no, that's NOT any kind of blow to the military. No nation on earth has
a good track record of appropriate treatment of its soldiers AFTER the war
is "over," and the US is no different than any, slightly better than some
and significantly worse than others.

Even now, when it's noted the abject lack of health care of returning
wounded vets, the usual defense is, "Well, they volunteered to go."

They volunteered for military duty. They did not volunteer to watch from
overseas as their homes were foreclosed on. They did not volunteer to be
handed a bill for food after hospital treatment for a battlefield injury.
They most assuredly did NOT volunteer to have the AIG Life Insurance Company
try to reneg on a $50,000 life insurance policy as it recently did, with
about the lamest excuse I've ever heard from the industry that INVENTED lame
excuses to get out of paying what their policy claimed it would pay. This
PTSD soldier who lost a brother in Iraq and was himself a victim of a
roadside bomb, died in his own bed, and AIG claims if he'd told them about
that car wreck he had when he was a teenager they'd have never written the
policy.

Neither did they volunteer to go to war with less than effective equipment,
only to find that the vaunted supply line had STILL not caught up with the
latest and greatest body armor TWO YEARS later.

Yeah, Rumsfeld was correct in stating that you don't always get to go to war
with everything you need, but two years later AND reneging on the promise he
made to reimburse parents who bought the best body armor with their own
money and Uncle Sugar was STILL not providing the latest in defense
technology. Did not even deploy the vehicles best designed to survive those
roadside explosives until just recently.

Nope. ALL of the criticism belongs squarely on the shoulders of those who
made the choices, and that includes the president, the vice president and
all members of Congress who failed to effectively push the question of why
our soldiers did not deserve the best money could buy, especially when we
were paying Haliburton so much cash to just screw the pooch as often as they
possibly could while raising THEIR profit margins.

oli...@comcast.net

unread,

Aug 24, 2008, 2:04:00 AM8/24/08

to

"preacher" <n...@noway.com> wrote in message

news:Xns9B03D5EE42...@207.115.33.102...

> <oli...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:GdSdndd-XfwgUi3V...@comcast.com:
>
>> Frankly, Preacher, I AM an Obama supporter, in spite of positions he's
>> held that I disagree with. Just as frankly, the prime reason is that
>> he is not a republican. Today... this week... this point in time, it's
>> more than enough for me, because I have lived through all the
>> republican presidencies I can afford.
>>
>> The party of fiscal responsibility has demonstrated none. The party of
>> personal responsibility has demonstrated none. Their big tent has
>> collapsed and they've sunk to whining about the same tactics they used
>> against democrats so effectively (i.e. eliminating dissent during
>> congressional debate). They have, at best, selective memory on who
>> signed the offshore drilling moratorium. They've allowed exportation
>> of more jobs than ALL the Mexicans combined have "stolen," and even
>> exported business operations American companies could easily have
>> done.
>>
>> Are the dems any better? Probably not, but at the very least, it'll be
>> a different slate of liars, cheats and thieves.
>
> Perhaps I'm cynical, but I think that's precisely what it will be - and
> one that makes no pretense about building an even larger and more
> powerful federal government. Just can't go there, myself.
>

Sad to say, but the last small government republican was probably Ron Paul.
And we both know how well he did in the primaries.

> I totally agree with you that the repubs have, for the most part,
> abandoned fiscal and personal responsibility. They have eschewed serious
> discussion about critical issues in favor of attack politics, just like
> the demos. And their refusal to address serious budget questions (like
> the democrats before them) could reasonably be called dereliction of
> duty.
>
> But I don't think the answer is turning to the democrats. Going third
> party may seem unproductive, but it's certainly not worse than using my
> vote to enable a party that I /know/ I disagree with on nearly every
> major policy issue. Between the two major parties, I'd probably be more
> republican than democrat, but that seems to mean less every year, as I
> think the two major parties have become more alike - not in their stated
> positions as much as their motivations, tactics and overall performance.
>

Given the lack of a viable third party... can't ride with the Greens, WON'T
ride with any of the neocon spinoffs and have yet to figure out precisely
what the Libertarians are all about, other than personal freedom... I really
don't see much choice this week other than holding your nose and picking a
democrat or a republican.

You've stated that you've made your choice, and I can respect that. I hope
you can respect that I, for not really dissimilar reasons, have made mine.

Yeah, democrats generally favor bigger government, but frankly I've never
seen this nation's government any larger or more intrusive to private lives
than it is right now. Can't speak for you, but I see less harm coming to the
body politic for slamming a major polluter than for taking a tube of
toothpaste because it's "too big, and just what a terrorist would use," to
demanding a full body scan because some poor traveling nudnick has too many
screws in surgically repaired joints, to demanding that a lady remove, with
pliers, nipple rings in full view of other passengers.

We'll soon find out as the silly season lasts only about ten more weeks, and
neither of our lives will likely change much, save for the fact that it'll
be marginally better, no matter which one wins.

bushlyed

unread,

Aug 24, 2008, 6:37:15 AM8/24/08

to

On Aug 24, 1:50 am, <oli...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> But no, I meant what I said when I noted there are plenty of people willing
> to blame ALL Texans for ALL problems, and more than a fewof them. Texas also
> birthed the last truly great republican president... Dwight David
> Eisenhower, who clearly warned the nation against precisely what has been
> happening for many years now, the military and its suppliers as a profit
> center.
>
> And no, that's NOT any kind of blow to the military. No nation on earth has
> a good track record of appropriate treatment of its soldiers AFTER the war
> is "over," and the US is no different than any, slightly better than some
> and significantly worse than others.
>

Can't agree more.

But Lincoln did try to set an example after the Civil War and Truman's
GI bill sought to remedy that.

So far as Texans go, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez from my neck of the
woods, was highly critical of the Iraq war effort.

> Even now, when it's noted the abject lack of health care of returning
> wounded vets, the usual defense is, "Well, they volunteered to go."
>

Disgusting isn't it.

> They volunteered for military duty. They did not volunteer to watch from
> overseas as their homes were foreclosed on. They did not volunteer to be
> handed a bill for food after hospital treatment for a battlefield injury.
> They most assuredly did NOT volunteer to have the AIG Life Insurance Company
> try to reneg on a $50,000 life insurance policy as it recently did, with
> about the lamest excuse I've ever heard from the industry that INVENTED lame
> excuses to get out of paying what their policy claimed it would pay. This
> PTSD soldier who lost a brother in Iraq and was himself a victim of a
> roadside bomb, died in his own bed, and AIG claims if he'd told them about
> that car wreck he had when he was a teenager they'd have never written the
> policy.

You just got my blood boiling.

I wonder to whom AIG have given campaign contributions. No I don't.

>
> Neither did they volunteer to go to war with less than effective equipment,
> only to find that the vaunted supply line had STILL not caught up with the
> latest and greatest body armor TWO YEARS later.
>

And these chickenshit chickenhawk cheeleading cowardly war hawks,
sitting safely behind their computer, are so brave and patriotic for
supporting this war, aren't they

> Yeah, Rumsfeld was correct in stating that you don't always get to go to war
> with everything you need, but two years later AND reneging on the promise he
> made to reimburse parents who bought the best body armor with their own
> money and Uncle Sugar was STILL not providing the latest in defense
> technology. Did not even deploy the vehicles best designed to survive those
> roadside explosives until just recently.
>

You obviously don't understand that that money is for Haliburton and
Blackwater and KBR

> Nope. ALL of the criticism belongs squarely on the shoulders of those who
> made the choices, and that includes the president, the vice president and
> all members of Congress who failed to effectively push the question of why
> our soldiers did not deserve the best money could buy, especially when we
> were paying Haliburton so much cash to just screw the pooch as often as they
> possibly could while raising THEIR profit margins.

And electrocuting soldiers while they take showers; why isn't anyone
being prosecuted for that

bushlyed

unread,

Aug 24, 2008, 6:47:02 AM8/24/08

to

On Aug 24, 2:04 am, <oli...@comcast.net> wrote:

>
> Yeah, democrats generally favor bigger government, but frankly I've never
> seen this nation's government any larger or more intrusive to private lives
> than it is right now.

Democrats favor governments that help people. I see nothing
inherently wrong with bigger government so long as it doesn't impinge
on our personal liberties. In the Netherlands, their government
provides each citizen with basic necessities and with health care and
their personal liberties are unrivaled.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration wants to be able to listen in on
our telephone conversations and have the libararies reveal what books
we read.

I am all in favor of security at airports but if Bush had paid
attention to his PDB a month before 9/11 he could have warned airlines
and the traveling public and this might not have happened.

unread,

Aug 24, 2008, 12:09:20 PM8/24/08

to

On Aug 24, 10:21 am, "slydrule" <stopspam> wrote:
> Libs are disqualified from using character as an issue. Since Clinton, libs
> created a precedent that character does not matter in a president or any
> other public office holder.
>

Bullshit. Pure unadultered bullshit.

Eisenhower had a long term affair while he was a general.

McCain cheated on a crippled wife twenty years before Clinton got a
blow job

I will repeat

MCCAIN CHEATED ON A CRIPPLED WIFE

MCCAIN DUMPED HIS CRIPPLED WIFE IN FAVOR OF A MISTRESS AND BECAME A
GIGOLO

It is always Clinton, Clinton, Clinton

> But to raise the character issue on a guy like McCain, who after suffereing
> months or physical abuse and torture at the hands to the libs best friends
> in Viet Nam

That is patently offensive to link what happened to McCain to "libs"

You are a fucking worthless piece of shit slyrule for making an
accusation like that

> Maybe McCain did cheat on his first wife

There is no maybe about that, none whatsoever, and it is laughable and
sheer hypocrisy to make excuses for him

>after he returned from Viet Nam
> after being held as a tortured prisoner of war for years, but that was over
> 30 years ago. If he made a mistake, it was only one.

He had numerous affair and dumped his crippled wife for a younger,
richer woman

But hey its the "libs" fault

He and his wife have
> been quiet philanthropists and there are some very impressive stories about
> them if you choose to educate yourself.
>

So did many people in the Mafia

> Peronally, I do not like McCain because of his politics. But character is
> not an issue for him.

Yes, it takes great character to dump a crippled wife

Hypocrite

Venger

unread,

Aug 24, 2008, 12:30:36 PM8/24/08

to

Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
> "Venger" <ven...@mail.com> wrote ...
>

>> Evan Bayh was a better pick - if you can get Indiana in play, and Bayh
>> could have done that, that looks better. I still don't think Obama is
>> electable on a national level, which is his primary problem...
>
> Electorally, Biden's Scranton, Pennsylvania roots
> should be helpful. Biden's ability to act as 'attack
> dog' should help to counter the typical Republican
> attack-and-destroy methodology.

You know, there is no reason for either party to accuse the other of
being the proprietor of attack or rough campaigning. It doesn't add
anything to your point, just sounds whiny and tendentious.

> Biden's foreign
> policy experience, and overall Senate experience,
> should help to counter the perception that Obama's
> lack of experience is problematic.

Well, as I said, like Cheney for Bush, there is someone close that has
the experience the candidate is short on.

> Wonder -if- Obama's intro calling him President
> was a slip, or if it was intentional, trying to convery
> the message that Biden would have a critical role in
> Obama's decisions as President (perhaps I'm reaching
> on that one). On the other hand, Obama's message of
> "change" not likely to be bolstered with a V.P. candi-
> date who has 35 years in the Senate.

There is nothing new about either party, or either party's positions.

> All-in-all, my perception is that Obama is worried
> that his lack of experience may cost him the elec-
> tion, and decided to go with Biden to try to off-
> set that concern.

The party should have been worried about his lack of experience and that
it will cost him the election - because it will.

I think if the Democrat party had a do-over, Hillary would win.

Venger

Karl Hungus

unread,

Aug 24, 2008, 4:08:58 PM8/24/08

to

"bushlyed" <bush...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:7add5f61-600e-43c7...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

> Speaking as a Texan myself, Texas has produced some great leaders for
> our country

Uh huh, and Texas also produced George W. Bush. So it sounds to me like
you've a LOT of making up to do. ;^)

oli...@comcast.net

unread,

Aug 24, 2008, 4:38:36 PM8/24/08

to

"Karl Hungus" <karlh...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:uKGdnXlgbf9BIizV...@comcast.com...

While the boy did "grow up" in Texas, he was born elsewhere... New Haven,
Connecticut.

Seems to me the entire country has a lot of making up to do for "electing"
the political midget in the first place.

If what's left of the neocons still feel the need to blame everything on ol'
Slick for lying about a blowjob, have a fine time. Because, truthfully, many
of the founders of that laughable notion have abandoned them and they have
no hope at all standing on and trying to defend their record of the last
eight years.

slydrule

unread,

Aug 24, 2008, 5:00:59 PM8/24/08

to

"bushlyed" <bush...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:6a0f9c87-5e06-4426...@v57g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 24, 10:21 am, "slydrule" <stopspam> wrote:
> Libs are disqualified from using character as an issue. Since Clinton,
> libs
> created a precedent that character does not matter in a president or any
> other public office holder.
>

Bullshit. Pure unadultered bullshit.

Eisenhower had a long term affair while he was a general.

McCain cheated on a crippled wife twenty years before Clinton got a
blow job

I will repeat

MCCAIN CHEATED ON A CRIPPLED WIFE

MCCAIN DUMPED HIS CRIPPLED WIFE IN FAVOR OF A MISTRESS AND BECAME A
GIGOLO

It is always Clinton, Clinton, Clinton

> But to raise the character issue on a guy like McCain, who after
> suffereing
> months or physical abuse and torture at the hands to the libs best friends
> in Viet Nam

>That is patently offensive to link what happened to McCain to "libs"

>You are a fucking worthless piece of shit slyrule for making an
>accusation like that

Like most libs, you have the brain of an eggplant. I never siad what McCain
did has anything to do with libs. What I said is, it should no longer
matter because since we excused Clinton for his "blowjobs...with a 21 your
old child.

It used to matter. Gary Hart can tell you that. But if it didn't matter
with Clinton then why should it matter with McCain, regardless of when it
happened.

As for McCain's crippled wife, I guess that goes along with John Edward's
wife having cancer. You libs continue to dumb down the country when it
comes to your people, while continuing to hold a higher standard for
everyone else.

slydrule

unread,

Aug 24, 2008, 5:09:05 PM8/24/08

to

"bushlyed" <bush...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:6a0f9c87-5e06-4426...@v57g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 24, 10:21 am, "slydrule" <stopspam> wrote:
> Libs are disqualified from using character as an issue. Since Clinton,
> libs
> created a precedent that character does not matter in a president or any
> other public office holder.
>

>Bullshit. Pure unadultered bullshit.

>Eisenhower had a long term affair while he was a general.

Kennedy too? If Eisenhower's affair had become public contemporaneously, he
would have been finished. In fact, he would have resigned. There was a
time when winning wasn't everything like it is today. At some point we lost
that notion that the country comes first and the party second. I think it
was when Clinton used the White House as a personal money making machine, as
he had done with the Arkansas Governor's mansion.

bushlyed

unread,

Aug 24, 2008, 5:53:47 PM8/24/08

to

On Aug 24, 4:08 pm, "Karl Hungus" <karlhun...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "bushlyed" <bushl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

No argument here

But then again, the cretin was born in Connecticut

bushlyed

unread,

Aug 24, 2008, 6:00:49 PM8/24/08

to

On Aug 24, 5:00 pm, "slydrule" <stopspam> wrote:
\

>
> Like most libs, you have the brain of an eggplant.

Oh, wow, that's clever.

> I never siad what McCain
> did has anything to do with libs. What I said is, it should no longer
> matter because since we excused Clinton for his "blowjobs...with a 21 your
> old child.
>

A 21 year old child.

This exposes your MASSIVE HYPOCRISY.

You worry about a 21 year old child having consensual sex (age of
consent is 18) but think nothing of sending kids younger than that off
to war to get killed with inadequate supplies

True, true hypocrisy

If a 21 year old is too young to have sex, why aren't 18-21 year olds
too young to fight and die in your precious war

You walked into that one

> It used to matter. Gary Hart can tell you that. But if it didn't matter
> with Clinton then why should it matter with McCain, regardless of when it
> happened.
>

By your standards which you apply only to liberals

McCain dumped a crippled wife, a wife who stood by him

> As for McCain's crippled wife, I guess that goes along with John Edward's
> wife having cancer. You libs continue to dumb down the country when it
> comes to your people, while continuing to hold a higher standard for
> everyone else.
>

Look at my posts dumb shit. I was very hard on Edwards and am deeply
disappointed in him.

Why, he acted like John McCain

Again, to reiterate, slydrule logic:

A woman of 21 is a child when it comes to sex

A man or woman 18-21 is an adult when it comes to fighting and dying
in a war

bushlyed

unread,

Aug 24, 2008, 6:04:19 PM8/24/08

to

On Aug 24, 5:09 pm, "slydrule" <stopspam> wrote:
\

>
> Kennedy too? If Eisenhower's affair had become public contemporaneously, he
> would have been finished. In fact, he would have resigned. There was a
> time when winning wasn't everything like it is today.

That's really choice coming from someone who supports Karl Rove's
candidates

> At some point we lost
> that notion that the country comes first and the party second.

Clinton tried bi-partisanship. It was the repugs that shut down
Congress and under Bush, it got worse

>I think it
> was when Clinton used the White House as a personal money making machine, as
> he had done with the Arkansas Governor's mansion.

He was deeply in debt when he was President dumb shit. Look it up, it
is all in the public record.

Now, he did make quite a lot of money after leaving office which is
fine with me and he did nothing illegal.

will(from the reality based community)

unread,

Aug 24, 2008, 6:41:02 PM8/24/08

to

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 10:21:02 -0400, "slydrule" <stopspam> wrote:

>Libs are disqualified from using character as an issue. Since Clinton, libs
>created a precedent that character does not matter in a president or any
>other public office holder.
>
>But to raise the character issue on a guy like McCain, who after suffereing
>months or physical abuse and torture at the hands to the libs best friends
>in Viet Nam turned down a chance to go home because his fellow prisoners
>would stay behind is just plain stupid and will back fire on the Democrats.
>Maybe McCain did cheat on his first wife after he returned from Viet Nam
>after being held as a tortured prisoner of war for years, but that was over
>30 years ago. If he made a mistake, it was only one. He and his wife have
>been quiet philanthropists and there are some very impressive stories about
>them if you choose to educate yourself.
>

Character isn't a one episode test. Your character is tested your
whole life.

What worries me is someone who would use their POW experience as an
out or to shut up political differences or criticism. That's just like
calling someone a racist or bigot to shut them up, isn't it?

will(from the reality based community)

unread,

Aug 24, 2008, 6:51:31 PM8/24/08

to

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 11:30:36 -0500, Venger <ven...@mail.com> wrote:

>Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
>> "Venger" <ven...@mail.com> wrote ...

>I think if the Democrat party had a do-over, Hillary would win.
>
>Venger

You must be joking. 49% of the US thinks she should never be
President.

If anything loses this election for Obama, it won't be the issues. It
will be older voters who, for whatever reason, will decide to vote
against their own political principles.

Experience is overrated in the sense that we seldom elect anyone based
on seniority and the fact that only occasionally do we elect someone
who has already been President. Most people realize that it is the
team the President puts into place that is so important.

I think that was true with Bush too. I remember feeling good about his
prospects for bringing in Cheney and Rumsfeld and the old hands from
the Ford era to make for a moderate Presidency. HAHA at myself.

Pro-Humanist FREELOVER

unread,

Aug 25, 2008, 12:18:03 AM8/25/08

to

"Venger" <ven...@mail.com> wrote ...

Perhaps the way the Republicans were cheering
for Hillary, after Obama's win in Iowa, reflects
the fact that they thought they had a better chance
of beating Hillary than they do of beating Obama.

Of course, additionally, they wanted a divided
Democratic party to keep Obama from building
momentum.

Obama's decision to oppose the Iraq war juxta-
posed against Hillary's decision to support it,
as well as her slowness/reluctance to denounce
that decision, that weighed heavily on the out-
come.

Obama's campaign for change resonated with
many Democrats ready to turn the page on the
20 years of Bush-Clinton-Bush.

As for do-overs, as if, if Hillary & Barack could
use present-day knowledge to change the past,
depends on how far back you'd allow them to
travel as to what impact that would have. For
example, that vote to go to war in Iraq, surely
Hillary would change that if she could, as would
a lot of other Democrats, as well as Republicans,
and that certainly would dramatically impact the
events that have transpired since then.

Barack would change that statement he made in
San Francisco, and he'd change his affiliation
with the church that got him in trouble.

Bill Clinton would change the way he spoke in
the South Carolina primary, and if you allow
him the luxury of traveling far enough back in
time, he'd change that decision that almost got
him impeached (maybe).

As for the eternal now we're all stuck in, I think
you're underestimating Obama, but only time
will tell.

- - -

Venger

unread,

Aug 25, 2008, 2:44:56 AM8/25/08

to

will(from the reality based community) wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 11:30:36 -0500, Venger <ven...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
>>> "Venger" <ven...@mail.com> wrote ...
>> I think if the Democrat party had a do-over, Hillary would win.
>>
>> Venger
>
> You must be joking. 49% of the US thinks she should never be
> President.

If they'd done their homework and gone after Obama early, instead of
presuming it was always their nomination, Obama would never have gotten
to Super Tuesday. If Reverend Wright hits in Iowa, Obama is toast.

> If anything loses this election for Obama, it won't be the issues.

Well of course not, it will be defect of moral character, which it
always is with you whenever someone doesn't do things the way you think
they should be done. It's old. You're old. Time for both to fade away
without notice.

> It
> will be older voters who, for whatever reason, will decide to vote
> against their own political principles.

Obama is going to lose, big time, for a lot of reasons, none of which
have to do with anything but Obama.

> Experience is overrated in the sense that we seldom elect anyone based
> on seniority and the fact that only occasionally do we elect someone
> who has already been President. Most people realize that it is the
> team the President puts into place that is so important.
>
> I think that was true with Bush too. I remember feeling good about his
> prospects for bringing in Cheney and Rumsfeld and the old hands from
> the Ford era to make for a moderate Presidency. HAHA at myself.

Until you internalize that there are more than one valid political
points of view, people are going to consistently confound you. I think
it is too late, but hope springs eternal.

Venger

bushlyed

unread,

Aug 25, 2008, 4:52:21 AM8/25/08

to

On Aug 25, 2:44 am, Venger <ven...@mail.com> wrote:

> If they'd done their homework and gone after Obama early, instead of
> presuming it was always their nomination, Obama would never have gotten
> to Super Tuesday. If Reverend Wright hits in Iowa, Obama is toast.
>

Obama is not Rev Wright and it show the sheer dishonesty of the repugs
to make him an issue

Obama never said anything like that and the repugs kissed Pat
Robertson's ass when he said that we deserved 9/11

Where was the indigantion then?

> > If anything loses this election for Obama, it won't be the issues.
>
> Well of course not, it will be defect of moral character, which it
> always is with you whenever someone doesn't do things the way you think
> they should be done. It's old. You're old. Time for both to fade away
> without notice.
>

Obama has a lot more characater than McCain

McCain cheated on a crippled wife, had affairs while his wife
languished, then dumped her for a younger woman

Shameful and disgusting yet the right wing seems to be able to excuse
that same behavior at the exact same time they deplored John Edwards

Venger

unread,

Aug 25, 2008, 1:02:34 PM8/25/08

to

bushlyed wrote:
> On Aug 25, 2:44 am, Venger <ven...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> If they'd done their homework and gone after Obama early, instead of
>> presuming it was always their nomination, Obama would never have gotten
>> to Super Tuesday. If Reverend Wright hits in Iowa, Obama is toast.
>>
>
> Obama is not Rev Wright

No, Wright is his spiritual advisor and Obama his faithful churchgoer
for Pastor God Damn America.

> and it show the sheer dishonesty of the repugs

Fuck it - life has grown to short to deal with retards and lightweights
who write shit like "repugs" and "amerikkka" and "Clintonista". Fuck off
until you grow up.

Venger

unread,

Aug 25, 2008, 2:50:38 PM8/25/08

to

will(from the reality based community) wrote:

Well since McCain isn't doing that, then you don't need to "worry" do you?

> That's just like
> calling someone a racist or bigot to shut them up, isn't it?

No, it's not the same, but it is the other side of the coin.

Venger

bushlyed

unread,

Aug 25, 2008, 4:32:40 PM8/25/08

to

On Aug 25, 1:02 pm, Venger <ven...@mail.com> wrote:
> bushlyed wrote:
> > On Aug 25, 2:44 am, Venger <ven...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> >> If they'd done their homework and gone after Obama early, instead of
> >> presuming it was always their nomination, Obama would never have gotten
> >> to Super Tuesday. If Reverend Wright hits in Iowa, Obama is toast.
>
> > Obama is not Rev Wright
>
> No, Wright is his spiritual advisor and Obama his faithful churchgoer
> for Pastor God Damn America.
>

No one agrees with everything their pastor says

But speaking of Rev Wright, he was honorably serving in the military
when your heros like Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney and all the other
chickenshit chickenhawk cowardly cheerleaders were hiding from the war

> > and it show the sheer dishonesty of the repugs
>
> Fuck it - life has grown to short to deal with retards and lightweights
> who write shit like "repugs" and "amerikkka" and "Clintonista". Fuck off
> until you grow up.
>
> Venger

I never used the term "Clintonista"

You get your panties in a wad after the use of the word "repugs" and
tell someone to fuck off

You are not man enough to make me loser

I have tried to keep my discussion with you civil but you just can't
seem to be adult about this

Please show your posts, all your posts with all your foul and
disgusting language, to your kids and see how proud they are of their
father's intelligence discourse

As far as fucking off, that's funny from an inbreed

bushlyed

unread,

Aug 25, 2008, 6:46:49 PM8/25/08

to

On Aug 25, 1:02 pm, Venger <ven...@mail.com> wrote:

> bushlyed wrote:
> > On Aug 25, 2:44 am, Venger <ven...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> >> If they'd done their homework and gone after Obama early, instead of
> >> presuming it was always their nomination, Obama would never have gotten
> >> to Super Tuesday. If Reverend Wright hits in Iowa, Obama is toast.
>
> > Obama is not Rev Wright
>
> No, Wright is his spiritual advisor and Obama his faithful churchgoer
> for Pastor God Damn America.
>

By the way, Obama denounced Wright's remarks

None of your conservative heros ever denounced Pat Robertson and Jerry
Falwell for saying that we had 9/11 coming

Venger

unread,

Aug 25, 2008, 7:08:40 PM8/25/08

to

bushlyed wrote:
> On Aug 25, 1:02 pm, Venger <ven...@mail.com> wrote:
>> bushlyed wrote:
>>> On Aug 25, 2:44 am, Venger <ven...@mail.com> wrote:
>>>> If they'd done their homework and gone after Obama early, instead of
>>>> presuming it was always their nomination, Obama would never have gotten
>>>> to Super Tuesday. If Reverend Wright hits in Iowa, Obama is toast.
>>> Obama is not Rev Wright
>> No, Wright is his spiritual advisor and Obama his faithful churchgoer
>> for Pastor God Damn America.
>>
>
> By the way, Obama denounced Wright's remarks

He could no disown him anymore than he could disown his racist white
granny. He was there how long, and not a peep, until it cost him in his
election. Wright is a bigoted leftist, and he shouldn't have to denounce
him, he should have left the first time he heard God Damn America.

You'll note he has belatedly left the church. It only took two months of
intense scrutiny and bad publicity for him to do what he should've done
in the first place.

> None of your conservative heros ever denounced Pat Robertson and Jerry
> Falwell for saying that we had 9/11 coming

Alot of people denounced that stupidity, however I don't believe any
prominent Republican attends church with either, so why should they? I
think both later admitted their comments were reckless and
ill-considered. Neither called for Holy condemnation of their country,
whereas Wright is still a bigoted America-hating twat.

Venger

bushlyed

unread,

Aug 25, 2008, 7:35:18 PM8/25/08

to

I wonder how magnanimous you would be if you had to encounter the
racism and bigotry that Rev. Wright encountered throughout his life

And Roberton and Falwell continually called for a condemnation from
god for our sins

Also, it is extremely ridiculous to vote against a man because of
comments his preacher made or to even make an issue of it

But then again, McCain is running against Paris Hilton, Brittany
Spears (who is a republican) and now Madonna

slydrule

unread,

Aug 25, 2008, 9:09:21 PM8/25/08

to

"bushlyed" <bush...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:bcaca209-6ac0-46a1...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 24, 5:09 pm, "slydrule" <stopspam> wrote:
\
>

>I think it
> was when Clinton used the White House as a personal money making machine,
> as
> he had done with the Arkansas Governor's mansion.

>He was deeply in debt when he was President dumb shit. Look it up, it
>is all in the public record.

In debt enough to buy a multi-million dollar house in NY State fo Hillary
could run for senate? His debt was for his legal bills stemming from White
Water and BJGate. All paid for by the Clinton legal defense fund.

>Now, he did make quite a lot of money after leaving office which is
>fine with me and he did nothing illegal.

Except lie under oath for which he was disbarred.

slydrule

unread,

Aug 25, 2008, 9:19:38 PM8/25/08

to

"bushlyed" <bush...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:0b727066-f37e-424d...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 25, 2:44 am, Venger <ven...@mail.com> wrote:

> If they'd done their homework and gone after Obama early, instead of
> presuming it was always their nomination, Obama would never have gotten
> to Super Tuesday. If Reverend Wright hits in Iowa, Obama is toast.
>

>Obama is not Rev Wright and it show the sheer dishonesty of the repugs
>to make him an issue

So its okay to accuse Dick Cheney of starting a war because he was once the
CEO of Halliburton but its not ok to tar B Hussein Obama because of his
associations with radicals?

You should pick up the book, "The Obama Nation" and read up on Hussein
Obama's background before you say such stupid things.

>Obama never said anything like that and the repugs kissed Pat
>Robertson's ass when he said that we deserved 9/11

>Where was the indigantion then?

Pat Robertson is an asshole and doesn't speak for me. Do you feel better
now?

> > If anything loses this election for Obama, it won't be the issues.
>
> Well of course not, it will be defect of moral character, which it
> always is with you whenever someone doesn't do things the way you think
> they should be done. It's old. You're old. Time for both to fade away
> without notice.
>

>Obama has a lot more characater than McCain

Warning: Bullshit alert!

What would you know about Obama's character? What has he done in his life
to justify your claim? Nothing, that's what. Besides hanging out with
anti-American radical leftists until last year what is he known for?

The guy threw his own grandmother under the bus to justify he stupid
statements about middle America and racism. Then he threw his pastor for 20
years under teh bus becuase his radical leftist hate speech became public.

Is that how you define character?

>McCain cheated on a crippled wife, had affairs while his wife
>languished, then dumped her for a younger woman

>Shameful and disgusting yet the right wing seems to be able to excuse
>that same behavior at the exact same time they deplored John Edwards

I have an idea, how about we lock you up and beat you to an inch of your
life for five years. Then we will let you out and see how you do. If you
make a mistake in judgement, we'll call you names and beat you again. How
does that sound?

bushlyed

unread,

Aug 25, 2008, 9:24:36 PM8/25/08

to

On Aug 25, 9:09 pm, "slydrule" <stopspam> wrote:
> "bushlyed" <bushl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>
> news:bcaca209-6ac0-46a1...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 24, 5:09 pm, "slydrule" <stopspam> wrote:
> \
>
>
>
> >I think it
> > was when Clinton used the White House as a personal money making machine,
> > as
> > he had done with the Arkansas Governor's mansion.
> >He was deeply in debt when he was President dumb shit. Look it up, it
> >is all in the public record.
>
> In debt enough to buy a multi-million dollar house in NY State fo Hillary
> could run for senate? His debt was for his legal bills stemming from White
> Water and BJGate. All paid for by the Clinton legal defense fund.
>

Yes after 50 million dollars investigating, they got him on consensual
sex with an adult

> >Now, he did make quite a lot of money after leaving office which is
> >fine with me and he did nothing illegal.
>
> Except lie under oath for which he was disbarred.

Yes he lied; so did Bush

But unlike Bush, it wasn't about war and didn't result in an illegal
invasion

BTW, slybaby, you haven't answered the question I posed yesterday as
to how a 21 year old girl is a child and too young for consensual sex
but is old enough to die in a war

slydrule

unread,

Aug 25, 2008, 9:23:07 PM8/25/08

to

"bushlyed" <bush...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:badc9e6e-9330-4586...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 25, 1:02 pm, Venger <ven...@mail.com> wrote:
> bushlyed wrote:
> > On Aug 25, 2:44 am, Venger <ven...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> >> If they'd done their homework and gone after Obama early, instead of
> >> presuming it was always their nomination, Obama would never have gotten
> >> to Super Tuesday. If Reverend Wright hits in Iowa, Obama is toast.
>
> > Obama is not Rev Wright
>
> No, Wright is his spiritual advisor and Obama his faithful churchgoer
> for Pastor God Damn America.
>

> By the way, Obama denounced Wright's remarks

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA -HAHAHAHAHAHA

You can't be serious! After the media covered this multiple times, Obama at
first denied hearing any of the hate speech, denied Wright was a hater then
relectantly threw him under a tandem bus when the heat got too high.

What a guy!

>None of your conservative heros ever denounced Pat Robertson and Jerry
>Falwell for saying that we had 9/11 coming

This is the problem with you moron libs. You think all conservatives and
Republicans are followers of Falwell or Robertson or some other tv preacher.
That's a bad stereo-type unlike all libs being akin to RuPaul.

slydrule

unread,

Aug 25, 2008, 9:47:54 PM8/25/08

to

"bushlyed" <bush...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:fab3a94e-e6d6-4b1c...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 25, 9:09 pm, "slydrule" <stopspam> wrote:
> "bushlyed" <bushl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:bcaca209-6ac0-46a1...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 24, 5:09 pm, "slydrule" <stopspam> wrote:
> \
>
>
>
> >I think it
> > was when Clinton used the White House as a personal money making
> > machine,
> > as
> > he had done with the Arkansas Governor's mansion.
> >He was deeply in debt when he was President dumb shit. Look it up, it
> >is all in the public record.
>
> In debt enough to buy a multi-million dollar house in NY State fo Hillary
> could run for senate? His debt was for his legal bills stemming from White
> Water and BJGate. All paid for by the Clinton legal defense fund.
>

>Yes after 50 million dollars investigating, they got him on consensual
>sex with an adult

No, they got him on lying under oath.

> >Now, he did make quite a lot of money after leaving office which is
> >fine with me and he did nothing illegal.
>
> Except lie under oath for which he was disbarred.

>Yes he lied; so did Bush

Except Bush only lied in your imagination. Clinton was proven to be a liar.

>But unlike Bush, it wasn't about war and didn't result in an illegal
>invasion

You mean like when Clinton launched cruise missiles into Sudan to blow up an
aspirin factory? He called it a WMD factory. Was he lying to us?

>BTW, slybaby, you haven't answered the question I posed yesterday as
>to how a 21 year old girl is a child and too young for consensual sex
>but is old enough to die in a war

You think I read ALL of your posts? Don't flatter yourself. Your too
stupid to be interesting.

Compared to Clinton's age of 51, yes she was a child. She wasn an intern.
Maybe she was legally old enough to consent but he was the president, she
was an intern working for him. If I did that in my job, I would be fired in
5 minutes. That's because of the laws you libs passed about sexual
harassment inthe workplace. Yet, when it comes to libs doing the harassing,
then it becomes consensual sex between two adults.

This is the thing everyone whould be aware of when it comes to liberals.
Libs wnat to tell everyone else how to live their lives, but libs don't
think the rules apply to them.

bushlyed

unread,

Aug 25, 2008, 10:43:31 PM8/25/08

to

On Aug 25, 9:47 pm, "slydrule" <stopspam> wrote:
>
> Except Bush only lied in your imagination. Clinton was proven to be a liar.
>

WMDs, yellow cake. The world knows he was a liar but you are
obviously not bright enough to understand that

>
> You mean like when Clinton launched cruise missiles into Sudan to blow up an
> aspirin factory? He called it a WMD factory. Was he lying to us?
>

I don't know. I didn't agree with that; unlike you, I am not a knee-
jerk supporter

> >BTW, slybaby, you haven't answered the question I posed yesterday as
> >to how a 21 year old girl is a child and too young for consensual sex
> >but is old enough to die in a war
>
> You think I read ALL of your posts? Don't flatter yourself. Your too
> stupid to be interesting.
>

Then why are you responding at all? You are a fucking moron

> Compared to Clinton's age of 51, yes she was a child. She wasn an intern.
> Maybe she was legally old enough to consent but he was the president, she
> was an intern working for him. If I did that in my job, I would be fired in
> 5 minutes. That's because of the laws you libs passed about sexual
> harassment inthe workplace. Yet, when it comes to libs doing the harassing,
> then it becomes consensual sex between two adults.
>

It wasn't sexual harrassment moron. She did not fear for her job
based on their relationship (it was an unpaid position). Her future
did not depend on that.

And it was consensual, completely, absolutely and whatever Monica
said, she never even implied it wasn't.

> This is the thing everyone whould be aware of when it comes to liberals.
> Libs wnat to tell everyone else how to live their lives, but libs don't
> think the rules apply to them

We want to tell everyone how to live their lives? Hardly, we are too
busy having a good time. Meanwhile, your conservation religious right
buddies want people thrown in jail for drinking or smoking a joint.

bushlyed

unread,

Aug 25, 2008, 10:46:56 PM8/25/08

to

On Aug 25, 9:23 pm, "slydrule" <stopspam> wrote:
>
>
> You can't be serious! After the media covered this multiple times,

You meant the evil leftist media

>Obama at
> first denied hearing any of the hate speech,

There is no proof that he was there during that or any other hate
speech

>denied Wright was a hater then
> relectantly threw him under a tandem bus when the heat got too high.
>

He distanced himself from him

> What a guy!
>

Yes he is

> >None of your conservative heros ever denounced Pat Robertson and Jerry
> >Falwell for saying that we had 9/11 coming
>
> This is the problem with you moron libs. You think all conservatives and
> Republicans are followers of Falwell or Robertson or some other tv preacher.
> That's a bad stereo-type unlike all libs being akin to RuPaul.

You haven't denounced their hateful speech

will(from the reality based community)

unread,

Aug 25, 2008, 11:21:40 PM8/25/08

to

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 01:44:56 -0500, Venger <ven...@mail.com> wrote:

>will(from the reality based community) wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 11:30:36 -0500, Venger <ven...@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
>>>> "Venger" <ven...@mail.com> wrote ...
>>> I think if the Democrat party had a do-over, Hillary would win.
>>>
>>> Venger
>>
>> You must be joking. 49% of the US thinks she should never be
>> President.
>
>If they'd done their homework and gone after Obama early, instead of
>presuming it was always their nomination, Obama would never have gotten
>to Super Tuesday. If Reverend Wright hits in Iowa, Obama is toast.

And Hillary still wouldn't get elected President. People are sick of
these family dynasties and were looking for an alternative.

>
>> If anything loses this election for Obama, it won't be the issues.
>
>Well of course not, it will be defect of moral character, which it
>always is with you whenever someone doesn't do things the way you think
>they should be done. It's old. You're old. Time for both to fade away
>without notice.

What do you know of moral character? Your sense of moral character is
to cheerlead a war that you wouldn't fight yourself because the pay
was too low.

You've already faded away.

>
>> It
>> will be older voters who, for whatever reason, will decide to vote
>> against their own political principles.
>
>Obama is going to lose, big time, for a lot of reasons, none of which
>have to do with anything but Obama.

>
>> Experience is overrated in the sense that we seldom elect anyone based
>> on seniority and the fact that only occasionally do we elect someone
>> who has already been President. Most people realize that it is the
>> team the President puts into place that is so important.
>>
>> I think that was true with Bush too. I remember feeling good about his
>> prospects for bringing in Cheney and Rumsfeld and the old hands from
>> the Ford era to make for a moderate Presidency. HAHA at myself.
>
>Until you internalize that there are more than one valid political
>points of view, people are going to consistently confound you. I think
>it is too late, but hope springs eternal.
>
>Venger

You seem to be saying I should have listened to the political point of
view in 2000 that Bush sucked. I agree.

will(from the reality based community)

unread,

Aug 25, 2008, 11:25:39 PM8/25/08

to

Venger can't handle any sort of disagreement without namecalling or
ugliness. Don't you dare say his TV isn't the best in its class! You
must be envious! What about his steel Corvette?

will(from the reality based community)

unread,

Aug 25, 2008, 11:28:59 PM8/25/08

to

Do I have to list the problem with you moron conservatives? Like
sticking with the Republicans as the national debt climbs to $9
trillion!

No one is dumber than the self proclaimed fiscal conservative
Republicans. NO ONE.

You idiots singlehandledly ruined the value of the dollar. Whatever
tax cut you got was spent on higher prices to compensate for the loss
of spending power.

Stupid.

will(from the reality based community)

unread,

Aug 25, 2008, 11:35:48 PM8/25/08

to

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 13:50:38 -0500, Venger <ven...@mail.com> wrote:

>will(from the reality based community) wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 10:21:02 -0400, "slydrule" <stopspam> wrote:
>>
>>> Libs are disqualified from using character as an issue. Since Clinton, libs
>>> created a precedent that character does not matter in a president or any
>>> other public office holder.
>>>
>>> But to raise the character issue on a guy like McCain, who after suffereing
>>> months or physical abuse and torture at the hands to the libs best friends
>>> in Viet Nam turned down a chance to go home because his fellow prisoners
>>> would stay behind is just plain stupid and will back fire on the Democrats.
>>> Maybe McCain did cheat on his first wife after he returned from Viet Nam
>>> after being held as a tortured prisoner of war for years, but that was over
>>> 30 years ago. If he made a mistake, it was only one. He and his wife have
>>> been quiet philanthropists and there are some very impressive stories about
>>> them if you choose to educate yourself.
>>>
>>
>> Character isn't a one episode test. Your character is tested your
>> whole life.
>>
>> What worries me is someone who would use their POW experience as an
>> out or to shut up political differences or criticism.
>
>Well since McCain isn't doing that, then you don't need to "worry" do you?

Who are you kidding?

Speaking to the Washington Post, aide Brian Rogers, in full
damage-control mode, acknowledged that his boss had "some investment
properties and stuff," but added: "This is a guy who lived in one
house for five and a half years -- in prison."

That the McCain campaign could incorporate his service in Vietnam into
a campaign spat over his property portfolio is not so surprising. The
Senator has, rightfully or not, used his history as a POW shrewdly and
repeatedly throughout this campaign. Earlier this week, for instance,
amidst speculation that the Senator may have received in advance the
questions to a values forum between him and Obama, spokeswoman Nicole
Wallace declared: "The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John
McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous."

When Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of former Senator John Edwards,
ridiculed McCain's health care policy, his aides didn't respond with a
substantive retort. Rather, they declared that their boss knew what it
was like to get inadequate care "from another government." Even
earlier, when the topic was about earmarks, McCain criticized Sen.
Hillary Clinton for proposing funds for a museum celebrating
Woodstock. He didn't know what there was to celebrate, he said,
because he was "tied up" during the music festival.

The Senator has even brought his military record into discussion of
his music tastes. Explaining that his favorite song was "Dancing
Queen" by ABBA, he offered that his knowledge of music "stopped
evolving when his plane intercepted a surface-to-air missile." Dancing
Queen, however, was produced in 1975, eight years after McCain's plane
was shot down.

Preceding this election, there was a fairly wide-ranging belief that
McCain was hesitant to use his POW experience in a political context.
The Senator himself, during the 2004 election, said he was "sick and
tired of re-fighting" the Vietnam War.

"It's offensive to me, and it's angering to me that we're doing this,"
he said. "It's time to move on."

But during this campaign, it seems such reluctance is no longer an
issue, with the POW line sneaking into many of the campaign's
commercials and -- more subtly -- their foreign policy attacks. Much
of this strategy has come at the urging of GOP operatives. Karl Rove,
for example, wrote an April 2008 Wall Street Journal op-ed urging the
presumptive Republican nominee to "open up more" on his Vietnam days
or "many voters will never know the experiences of his life that show
his character."

Obama@Osama@yomamma.son

unread,

Aug 25, 2008, 11:57:25 PM8/25/08

to

He will be the LBJ for the 2000's...

bushlyed

unread,

Aug 25, 2008, 11:59:21 PM8/25/08

to

On Aug 25, 11:35 pm, "will(from the reality based community)"

>
> But during this campaign, it seems such reluctance is no longer an
> issue, with the POW line sneaking into many of the campaign's
> commercials and -- more subtly -- their foreign policy attacks. Much
> of this strategy has come at the urging of GOP operatives. Karl Rove,
> for example, wrote an April 2008 Wall Street Journal op-ed urging the
> presumptive Republican nominee to "open up more" on his Vietnam days
> or "many voters will never know the experiences of his life that show
> his character."
>

His character is shown to me quite dramatically by his dealings in the
Keating 5 scandal and how he had affair after affair after affair
while he ignored his helpless and crippled wife and how he dumped her
uncerimoniously.

We Democrats were quite critical of Edwards as we should have been.
But I am happy the Edwards issue came up because now McCain's
sleezebag stuff is fair game and I hope we don't shy away from using
that in the campaign.

bushlyed

unread,

Aug 26, 2008, 12:08:59 AM8/26/08

to

On Aug 25, 11:28 pm, "will(from the reality based community)"

>
> You idiots singlehandledly ruined the value of the dollar. Whatever
> tax cut you got was spent on higher prices to compensate for the loss
> of spending power.
>
>

The average tax cut is about 25% of the increase in the cost of just
gasoline.

Regarding the dollar, I travel to Europe two or three times a year and
have seen the dollar drop in value over the past eight years. In
2001, I could get a three star hotel in Rome for $45 a night. That
same hotel now would be well over $100.

And the dollar's devaluation, and the dependence on foreign oil, is
why little georgie is so fucking impotent when dealing with the
Russians over the situation in Georgia. For all his bluster and
bragging, he is a fucking wimp now when trying to deal with Russia
because he holds no cards: no military to send in and absolutely no
moral or ethical authority.

bushlyed

unread,

Aug 26, 2008, 12:18:22 AM8/26/08

to

On Aug 25, 11:28 pm, "will(from the reality based community)"

>
> No one is dumber than the self proclaimed fiscal conservative
> Republicans. NO ONE.
>

A little correction here Will

No one is dumber than those people who believe that these people are
fiscal conservatives

Bush and his ilk know precisely what they are doing: giving huge tax
breaks to their friends, giving subsidies to the poor, poor, poor oil
companies (socialism for the rich) while spending us deeply in debt by
pursuing a war that will cost over a trillion dollars in the end (and
make Haliburton, KBR and Blackwater lots of money)

And all you have to do to get these people to support this nonsense is
to wave the flag and attack liberals

Venger

unread,

Aug 26, 2008, 6:27:09 PM8/26/08

to

will(from the reality based community) wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 13:50:38 -0500, Venger <ven...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Character isn't a one episode test. Your character is tested your
>>> whole life.
>>>
>>> What worries me is someone who would use their POW experience as an
>>> out or to shut up political differences or criticism.
>> Well since McCain isn't doing that, then you don't need to "worry" do you?
>
>
> Who are you kidding?

This is where your words stop. When you quote someone, attribute, or at
least put quotes around it.

And he isn't using his POW experience as a policy "out" - find one time
where he gets to say "nope, POW, don't have to answer" on a political issue.

> Speaking to the Washington Post, aide Brian Rogers, in full
> damage-control mode, acknowledged that his boss had "some investment
> properties and stuff," but added: "This is a guy who lived in one
> house for five and a half years -- in prison."

You are going after his character, not his politics, and he is going to
use his character to defend himself. This isn't policy, or high
discourse, when am I going to see this POW card played to stifle free
speech or browbeat someone into a policy retreat?

> That the McCain campaign could incorporate his service in Vietnam into
> a campaign spat over his property portfolio is not so surprising. The
> Senator has, rightfully or not, used his history as a POW shrewdly and
> repeatedly throughout this campaign. Earlier this week, for instance,
> amidst speculation that the Senator may have received in advance the
> questions to a values forum between him and Obama, spokeswoman Nicole
> Wallace declared: "The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John
> McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous."

Having a flack inject it isn't the candidate asking for a pass, and this
is another contrived non-issue. Even if you were to assume McCain had
the questions tattooed on him from birth, it wouldn't affect Obama's
poor performance. Good grief... the "former POW" thing is simply to prop
up the honor argument, again, when am, I going to see a policy impact?

These are not political differences, you are going after character, and
when you do, you are going to absolutely defend yourself emphasizing
those traits that best define your character.

> When Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of former Senator John Edwards,
> ridiculed McCain's health care policy, his aides didn't respond with a
> substantive retort. Rather, they declared that their boss knew what it
> was like to get inadequate care "from another government."

Genius. When you can work it like that, it's magic. Sheer elegance.

> Even
> earlier, when the topic was about earmarks, McCain criticized Sen.
> Hillary Clinton for proposing funds for a museum celebrating
> Woodstock. He didn't know what there was to celebrate, he said,
> because he was "tied up" during the music festival.

Wow, not sure it was possible to remove all traces of humor from that
brilliantly funny scene, but whoever you appropriated your material from
did it. It was the best debate line since Reagan's "youth and
inexperience" line in 1984.

> The Senator has even brought his military record into discussion of
> his music tastes. Explaining that his favorite song was "Dancing
> Queen" by ABBA, he offered that his knowledge of music "stopped
> evolving when his plane intercepted a surface-to-air missile." Dancing
> Queen, however, was produced in 1975, eight years after McCain's plane
> was shot down.

This is unhinged - where did you get this from? You think McCain is
really a fan of gangster rap but is trying to pull a fast one by faking
old fuddy-duddy music taste? Did he claim to have Abba on his Walkman
when the plane went down? Criminey...

> Preceding this election, there was a fairly wide-ranging belief that
> McCain was hesitant to use his POW experience in a political context.
> The Senator himself, during the 2004 election, said he was "sick and
> tired of re-fighting" the Vietnam War.
>
> "It's offensive to me, and it's angering to me that we're doing this,"
> he said. "It's time to move on."
>
> But during this campaign, it seems such reluctance is no longer an
> issue, with the POW line sneaking into many of the campaign's
> commercials and -- more subtly -- their foreign policy attacks.

Fuck subtlety, it is OF COURSE a major piece of his biography and is
going they are going to rightly stand by it. McCain isn't "shutting up
differences", if anything he is drawing them into HIGH RELIEF. When he
talked about earmarks and had that brilliant line about Woodstock, he
wasn't relying on that to make his point earmarks were bad, or that
Clinton earmarked money for something clearly nonsensical - that showed
on it's own.

McCain uses his service no more than Ike or Kennedy ever did.

When you go after his character, he will of course defend his character
with his strongest arguments, including his POW time. But you tried to
sell me on him using it to quell political dissent - that is BS, sir,
and you know it.

Venger

bushlyed

unread,

Aug 26, 2008, 6:45:43 PM8/26/08

to

On Aug 26, 6:27 pm, Venger <ven...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>
> And he isn't using his POW experience as a policy "out" - find one time
> where he gets to say "nope, POW, don't have to answer" on a political issue.
>

I honor John McCain's service and admire his courage and fortitude in
standing up to the treatment he received while a POW

But that does not obviate his total lack of character for his
treatment of his first wife

>
> You are going after his character, not his politics, and he is going to
> use his character to defend himself.

Character does not cheat on and dump a crippled wife who was thrown
out like yesterday's garbage

>
> Having a flack inject it isn't the candidate asking for a pass, and this
> is another contrived non-issue. Even if you were to assume McCain had
> the questions tattooed on him from birth, it wouldn't affect Obama's
> poor performance. Good grief... the "former POW" thing is simply to prop
> up the honor argument, again, when am, I going to see a policy impact?
>

Obama's poor performance. He was articulate and intelligent. He was
nuanced and that was the problem since he understands things are not
always black and white

> These are not political differences, you are going after character, and
> when you do, you are going to absolutely defend yourself emphasizing
> those traits that best define your character.
>

Again, character. Dumping a crippled wife after repeatedly cheating
on her

> Fuck subtlety, it is OF COURSE a major piece of his biography and is
> going they are going to rightly stand by it. McCain isn't "shutting up
> differences", if anything he is drawing them into HIGH RELIEF. When he
> talked about earmarks and had that brilliant line about Woodstock, he
> wasn't relying on that to make his point earmarks were bad, or that
> Clinton earmarked money for something clearly nonsensical - that showed
> on it's own.
>

I thought McCain's remarks on Woodstock somewhat clever but so far as
Woodstock, what happened there was unique and it is part of our
collective history

>
> When you go after his character

Once again, character does not throw out a crippled wife after
repeated affairs

Had Clinton done that, we would not have heard the end of it

slydrule

unread,

Aug 26, 2008, 8:29:44 PM8/26/08

to

"bushlyed" <bush...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:88ff79a8-dc4c-4ccc...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 25, 11:28 pm, "will(from the reality based community)"

>
> No one is dumber than the self proclaimed fiscal conservative
> Republicans. NO ONE.
>

>A little correction here Will

>No one is dumber than those people who believe that these people are
>fiscal conservatives

Who here said this batch of liberal Republicans are fiscal conservatives?
Once again you read everything all wrong. Bush has been as big of a spender
as any liberal Democrat. But to be clear its his spending that led to the
deficit, bit the tax cut.

>Bush and his ilk know precisely what they are doing: giving huge tax
>breaks to their friends, giving subsidies to the poor, poor, poor oil
>companies (socialism for the rich) while spending us deeply in debt by
>pursuing a war that will cost over a trillion dollars in the end (and
>make Haliburton, KBR and Blackwater lots of money)

Ok, stupid, let's ee if you can answer this question. Exxon made $11Billion
in profits last quarter. How much did Exxon pay in taxes during the same
quarter?

>And all you have to do to get these people to support this nonsense is
>to wave the flag and attack liberals

Liberals deserve to be attacked because they want to change a great country
into a European style socialist country. Our constitution was once a great
document meant to protect individuals from government. You libs want more
government and more government intervention in our lives.

The question of taxing the rich should never even come up becuase our
government should never be allowed to decide what is rich and what isn't.
Just like the government should not be allowed to decide what is lawful
speech and what is protected. Why should our government or any one
individual like B Hussein Obama be allowed to define rich?

I agree that the current Republican party has lose its way, but so has the
old Democratic party. The Democrat party today has become the party of
extremists and misfits. That's why a Ted Kennedy can be a keynote speaker
when he should be in jail in hiding his face in shame.

bushlyed

unread,

Aug 26, 2008, 8:58:38 PM8/26/08

to

On Aug 26, 8:29 pm, "slydrule" <stopspam> wrote:

> Who here said this batch of liberal Republicans are fiscal conservatives?
> Once again you read everything all wrong. Bush has been as big of a spender
> as any liberal Democrat. But to be clear its his spending that led to the
> deficit, bit the tax cut.
>

The tax cuts for the very wealthy increased the deficit substantially

> >Bush and his ilk know precisely what they are doing: giving huge tax
> >breaks to their friends, giving subsidies to the poor, poor, poor oil
> >companies (socialism for the rich) while spending us deeply in debt by
> >pursuing a war that will cost over a trillion dollars in the end (and
> >make Haliburton, KBR and Blackwater lots of money)
>
> Ok, stupid, let's ee if you can answer this question. Exxon made $11Billion
> in profits last quarter. How much did Exxon pay in taxes during the same
> quarter?
>

Not enough

> >And all you have to do to get these people to support this nonsense is
> >to wave the flag and attack liberals
>
> Liberals deserve to be attacked because they want to change a great country
> into a European style socialist country. Our constitution was once a great
> document meant to protect individuals from government. You libs want more
> government and more government intervention in our lives.
>

We want more intervention in our lives?

We don't want to throw people in jail for such minor stuff as smoking
a joint

We don't want to criminialize what a woman chooses to do with her body

We strongly oppose the government monitoring private phone calls
without a warrant

We strongly oppose the government getting private library records of
what books people read

It was the Republicans who stifled protests against the pending Iraqi
war and that the Bush administration put pressure on NYC government to
not issue permits (remember one of the fundamental rights, listed
first, is the right to freely assemble and petitition the government
for redress)

We want the government to intervene against corporations that pollute
the air and water we depend on for our very lives; wow, how shameful

> The question of taxing the rich should never even come up becuase our
> government should never be allowed to decide what is rich and what isn't.
> Just like the government should not be allowed to decide what is lawful
> speech and what is protected.

Except if you are protesting Bush's war

>Why should our government or any one
> individual like B Hussein Obama be allowed to define rich?
>
> I agree that the current Republican party has lose its way, but so has the
> old Democratic party. The Democrat party today has become the party of
> extremists and misfits. That's why a Ted Kennedy can be a keynote speaker
> when he should be in jail in hiding his face in shame.

He didn't lie us into war

slydrule

unread,

Aug 28, 2008, 7:47:00 PM8/28/08

to

"bushlyed" <bush...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:3b99577c-15d0-4e69...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

> On Aug 26, 8:29 pm, "slydrule" <stopspam> wrote:
>
>> Who here said this batch of liberal Republicans are fiscal conservatives?
>> Once again you read everything all wrong. Bush has been as big of a
>> spender
>> as any liberal Democrat. But to be clear its his spending that led to
>> the
>> deficit, bit the tax cut.
>>
>
> The tax cuts for the very wealthy increased the deficit substantially

Deficits are created by too much spending not too little taxing. Tax
revenues have increased since the tax cuts went into effect.

>
>> >Bush and his ilk know precisely what they are doing: giving huge tax
>> >breaks to their friends, giving subsidies to the poor, poor, poor oil
>> >companies (socialism for the rich) while spending us deeply in debt by
>> >pursuing a war that will cost over a trillion dollars in the end (and
>> >make Haliburton, KBR and Blackwater lots of money)
>>
>> Ok, stupid, let's ee if you can answer this question. Exxon made
>> $11Billion
>> in profits last quarter. How much did Exxon pay in taxes during the same
>> quarter?
>>
>
> Not enough

What a stupid answer. If you don't know, why don't you just say so. Once
again I have proven what an ignorant uninformed big mouht you are.... but
typical of allof the liberals I know.

Exxon paid over $33B in taxes in one quarter. Correction, WE paid. So for
every dollar they earned in profits, they paid 3 in taxes. And you wonder
why the priceof gas is so high?

>
>> >And all you have to do to get these people to support this nonsense is
>> >to wave the flag and attack liberals
>>
>> Liberals deserve to be attacked because they want to change a great
>> country
>> into a European style socialist country. Our constitution was once a
>> great
>> document meant to protect individuals from government. You libs want
>> more
>> government and more government intervention in our lives.
>>
>
> We want more intervention in our lives?
>
> We don't want to throw people in jail for such minor stuff as smoking
> a joint
>

Of course not, you want everyone to be high while they lounge around
listening to music and drinking bad coffee. Of course if we all did that
who would pay the taxes necessary to take care of all you libs?

> We don't want to criminialize what a woman chooses to do with her body
>

But you do want to criminalize if a person chooses to smoke cigarettes or
cook a cannoli with trans fats.

> We strongly oppose the government monitoring private phone calls
> without a warrant
>

Don't worry, no one is monitoring your phone calls.

> We strongly oppose the government getting private library records of
> what books people read
>

> It was the Republicans who stifled protests against the pending Iraqi
> war and that the Bush administration put pressure on NYC government to
> not issue permits (remember one of the fundamental rights, listed
> first, is the right to freely assemble and petitition the government
> for redress)
>

Oh stop. Now you are going to tell me that idiot Bloomberg is a Bush fan?
What a joke. If I recall correctly Bloomberg gave them a permit just no for
the great lawn. Why don't you take it up with him since he is one of yours
anyway.

> We want the government to intervene against corporations that pollute
> the air and water we depend on for our very lives; wow, how shameful
>

And which corporations would that be? The drug companies? The oil
companies? Banks? The entire coal industry? How about lumber? and
transportation?

You indiiots still don't understand that "big corporations" are made up of
people like you. Going after "big corporations" is going after the jobs of
ordinary people.

Libs are so stupid, they want the government to hurt the very source of
their income. And then when their company lays them off, they want to blame
the company.

Like Michael Moore going after GM...then GM closes a plant and puts
thousands of people out of work and he blames GM! What a jackass...but a
hero of the left.

>
>
>> The question of taxing the rich should never even come up becuase our
>> government should never be allowed to decide what is rich and what isn't.
>> Just like the government should not be allowed to decide what is lawful
>> speech and what is protected.
>
> Except if you are protesting Bush's war
>

Nobody was prohibitted from speaking at that time and you know it. They
were told they could protest on the west side and off the great lawn but it
had to be where they wanted it.

The whole premises that somehow protesters were prohibitted from speaking is
assinine. There were marches on washington and in other cities. The only
case you can cite is where Bloomberg told the protesters they could lnot use
the great lawn in central park because it was new grass that would cost
million sof dollars to replace. No one sida they could not protest.

>>Why should our government or any one
>> individual like B Hussein Obama be allowed to define rich?
>>
>> I agree that the current Republican party has lose its way, but so has
>> the
>> old Democratic party. The Democrat party today has become the party of
>> extremists and misfits. That's why a Ted Kennedy can be a keynote
>> speaker
>> when he should be in jail in hiding his face in shame.
>
> He didn't lie us into war

Neither di George Bush. But libs are uninformed and would never know that.
Who is repeating the same lie constantly hoping to make it the truth?

This is another myth the libs who voted for the war created to justify to
the simple minded why they voted for it. And the simple minded bought it
hook line and sinker.

bushlyed

unread,

Aug 28, 2008, 8:53:21 PM8/28/08

to

On Aug 28, 7:47 pm, "slydrule" <stopspam> wrote:
> "bushlyed" <bushl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>

> > The tax cuts for the very wealthy increased the deficit substantially
>
> Deficits are created by too much spending not too little taxing.

Deficits in your personal spending as well as the government is caused
by spending more money than what is coming in. Period.

>
> What a stupid answer. If you don't know, why don't you just say so. Once
> again I have proven what an ignorant uninformed big mouht you are.... but
> typical of allof the liberals I know.
>

And you have proven what a tool you are, how willing to bend over and
take it in the ass for the oil companies so long as you can bash
liberals.

Well, you stupid dumb shit fuck, it isn't the liberals who tripled the
cost of your gasoline, it was the oil companies.

> Exxon paid over $33B in taxes in one quarter. Correction, WE paid. So for
> every dollar they earned in profits, they paid 3 in taxes. And you wonder
> why the priceof gas is so high?
>

The Federal tax on a gallon of gasoline is eighteen cents. Taxes are
such a small portion of the cost of gasoline. Not one cent of the
almost three dollar difference in the price of gasoline went to
taxes. It all went into the pockets of the oil companies who got
subsidies from the government.

>
> > We don't want to throw people in jail for such minor stuff as smoking
> > a joint
>
> Of course not, you want everyone to be high while they lounge around
> listening to music and drinking bad coffee. Of course if we all did that
> who would pay the taxes necessary to take care of all you libs?
>

What a fucking stupid statement but coming from you . . .

Drinking bad coffee? What the hell does that mean.

And lounging around and listening to music. God how communistic, now
awful, listening to music? Wow. How horrible.

So far as taxes, I will compare the taxes I have paid with yours
anyday.

> > We don't want to criminialize what a woman chooses to do with her body
>
> But you do want to criminalize if a person chooses to smoke cigarettes or
> cook a cannoli with trans fats.
>

You can smoke cigarettes all you want. But you have to smoke all the
poison yourself. You should not be allowed to pollute other people's
air with your smoke the same way you pollute this newsgroup with your
absurdities.

Regading trans fats, it seems the Republican mayor of New York is
doing that.

I don't doubt you are a big fan of trans fat; it is obviously all
through your head.

> > We strongly oppose the government monitoring private phone calls
> > without a warrant
>
> Don't worry, no one is monitoring your phone calls.
>

They can, without a warrant.

> > We strongly oppose the government getting private library records of
> > what books people read
>
> > It was the Republicans who stifled protests against the pending Iraqi
> > war and that the Bush administration put pressure on NYC government to
> > not issue permits (remember one of the fundamental rights, listed
> > first, is the right to freely assemble and petitition the government
> > for redress)
>
> Oh stop. Now you are going to tell me that idiot Bloomberg is a Bush fan?
> What a joke. If I recall correctly Bloomberg gave them a permit just no for
> the great lawn. Why don't you take it up with him since he is one of yours
> anyway.
>

Bloomberg is a republican idiot. And I am talking about the protests
in February of 2002 where they refused permits. And the protests you
are talking about had nothing to do with the great lawn.

> > We want the government to intervene against corporations that pollute
> > the air and water we depend on for our very lives; wow, how shameful
>
> And which corporations would that be? The drug companies? The oil
> companies? Banks? The entire coal industry? How about lumber? and
> transportation?
>

Bush has made environmental protection almost meaningless but hey it
is only your kids who have to breathe the air and drink the water

> You indiiots still don't understand that "big corporations" are made up of
> people like you. Going after "big corporations" is going after the jobs of
> ordinary people.
>

And you about as ordianary as they come

> Libs are so stupid, they want the government to hurt the very source of
> their income. And then when their company lays them off, they want to blame
> the company.
>

We don't want to hurt the very source of our income dumb shit. We
just don't believe you can pollute our planet.

> Like Michael Moore going after GM...then GM closes a plant and puts
> thousands of people out of work and he blames GM! What a jackass...but a
> hero of the left.
>
>

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Michael Moore went after GM for closing
plants and shipping jobs overseas.

You are so fucking stupid. Michael Moore is not responsible for a
single person being out of work at GM.

>
> > Except if you are protesting Bush's war
>
> Nobody was prohibitted from speaking at that time and you know it. They
> were told they could protest on the west side and off the great lawn but it
> had to be where they wanted it.
>

You weren't there, I was. I know what was going on.

> The whole premises that somehow protesters were prohibitted from speaking is
> assinine. There were marches on washington and in other cities. The only
> case you can cite is where Bloomberg told the protesters they could lnot use
> the great lawn in central park because it was new grass that would cost
> million sof dollars to replace. No one sida they could not protest.
>

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

>
> > He didn't lie us into war
>
> Neither di George Bush. But libs are uninformed and would never know that.
> Who is repeating the same lie constantly hoping to make it the truth?
>

WMDs, Yellow Cake. You are just too fucking stupid. So long as you
can bash liberals, then you will eat all the shit bush forces down
your throat.

He lied to lied. Lied. Lied. Lied.

> This is another myth the libs who voted for the war created to justify to
> the simple minded why they voted for it. And the simple minded bought it
> hook line and sinker.

The MAJORITY of the Democrats in Congress did not vote for the war.

bushlyed

unread,

Aug 28, 2008, 9:21:49 PM8/28/08

to

On Aug 28, 7:47 pm, "slydrule" <stopspam> wrote:

>
> > He didn't lie us into war
>
> Neither di George Bush. But libs are uninformed and would never know that.
> Who is repeating the same lie constantly hoping to make it the truth?
>

Here is documentation of those lies (or some of the 900 plus lies)

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/03/27_lies.html

There is none so blind as those who refuse to see

slydrule

unread,

Aug 29, 2008, 7:45:07 PM8/29/08

to

"bushlyed" <bush...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:9fa58f57-8b54-4396...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

> On Aug 28, 7:47 pm, "slydrule" <stopspam> wrote:
>> "bushlyed" <bushl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>>
>> > The tax cuts for the very wealthy increased the deficit substantially
>>
>> Deficits are created by too much spending not too little taxing.
>
> Deficits in your personal spending as well as the government is caused
> by spending more money than what is coming in. Period.
>

Isn't that what I said?

>
>>
>> What a stupid answer. If you don't know, why don't you just say so.
>> Once
>> again I have proven what an ignorant uninformed big mouht you are.... but
>> typical of allof the liberals I know.
>>
>
> And you have proven what a tool you are, how willing to bend over and
> take it in the ass for the oil companies so long as you can bash
> liberals.
>
> Well, you stupid dumb shit fuck, it isn't the liberals who tripled the
> cost of your gasoline, it was the oil companies.
>

Here's a quote for you...from one of your founding fathers, Norman Thomas,
the presidential candidate for the sociallist party around the time FDR
introduced socialism into the US government:

Norman Thomas essentially said there was no need for him to
run any more, because the Democrat Party had adopted the Socialist Party
platform. His actual quote was: "The American people will never
knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism', they
will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day
America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Pro-Humanist FREELOVER

unread,

Aug 29, 2008, 10:01:27 PM8/29/08

to

"slydrule" <stopspam> wrote ...
>
> [...]

>
> Here's a quote for you...from one of your founding fathers, Norman Thomas,
> the presidential candidate for the sociallist party around the time FDR
> introduced socialism into the US government:
>
> Norman Thomas essentially said there was no need for him to
> run any more, because the Democrat Party had adopted the Socialist Party
> platform. His actual quote was: "The American people will never
> knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism', they
> will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day
> America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
>

> [...]

Norman Thomas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Thomas

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - -
October, 2006 in Society & Policy

The Social Welfare State, beyond Ideology

Are higher taxes and strong social "safety nets"
antagonistic to a prosperous market economy?
The evidence is now in

by Jeffrey D. Sachs
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-social-welfare-state
- - -

Complete article:

One of the great challenges of sustainable develop-
ment is to combine society's desires for economic
prosperity and social security. For decades econo-
mists and politicians have debated how to reconcile
the undoubted power of markets with the reassuring
protections of social insurance.

America's supply-siders claim that the best way to
achieve well-being for America's poor is by spurring
rapid economic growth and that the higher taxes
needed to fund high levels of social insurance would
cripple prosperity.

Austrian-born free-market economist Friedrich Aug-
ust von Hayek suggested that high taxation would be
a "road to serfdom," a threat to freedom itself.*

Most of the debate in the U.S. is clouded by vested
interests and by ideology. Yet there is by now a rich
empirical record to judge these issues scientifically.
The evidence may be found by comparing a group
of relatively free-market economies that have low
to moderate rates of taxation and social outlays with
a group of social-welfare states that have high rates
of taxation and social outlays.

Not coincidentally, the low-tax, high-income countries
are mostly English-speaking ones that share a direct
historical lineage with 19th-century Britain and its
theories of economic laissez-faire. These countries
include Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the
U.K. and the U.S.

The high-tax, high-income states are the Nordic social
democracies, notably Denmark, Finland, Norway and
Sweden, which have been governed by left-of-center
social democratic parties for much or all of the post-
World War II era. They combine a healthy respect for
market forces with a strong commitment to antipov-
erty programs.

Budgetary outlays for social purposes average around
27 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in the
Nordic countries and just 17 percent of GDP in the
English-speaking countries.

Friedrich Von Hayek was wrong

On average, the Nordic countries outperform the Anglo-
Saxon ones on most measures of economic performance.

Poverty rates are much lower there, and national income
per working-age population is on average higher. Unem-
ployment rates are roughly the same in both groups, just
slightly higher in the Nordic countries. The budget situ-
ation is stronger in the Nordic group, with larger sur-
pluses as a share of GDP.

The Nordic countries maintain their dynamism despite
high taxation in several ways. Most important, they
spend lavishly on research and development and higher
education. All of them, but especially Sweden and Fin-
land, have taken to the sweeping revolution in informa-
tion and communications technology and leveraged it
to gain global competitiveness.

Sweden now spends nearly 4 percent of GDP on R&D,
the highest ratio in the world today. On average, the
Nordic nations spend 3 percent of GDP on R&D, com-
pared with around 2 percent in the English-speaking
nations.

The Nordic states have also worked to keep social ex-
penditures compatible with an open, competitive, mar-
ket-based economic system. Tax rates on capital are
relatively low. Labor market policies pay low-skilled
and otherwise difficult-to-employ individuals to work
in the service sector, in key quality-of-life areas such
as child care, health, and support for the elderly and
disabled.

The results for the households at the bottom of the
income distribution are astoundingly good, especially
in contrast to the mean-spirited neglect that now passes
for American social policy.

The U.S. spends less than almost all rich countries on
social services for the poor and disabled, and it gets
what it pays for: the highest poverty rate among the
rich countries and an exploding prison population.

Actually, by shunning public spending on health, the
U.S. gets much less than it pays for, because its depen-
dence on private health care has led to a ramshackle
system that yields mediocre results at very high costs.

Von Hayek was wrong. In strong and vibrant demo-
cracies, a generous social-welfare state is not a road
to serfdom but rather to fairness, economic equality
and international competitiveness.

- - - end of article - - -

slydrule

unread,

Aug 29, 2008, 10:07:07 PM8/29/08

to

"bushlyed" <bush...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:8f2962af-1336-4f55...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...

Please. This is just leftist propaganda. We all know there we no WMDs in
Iraq NOW, you moron. The question is what were people thinking BEFORE Bush
invaded to get the proof? There are tons of documents including UN
Resolutions and motion in our own congress the prove a lot of our government
was convinced about Saddam's WMDs. Remember how many Dem Senators voted to
give Bush the authority to invade. The blind one is you. You want to
beleive all of the idiot Dem politicians who want to run away from their
votes so they blame Bush for lying to them. You are the fool, but why
should I expect a fool to see he is being fooled?

slydrule

unread,

Aug 29, 2008, 10:17:16 PM8/29/08

to

"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" <prohu...@ghg.net> wrote in message
news:WMSdnVVNQ8HSNyXV...@pghconnect.com...

>
> "slydrule" <stopspam> wrote ...
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Here's a quote for you...from one of your founding fathers, Norman
>> Thomas,
>> the presidential candidate for the sociallist party around the time FDR
>> introduced socialism into the US government:
>>
>> Norman Thomas essentially said there was no need for him to
>> run any more, because the Democrat Party had adopted the Socialist Party
>> platform. His actual quote was: "The American people will never
>> knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism', they
>> will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day
>> America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
>>
>> [...]
>
> Norman Thomas
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Thomas
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
>

> Friedrich Von Hayek was wrong
>
> On average, the Nordic countries outperform the Anglo-
> Saxon ones on most measures of economic performance.
>

You cannot compare Nordic countries to the US. Nordic countries are not
world powers. Just look at what we put into the UN alone. And then the
amound of money we give to African nations to fight aids. When Sweden
ponies up what we pony up then we can make the comparison. But if they did
their socialist system would fail.

Pro-Humanist FREELOVER

unread,

Aug 29, 2008, 11:58:23 PM8/29/08

to

"slydrule" <stopspam> wrote in message news:BsmdnRyZWM7MMyXV...@earthlink.com...

>
> "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" <prohu...@ghg.net> wrote in message
> news:WMSdnVVNQ8HSNyXV...@pghconnect.com...
> >
> > "slydrule" <stopspam> wrote ...
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> Here's a quote for you...from one of your founding fathers, Norman
> >> Thomas,
> >> the presidential candidate for the sociallist party around the time FDR
> >> introduced socialism into the US government:
> >>
> >> Norman Thomas essentially said there was no need for him to
> >> run any more, because the Democrat Party had adopted the Socialist Party
> >> platform. His actual quote was: "The American people will never
> >> knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism', they
> >> will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day
> >> America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
> >>
> >> [...]
> >
> > Norman Thomas
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Thomas
> >
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >

> > - - -
> > October, 2006 in Society & Policy
> >
> > The Social Welfare State, beyond Ideology
> >
> > Are higher taxes and strong social "safety nets"
> > antagonistic to a prosperous market economy?
> > The evidence is now in
> >
> > by Jeffrey D. Sachs
> > http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-social-welfare-state
> > - - -
> >

> > [...]

> >
> > Friedrich Von Hayek was wrong
> >
> > On average, the Nordic countries outperform the Anglo-
> > Saxon ones on most measures of economic performance.
> >
>
> You cannot compare Nordic countries to the US.

The comparison was made between the
economic policies and results of the left-
leaning Nordic countries compared against
the economic policies and results of the
"... low-tax, high-income countries [which]

are mostly English-speaking ones that share
a direct historical lineage with 19th-century
Britain and its theories of economic laissez-
faire. These countries include Australia,
Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the U.K.

and the U.S. ..."

> Nordic countries are not
> world powers. Just look at what we put into the UN alone. And then the
> amound of money we give to African nations to fight aids. When Sweden
> ponies up what we pony up then we can make the comparison. But if they
> did their socialist system would fail.

If you're presuming that the Nordic countries
contribute less to social welfare efforts (out-
side their own countries) as a percentage of
GNP than do the countries listed above, I
would be interested in what you are basing
that presumption on. I think you'd concede
the point that the Nordic countries exceed
the social welfare efforts as a percentage of
GNP when it comes to their own citizens.

And recently, one of those Nordic countries,
Denmark, was highlighted in a recent study
that indicated they were the happiest citizenry
in the world (if you're interested, I'll look up
the details on that for you).

As for the spending on being a 'world power',
that brings into question the fact that the U.S.
spends far more on its military (as a percent
of GNP) than does everyone else. This large
spending brings to mind some facts like it
did nothing to prevent 9-11, it still hasn't
enabled us to find the culprits responsible
for 9-11, it led to us invading a country not
remotely involved in 9-11, it risked an all-
out nuclear war in the Kennedy administra-
tion, it engaged in a futile war in Vietnam,
and really, since the end of the cold war, do
we really need to be outspending the rest of
the world on weapons of war intended to
fight an enemy that now exists as a former
'world power', a loser of the 'cold war'?

- - -

Message has been deleted

bushlyed

unread,

Aug 30, 2008, 4:16:00 AM8/30/08

to

On Aug 29, 7:45 pm, "slydrule" <stopspam> wrote:

>
> Here's a quote for you...from one of your founding fathers, Norman Thomas,
> the presidential candidate for the sociallist party around the time FDR
> introduced socialism into the US government:
>
> Norman Thomas essentially said there was no need for him to
> run any more, because the Democrat Party had adopted the Socialist Party
> platform. His actual quote was: "The American people will never
> knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism', they
> will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day
> America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

You are dredging up a quote made by someone over 50 years ago

Give me a break

bushlyed

unread,

Aug 30, 2008, 4:24:51 AM8/30/08

to

On Aug 29, 10:07 pm, "slydrule" <stopspam> wrote:
]

>
> Please. This is just leftist propaganda.

Leftifst propganda. Lies compiled by reporters and investigators,
well documented.

There are none so blind . . .

You acutally think that EVERYTHING bushie ever told you was the truth?

> We all know there we no WMDs in
> Iraq NOW, you moron.

Scott Ritter knew. So did the UN when it refused to endorse the war.

And inspections were occuring as bush prepared for war

>The question is what were people thinking BEFORE Bush
> invaded to get the proof? There are tons of documents including UN
> Resolutions and motion in our own congress the prove a lot of our government
> was convinced about Saddam's WMDs.

Not those who read all the documentation and did independent thinking

> Remember how many Dem Senators voted to
> give Bush the authority to invade.

First of all, if (fucking immensely stupid) you would read the
resolution, it does not give bush the authority to invade without
first attempting specific diplomatic solutions which he didn't

You are a fucking tool for the right wing; all your talking points are
lifted from right wing sites and rush limbaugh since you are incapable
of an independent thought for yourself

Like Michael Moore was responsible for GM's problems; if anything
indicates how fucking stupid you are, that's it

>The blind one is you. You want to
> beleive all of the idiot Dem politicians who want to run away from their
> votes so they blame Bush for lying to them. You are the fool, but why
> should I expect a fool to see he is being fooled?

I wasn't the fool you ignorant piece of shit. I KNEW he was LYING.

And I didn't agree with those senators who voted for the resolution.
Indeed, my Congressperson voted for the resolution and I always wrote
in my former Congressperson's name for that slot since he voted
against it

Michael Moore is responsible for GM's problems

All by his little lonesome

HA

bushlyed

unread,

Aug 30, 2008, 4:28:29 AM8/30/08

to

On Aug 30, 12:01 am, gri...@humbug.net wrote:

>
> The average liberal, if this idiot even rates that high, does not have
> the critical thinking prowess to come up with an original thought.
> They wait until the party elite promulgates the official spin and then
> adopts it as gospel truth all the while telling everyone who disagrees
> to "think for themselves", go figure.
> -

Wow, that's brilliant. You learned a new word: promulgates

bushlyed

unread,

Aug 30, 2008, 4:33:46 AM8/30/08

to

On Aug 29, 10:17 pm, "slydrule" <stopspam> wrote:

>
> > On average, the Nordic countries outperform the Anglo-
> > Saxon ones on most measures of economic performance.
>
> You cannot compare Nordic countries to the US. Nordic countries are not
> world powers. Just look at what we put into the UN alone. And then the
> amound of money we give to African nations to fight aids. When Sweden
> ponies up what we pony up then we can make the comparison. But if they did
> their socialist system would fail.

You know, your logic sounds like Truth or Consequences logic. When
one of your points is shot down, you say it doesn't matter and try
another one.

Regarding foreign aid, European countries give a higher percentage
than we do.

Period.

And yes, we can compare Nordic countries to us. Nordic countries
where the people live much longer than we do, Nordic countries whos
personal income equals ours, Nordic countries who manage to provide
their citizens with proper medical care, Nordic countries where people
get six weeks of vacation a year.

How terrible for them to have to live under conditions like that.

slydrule

unread,

Aug 30, 2008, 11:54:07 AM8/30/08

to

"bushlyed" <bush...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:72b32813-7573-4b23...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

So do you advocate we become exactly like Sweden? or Finland? or Denmark?
Do you advocate throwing our consitution out the windows so we can live
longer, provide even non-productive citizens health-care and give everyone 6
weeks of vacation?

Let's think back to WWII...what happened to Finlandin WWII? Oh, yea, that's
right. It was overrun by the Nazis. Who rescued them? Oh yeah, it was the
United Stated. And who protected them from teh Soviet Union..oh, yes, it
was the United States again. And who protects them today, like we do the
rest of Europe? Oh, yeah, that big bad United States that treats its
citizens so harshly.

You libs are out of your minds nad have no idea what you are talking about.
The U.S. has a great set of rules laid out in the consitution and if we
lived by them instead of letting libs erode them over time we would all be a
lot better off.

slydrule

unread,

Aug 30, 2008, 11:56:18 AM8/30/08

to

"bushlyed" <bush...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:2daa8f1b-62c4-499d...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

You see, thisis what I mean bu how stupid you are. The quote made 50 years
ago was a prediction of the future made by a person who witnessed first hand
the change in the US government. The quote is relelvant today because we
can now look back over the past 50 years and see evidence of his truth.

I swear, libs are just incapable of logical thought.

slydrule

unread,

Aug 30, 2008, 12:13:57 PM8/30/08

to

"bushlyed" <bush...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:0d1d8740-3851-4e95...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

> On Aug 29, 10:07 pm, "slydrule" <stopspam> wrote:
> ]
>>
>> Please. This is just leftist propaganda.
>
> Leftifst propganda. Lies compiled by reporters and investigators,
> well documented.
>
> There are none so blind . . .
>
> You acutally think that EVERYTHING bushie ever told you was the truth?
>

www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

read the link above and see what your own Democratics thought about Iraq
before the war. This is part of the record of the USofA.

>> We all know there we no WMDs in
>> Iraq NOW, you moron.
>
> Scott Ritter knew. So did the UN when it refused to endorse the war.
>
> And inspections were occuring as bush prepared for war
>

How did Scott Ritter know? What evidence did Scott Ritter provide as proof
at the time? None. It was his opinion andno one believed him, not even
Hans Blix. I posted quotes for you from Hans once before. Of course you
ignored them and continued with your bullshit Dem talking points. This is
another trait of Dems, yourefuse to accept any evidence no matter how strong
whiel accusing the other side of being blind. Its actually so ridiculous
its close to being a mental disorder.

>>The question is what were people thinking BEFORE Bush
>> invaded to get the proof? There are tons of documents including UN
>> Resolutions and motion in our own congress the prove a lot of our
>> government
>> was convinced about Saddam's WMDs.
>
> Not those who read all the documentation and did independent thinking
>

Oh, so now it comes down to those few superior beings how are smarter than
the rest of the world. Again, this is typical lib elitism. This is why
libs call themsselves intellectuals. What a joke.

The documented evidence from teh UN, the US, France, Germany, the UK
Australia, Israel suggests that there were WMDs in Iraq and they almost then
entire world believed it.

The 20-20 hindsight that you were given thanks to the Bush invasion of Iraq
is staggering.

>> Remember how many Dem Senators voted to
>> give Bush the authority to invade.
>
> First of all, if (fucking immensely stupid) you would read the
> resolution, it does not give bush the authority to invade without
> first attempting specific diplomatic solutions which he didn't
>

read the resolution. I just posted it for you to read. Notice how is
spells out the thinknig of the time about what Iraq was up to, including
Iraq shooting at US forces thousands of times....a charge you once denied to
me. I think you called me a liar or somethig like that. And again, what
have you done with all of your lib friends who voted for this resolution?
Oh, yey. You believe their bullshit story that Bush lied to them. HAHA.
Do you realize how stupid you are? I suppose not because they would take
some brains.

> You are a fucking tool for the right wing; all your talking points are
> lifted from right wing sites and rush limbaugh since you are incapable
> of an independent thought for yourself
>

Actually, I do not follow the right wing. I really an an independent who
really is interested in the facts. I just find it hard to believe, having
lived through all of these events just a few years ago, that Dems thik they
can simply revise history by repeating teh same points over and over again.
And what makes it funny is the weak minded people who listen to it, then
begin to believe it, then begin to repeat it. Its incredible really.

Were you not alive int 1995 - 2003? Do you not remember what was going
then, in the UN? Do you not remember Clinton pulling the inspectors out of
Iraq and then bombing Iraq about the time he was supposed to be impeached.
At the time the right wing claimed he was trying to distract us from teh
impeachment, but the Dems were saying no, Iraq deserved it. Now you seem to
be saying the Clinton really did launch a bombing campaign in Iraq to
distract us from BJ-gate. Now isn't that worse than Bush's invasion of Iraq
based on false intelligence reports?
.

> Like Michael Moore was responsible for GM's problems; if anything
> indicates how fucking stupid you are, that's it
>

I did not say he was responsible. I said he was hypocritical, like os many
Dems.

> >The blind one is you. You want to
>> beleive all of the idiot Dem politicians who want to run away from their
>> votes so they blame Bush for lying to them. You are the fool, but why
>> should I expect a fool to see he is being fooled?
>
> I wasn't the fool you ignorant piece of shit. I KNEW he was LYING.
>

No, you thought he was lying. You could not prove he was lying then and you
cannot prove he was lying now.

> And I didn't agree with those senators who voted for the resolution.
> Indeed, my Congressperson voted for the resolution and I always wrote
> in my former Congressperson's name for that slot since he voted
> against it
>
> Michael Moore is responsible for GM's problems
>

Michael Moore is responsible for Bush's second term. And before this
election is over, Moore and his hollywood friends will give McCain a boost
too.

oli...@comcast.net

unread,

Aug 30, 2008, 1:11:18 PM8/30/08

to

"slydrule" <stopspam> wrote in message

news:ruidnVEnz5ZZ8CTV...@earthlink.com...

>
> You libs are out of your minds nad have no idea what you are talking
> about. The U.S. has a great set of rules laid out in the consitution and
> if we lived by them instead of letting libs erode them over time we would
> all be a lot better off.
>

The sad fact is, outside a precious few actual politicians, advisers and
strategists, there really are very few people who understand the process,
how it all gets done or what it means.

For most, right OR left, it boils down to the last soundbite they heard, or
the last website they googled looking for ammo for a given set of arguments.

The simplest fact is... many people, republican AND democrat... have come to
the realization they are not better off now than eight years ago, and want
significant change. The simplest of minds belong to those who will easily
demonize others because they're not in lock step.

And, that seems to be the main calling point of Usenet.

I know whom I support and why, and really don't much care whom others
support... or why... but it really does get tiresome either participating in
or watching a political argument that's mostly based on, "Oh yeah, well you
are an idiot, sir." One can easily find "evidence" to back up just about any
position, so it's about as pointless to argue politics as it is religion.

Discussing the varied points and nuances is one thing, but completely
dismissing anothers point of view, based entirely on it not agreeing with
yours is entirely another.

bushlyed

unread,

Aug 30, 2008, 1:56:26 PM8/30/08

to

On Aug 30, 11:54 am, "slydrule" <stopspam> wrote:

> > How terrible for them to have to live under conditions like that.
>
> So do you advocate we become exactly like Sweden? or Finland? or Denmark?
> Do you advocate throwing our consitution out the windows so we can live
> longer, provide even non-productive citizens health-care and give everyone 6
> weeks of vacation?
>

Throwing out Constitution out the window? How.

Please name one freedom that we have that people in Sweden, Finland or
Denmark don't have.

They are free to speak their minds, indeed, unlike New York during the
leadup to the Iraq war, people could actually demonstrate against
their government in those countries

There is not a freedom that we have that they don't; indeed, quite the
contrary

> Let's think back to WWII...what happened to Finlandin WWII? Oh, yea, that's
> right. It was overrun by the Nazis. Who rescued them? Oh yeah, it was the
> United Stated. And who protected them from teh Soviet Union..oh, yes, it
> was the United States again. And who protects them today, like we do the
> rest of Europe? Oh, yeah, that big bad United States that treats its
> citizens so harshly.
>

And if it weren't for the French, there would not have been a United
States.

And we didn't protect Finland from the Soviets.

God, are you stupid and wrong.

So far as treating its citizens harshly, we had segregation in the
South up until the 1960s, Blacks could be lynched and attacked and
let's not even bring up Indians.

> You libs are out of your minds nad have no idea what you are talking about.
> The U.S. has a great set of rules laid out in the consitution and if we
> lived by them instead of letting libs erode them over time we would all be a
> lot better off.

What great set or rules?

What rules have been eroded by liberals over time. Indeed, it is bush
who wants to spy on your sorry stupid ass

bushlyed

unread,

Aug 30, 2008, 1:56:46 PM8/30/08

to

On Aug 30, 11:56 am, "slydrule" <stopspam> wrote:
> "bushlyed" <bushl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

bushlyed

unread,

Aug 30, 2008, 1:57:08 PM8/30/08

to

On Aug 30, 11:56 am, "slydrule" <stopspam> wrote:
> "bushlyed" <bushl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

Then provide that evidence right here.

Message has been deleted

bushlyed

unread,

Aug 30, 2008, 2:07:23 PM8/30/08

to

On Aug 30, 12:13 pm, "slydrule" <stopspam> wrote:
>
>
> > You acutally think that EVERYTHING bushie ever told you was the truth?
>
> www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
>
> read the link above and see what your own Democratics thought about Iraq
> before the war. This is part of the record of the USofA.
>

But you are always saying that Democrats are such liars; now you are
quoting them

You didn't answer the question

>
> How did Scott Ritter know? What evidence did Scott Ritter provide as proof
> at the time?

He didn't find WMDs even though we had inspectors all through Iraq

Bush stopped the inspection process before it was allowed to be
completed

>
> Oh, so now it comes down to those few superior beings how are smarter than
> the rest of the world. Again, this is typical lib elitism. This is why
> libs call themsselves intellectuals. What a joke.
>

We were right that there was no WMDs; we were right that the invasion
was based on lies

> The documented evidence from teh UN, the US, France, Germany, the UK
> Australia, Israel suggests that there were WMDs in Iraq and they almost then
> entire world believed it.
>

The evidence was cherry-picked you fucking moron. Bush chose what
would get ignorant pieces of shit like you salivating over going to
war. But I didn't see your chickenshit chickenhawk cowardly
cheerleading ass in uniform in Iraq. Yeah, war is great so long as
others fight and die and you get to cheer from the sidelines.

>
> > You are a fucking tool for the right wing; all your talking points are
> > lifted from right wing sites and rush limbaugh since you are incapable
> > of an independent thought for yourself
>
> Actually, I do not follow the right wing. I really an an independent who
> really is interested in the facts.

You haven't posted an independent thought in years

> Dems thik they
> can simply revise history by repeating teh same points over and over again.
> And what makes it funny is the weak minded people who listen to it, then
> begin to believe it, then begin to repeat it. Its incredible really.
>

Revise history
. Once again, there were no WMDs, there was no yellow cake purchases
>

Were you not alive int 1995 - 2003? Do you not remember what was
going
> then, in the UN? Do you not remember Clinton pulling the inspectors out of
> Iraq and then bombing Iraq about the time he was supposed to be impeached.
> At the time the right wing claimed he was trying to distract us from teh
> impeachment, but the Dems were saying no, Iraq deserved it. Now you seem to
> be saying the Clinton really did launch a bombing campaign in Iraq to
> distract us from BJ-gate. Now isn't that worse than Bush's invasion of Iraq
> based on false intelligence reports?

I didn't agree with Clinton on that either. But so far as BJ-gate as
you so cleverly call it, here we have John McCain cheating on a
crippled wife and dumping her for a younger woman and you are OK with
that.

I want to repeat that.

JOHN MCCAIN, YOUR FUCKING HERO, CHEATED ON A CRIPPLED WIFE AND DUMBED
HER FOR A YOUNGER WOMAN

WHAT A HERO

> .
>
> > Like Michael Moore was responsible for GM's problems; if anything
> > indicates how fucking stupid you are, that's it
>
> I did not say he was responsible. I said he was hypocritical, like os many
> Dems.
>

Read your own post.

Now how was Moore hypocritical? Please detail his hypocrisy.

> > Michael Moore is responsible for GM's problems
>
> Michael Moore is responsible for Bush's second term. And before this
> election is over, Moore and his hollywood friends will give McCain a boost
> too.
>

No, fear was responsible and the swift boat lies where no matter what
you think of Kerry's politics, he was awarded medals of honor that you
could only envy