GRACE WAS A REALITY ONCE..DON'T MISS THIS ONE..!
gambl...@gmail.com
the word "Grace" was all about...!
http://www.lifeinlasvegas.net/index.php/barbarella-a-classical-beauty/#more-412
Nonnymus
<gambl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:166df50d-2e23-4dcd...@k1g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
She was a traitor and despite the good looks, she's unworthy of
any bandwidth.
--
Nonny
. . . on a darned diet
and ready to chew off
my own elbows.
Ian F.
<spamb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:166df50d-2e23-4dcd...@k1g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> This trailer comes to you from the late 60's...watch it and see what
> the word "Grace" was all about...!
I don't know who's more annoying - this spamming twonk or the other spamming
twonk with his "I can get you into Vegas nightclubs" shit!
Ian
DocTCW
I don't want to get into it with you, but I do believe that we should all
be given a second chance, especially when it comes to youthful
indescretions. Jane Fonda has apologized for her actions, and as an army
officer during Viet Nam, I have forgiven her.
Tom
On Jul 7 2009 10:27 AM, Nonnymus wrote:
> <gambl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:166df50d-2e23-4dcd...@k1g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> > This trailer comes to you from the late 60's...watch it and see
> > what
> > the word "Grace" was all about...!
> >
> >
http://www.lifeinlasvegas.net/index.php/barbarella-a-classical-beauty/#more-412
>
> She was a traitor and despite the good looks, she's unworthy of
> any bandwidth.
>
> --
> Nonny
>
> .. . . on a darned diet
> and ready to chew off
> my own elbows.
------�
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Spencerdogg
Jane Fonda has apologized for her actions, and as an army
> officer during Viet Nam, I have forgiven her.
Not Me.
JRogow
news:aadf2344-a16e-4f50...@h18g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
Not Me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nor I - her "beauty" is only skin deep.
Gary
> Nonny---
>
> I don't want to get into it with you, but I do believe that we should all
> be given a second chance, especially when it comes to youthful
> indescretions. Jane Fonda has apologized for her actions, and as an army
> officer during Viet Nam, I have forgiven her.
>
> Tom
DocTCW,
You might have forgiveness in your heart but I don't think the families
of the 58,195 men and women who died in Vietnam while Jane Fonda was
giving aid and comfort to the enemy will. I don't know a single Vietnam
vet that doesn't still think she was a traitor.
Never forget the fallen and what they gave their life for.
Gary
Nonny
"DocTCW" <doc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ogcci6x...@recgroups.com...
> Nonny---
>
> I don't want to get into it with you, but I do believe that we
> should all
> be given a second chance, especially when it comes to youthful
> indescretions. Jane Fonda has apologized for her actions, and as
> an army
> officer during Viet Nam, I have forgiven her.
>
> Tom
Doc, I respect your position and will say you're a better man than
I am because of it. However, I draw the line at some things and
contend that despite youth, some things can never be forgotten or
forgiven.
Nonny
> On Jul 7 2009 10:27 AM, Nonnymus wrote:
>
>> <gambl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:166df50d-2e23-4dcd...@k1g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>> > This trailer comes to you from the late 60's...watch it and
>> > see
>> > what
>> > the word "Grace" was all about...!
>> >
>> >
> http://www.lifeinlasvegas.net/index.php/barbarella-a-classical-beauty/#more-412
>>
>> She was a traitor and despite the good looks, she's unworthy of
>> any bandwidth.
>>
>> --
>> Nonny
>>
>> .. . . on a darned diet
>> and ready to chew off
>> my own elbows.
>
> ------
> RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader :
> www.recgroups.com
>
>
--
Nonny
Steve Harder-Kucera
>
> You might have forgiveness in your heart but I don't think the families
> of the 58,195 men and women who died in Vietnam while Jane Fonda was
> giving aid and comfort to the enemy will.
I hope they remember to save some of that animosity for the people who
actually put them there.
> Never forget the fallen and what they gave their life for.
"What they gave their life for" is at the heart of most anti-war
sentiment, isn't it.
Nonny
"Steve Harder-Kucera" <orle...@news.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4a539ad8$0$1589$742e...@news.sonic.net...
Right on, Steve. However, the guys and gals over there had no say
in the matter: remember the Draft? They were victims, and all
that worthless bi*ch did was exacerbate things and make their
lives more difficult. Some things cannot be forgotten or
forgiven.
We were in Austin a few years back seeing the kids when my son
asked us if we'd like to drive over and see the LBJ library. I
declined, telling him that it would bring back some very
unpleasant memories.
--
Nonny
normzauchin
> She was a traitor
I am curious as to why you have no condemnation of the current batch
of traitors, Limbaugh et. al. This group of "unworthy of any
bandwidth" Benedict Arnolds, have proclaimed that they wish our
President would fail. The inference is of course that we are attacked
again, we fail in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the country descends into
economic chaos. All so they can say that they were right. Now that
group is made up of some serious traitors and has the potential to do
much more damage to the U.S. than Jane.
DocTCW
Indeed, I was one of the very last of a small group of
draftees----doctors, in 1971. I don't think another person has been
drafted since my class of physicians, and no one was drafted the year
previously either.
Tom
> .. . . on a darned diet
> and ready to chew off
> my own elbows.
---�
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
EVIL ELVIS
> She was a traitor and despite the good looks, she's unworthy of
> any bandwidth.
<Rousing Applause!>
--EE--
EVIL ELVIS
> Nonny---
>
> I don't want to get into it with you, but I do believe that we should all
> be given a second chance, especially when it comes to youthful
> indescretions. Jane Fonda has apologized for her actions, and as an army
> officer during Viet Nam, I have forgiven her.
I am glad you have forgiven her, Tom. Forgiveness is a good thing.
However, there are many Vietnam Veterans that suffered due to her
actions. Couple that with her protests of the Iraq war, I think that
"fool me twice" comes into play.
BTW, I never did thank you for your service in 'Nam. So, I will now.
From the bottom of my heart, thank you for your service to your
country, Tom.
Take care.
--EE--
EVIL ELVIS
wrote:
> I hope they remember to save some of that animosity for the people who
> actually put them there.
You hope Vietnam Veterans have animosity for the Democrats?
> "What they gave their life for" is at the heart of most anti-war
> sentiment, isn't it.
You're right. The liberal left's drug-fueled hatred for America and
freedom, fondness for all things communist, and self-indulgence was at
the heart of these protests.
The war would have been over much sooner had these protesters not been
around. What a great bunch of people.
--EE--
EVIL ELVIS
> On Jul 7, 11:27 am, "Nonnymus" <some...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > She was a traitor
>
> I am curious as to why you have no condemnation of the current batch
> of traitors, Limbaugh et. al.
Huh? Since when did Limbaugh give aid and comfort to the enemy?
> This group of "unworthy of any
> bandwidth" Benedict Arnolds, have proclaimed that they wish our
> President would fail.
Only one person, Limbaugh, said that. And he was talking about his
policies.
> The inference is of course that we are attacked
> again, we fail in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the country descends into
> economic chaos.
Really? How did you extrapolate that from what was stated?
> All so they can say that they were right. Now that
> group is made up of some serious traitors and has the potential to do
> much more damage to the U.S. than Jane.
"Potential"? Put the crack pipe down.
--EE--
normzauchin
> Huh? �Since when did Limbaugh give aid and comfort to the enemy?
When he said that he hoped our President would fail. But that was not
my point anyway. My point as you have proven so well, is that one
man's traitor is another man's patriot. Next time I will try not to be
so subtle as I understand that is not your strong suit.
Gary
normzauchin,
I don't normally get in to these political debates, but
norm would never tell a lie.
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I got a request here from a major American print publication.
"Dear Rush: For the Obama [Immaculate] Inauguration we are asking a
handful of very prominent politicians, statesmen, scholars, businessmen,
commentators, and economists to write 400 words on their hope for the
Obama presidency. We would love to include you. If you could send us
400 words on your hope for the Obama presidency, we need it by Monday
night, that would be ideal." Now, we're caught in this trap again. The
premise is, what is your "hope." My hope, and please understand me when
I say this. I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the
aisle who have caved and who say, "Well, I hope he succeeds. We've got
to give him a chance." Why? They didn't give Bush a chance in 2000.
Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I'm
not talking about search-and-destroy, but I've been listening to Barack
Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. *I know
what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed.*
If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid
down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support
him. *Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the
private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking
business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health
care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things.* I
don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay,
I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: *I
hope he fails."* (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here's
the point. Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say. Look, even my
staff, "Oh, you can't do that." Why not? Why is it any different,
what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails?
Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously
close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don't care
what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media
headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's
gotta say it.
Were the liberals out there hoping Bush succeeded or were they out there
trying to destroy him before he was even inaugurated? Why do we have to
play the game by their rules? Why do we have to accept the premise here
that because of the historical nature of his presidency, that we want
him to succeed? This is affirmative action, if we do that. We want to
promote failure, we want to promote incompetence, we want to stand by
and not object to what he's doing simply because of the color of his
skin? Sorry. I got past the historical nature of this months ago. He
is the president of the United States, he's my president, he's a human
being, and his ideas and policies are what count for me, not his skin
color, not his past, not whatever ties he doesn't have to being down
with the struggle, all of that's irrelevant to me. We're talking about
my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my nephews, your
kids, your grandkids. Why in the world do we want to saddle them with
more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do that? So I can
answer it, four words, "I hope he fails." And that would be the most
outrageous thing anybody in this climate could say. Shows you just how
far gone we are. Well, I know, I know. I am the last man standing.
END TRANSCRIPT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh
Comments on Obama's policies
On January 16, 2009 Limbaugh read a letter on his radio show that he had
received a request from a national print outlet: ... "If you could send
us 400 words on your hope for the Obama presidency, we need it by Monday
night, that would be ideal." He responded, "I don't need 400 words, I
need four: I hope he fails." He explained that he didn't want
"absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as
possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the
automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in
charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work." He continued,
"what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is
our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the
precipice here."[40]
Limbaugh later said[41] it is President Obama's policies that he wants
to see fail, not the man himself. Speaking of Obama, Limbaugh said,
"He's my president, he's a human being, and his ideas and policies are
what count for me."[40]
Where in that statement does it mention being attacked Norm? Where is
the mention of Iraq and Afghanistan Norm? Why do you have to make up a
lie so easily disproved Norm? Where is your condemnation about being
lied to by Obama when he said he'd bring all the troops home as the
"first thing I'll do after I am President"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGur8GlFOAc
What did he say, Norm?
Why is he sending more troops to Afghanistan, Norm? Why aren't you
protesting that, Norm?
Drink the Kool Aid much Norm?
Gary
normzauchin
So basically Chuck, the traitorous coward is hoping that Obama fails
and therefore by inference he is hoping that America fails. I was only
wrong in giving him the courage of his convictions. Your quotes have
just made it plain that he took a cowardly circuitous route to the
same conclusion which boils down to:
"Why would I want to do that? So I can
> answer it, four words, "I hope he fails."
and;
" I would be honored if the Drive-By Media
headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails."
Somebody's
gotta say it."
As to drinking the Kool Aid, defending the wacko, drug addicted
leader of the Republican Party goes way beyond drinking the Kool Aid
and into some form of very sick personality cult.
Oh and by the way Chuck, of course you get involved in political
discussions. It is your "Gary" persona that up until now did not want
to allude to Chuck's very right leaning persuasions. I am sure that
one of your many other puppets can lead the way to "gettin dem libs."
Don't you find it deliciously ironic Chuck that the two people who
leapt to defend the drug addict were you and EE? All those flames and
you guys wind up in bed together. How does that go again Chuck,
BWAAHAHAHAHA?
Gary
Steve Harder-Kucera,
Who would those people who actually put them there be? The Generals who
gave the order? The President? Which President do you blame? The 3
liberal Democrats who got us in there and kept escalating the troop
levels, or the Republican President and conservative controlled Congress
who finally got us out?
U.S soldiers die in combat protecting their country and fight for the
ideals of their country. They fight to maintain our freedom. They fight
to keep us all free.
"anti-war sentiment"? I think we all have a little of that inside us.
Some more than others. Some are willing to give away bigger and bigger
slices of our freedom. Some would give it all away in the zeal for
*peace*, but we all know that *peace* is just a concept.
It's like a President who promised that the very first thing he will do
on taking the office is get our troops out of the war he opposed, but
voted to support and now has seen fit to increase the number of troops
in harms way. He lied to us. He lied right to our face. Every day those
troops don't come home is another reminder that he lied to us and
continues to do so.
Gary
fx...@nospamverizon.net
> As to drinking the Kool Aid, defending the wacko, drug addicted
> leader of the Republican Party goes way beyond drinking the Kool Aid
> and into some form of very sick personality cult.
>
Funny stuff. Right out of the Rahm Emanuel playbook. The only people who
annointed Limbaugh the leader of anything was you Obots, and maybe some
media moonbats.
Denny in Mass
normzauchin
> Funny stuff. Right out of the Rahm Emanuel playbook. The only people who
> annointed Limbaugh the leader of anything was you Obots, and maybe some
> media moonbats.
> Denny in Mass
If not Rush, who? Everyone else is resigning due to either being
oversexed or undereducated. Of course Rush speaks for the party and is
its de facto head. Show me a Republican "leader" who has the balls to
disagree publicly with Rush's racist, Fascist, drug addled manifesto
and I will show you a Republican that is not going anywhere.
As to who is a moonbat or not, just as "traitors", I would think that
is in the eye of the beholder. Most people in the country think Sarah
is the Queen of the Moonbats.
fx...@nospamverizon.net
Democrats and media seem to be obsessed with her.
Denny in Mass
Nonny
<fx...@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:000de7de$0$14421$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
Speaking for myself, I have never listened to the right wing radio
people like Rush. I also don't read most of the right wing print
media and typically skip over the right wing overly patriotic
things sent me by friends to 'read and pass on.' My feelings are
generated by my own life experiences and desire for my children
and grandchildren to have at least as good a life as my wife and I
did, and perhaps more. I consider any radio host, entertainer,
journalist, single issue kook or person based to one view or
another to be ill informed at best and downright stupid at the
worst.
There is no simple solution to the mess we're in and neither the
Republican or Democrat party holds any magic key or formula.
Neither party has a lock on virtue and being human, both sides
have given us excellent examples of how power can corrupt in so
many ways.
normzauchin
> Why is he sending more troops to Afghanistan, Norm? Why aren't you
> protesting that, Norm?
Ah Chuck, that is exactly what he said he would do. Pull troops out of
Iraq and "surge" in Afghanistan. Just about every Dem including Obama,
has stated that the Bush decision to start a needless war in Iraq and
not concentrate on the base of our enemies in Afghanistan was the
ultimate tragedy of the Bush administration. But then the truth never
interfered with anything you had to say, did it Chuck? Please show me
an Obama quote saying upon election he was going to immediately start
pulling troops out of Afghanistan. You really are a moron Chuck as
evidenced by your previous statements saying the Dems controlled
Congress for seven of the eight Bush years.
normzauchin
> Good to see that Palin Derangement Syndrome is still alive and well.
> Democrats and media seem to be obsessed with her.
> Denny in Mass- Hide quoted text -
As is the Obama Socialist Derangement Syndrome. But concerning Sarah,
she is just so damn entertaining in a trailer trash sort of way that
you just can't look away. I hope she never leaves the stage completely
but alas she is most likely fated to turn into a trivia question.
George Leppla
"Gary" <Gar...@Yahoo.com> wrote
> U.S soldiers die in combat protecting their country and fight for the
> ideals of their country. They fight to maintain our freedom. They fight to
> keep us all free.
Someone is going to have to explain how fighting in Vietnam or Iraq was
necessary to "maintain our freedom". Exactly what freedoms were at stake?
What imminent danger was the US in? "Communist domination"? "Weapons of
Mass Destruction"? Truth is, we have fought two wars for bullshit.
We got into Vietnam because we were afraid. We got into Iraq because we
were afraid. Hell... we are still afraid. This past week they finally
re-opened the crown of the Statue of Liberty to the public. It was closed
after 9/11 because we were afraid it would be a target of terrorists. We
have become a nation of pussies. On 9/12, we should have opened the Statue
of Liberty 24/7 and defied anyone to come and use it as a target. We should
have shown the world that terrorists don't mean shit here in the US and we
stand ready to take anything they care to throw at us. But instead of
acting out of a position of strength, our government "protected" us by
telling us to cower in a corner because the boogey men might come back.
Fear is never a good weapon against evil.
> "anti-war sentiment"? I think we all have a little of that inside us. Some
> more than others. Some are willing to give away bigger and bigger slices
> of our freedom.
What freedoms would we have had to give up if we had not gotten involved in
Vietnam or Iraq? How would our lives have changed?
Vietnam and Iraq... neither "war" made us or the world any safer and we have
destroyed the lives of thousands of our military people and their
families... and spent billions and trillions of US $$$$ with nothing to show
for it.
It is about time we stopped sticking our noses in other people's business
and take care of things here, at home, and for the benefit of the citizens
of this country. Let's keep our military, our jobs and our tax dollars here,
within our borders... and take care of our own problems first.
America first.
George L
Steve Harder-Kucera
>
> Someone is going to have to explain how fighting in Vietnam or Iraq was
> necessary to "maintain our freedom". Exactly what freedoms were at stake?
George, you just don't get it.
The role of the military is to protect our freedom. Therefore, whatever
the military does is to protect our freedom.
Your job as a citizen is to shut the f*ck up and keep shopping. That's
freedom baby!
It's really quite simple, and simple is the way we likes it. Cuts down
on all that thinking ya know.
You must be a liberal elite.
Doc Dice
>
> I don't want to get into it with you, but I do believe that we should all
> be given a second chance, especially when it comes to youthful
> indescretions. Jane Fonda has apologized for her actions, and as an army
> officer during Viet Nam, I have forgiven her.
As I have, many things were done my many of us when we were young dumb
and stupid.
I felt from the beginning that this "girl" was being used simply
because of her naiveté.
"Goin up the Country"
Canned Heat
DD
Spencerdogg
> As is the Obama Socialist Derangement Syndrome. But concerning Sarah,
> she is just so damn entertaining in a trailer trash sort of way that
> you just can't look away. I hope she never leaves the stage completely
> but alas she is most likely fated to turn into a trivia question.
I feel the same about you.
Spencerdogg
Rush is an entertainer. He's not the leader of the Republicans. The
only ones who call him that are the Democrats. They would love for him
to be the leader. Who you may ask is the leader of the Republicans,
well that is a good question that only time will tell.
normzauchin
Thanks Dogg. She also turns me on in a bizarre kinky sort of way. Do
you also have the same feelings towards me?
CLM in ND
wrote:
I thought the war in Vietman had good intentions, i.e. stop the spread
of communism. People forget about all the coutries in Eastern Europe
that fell under the USSR's thumb after WWII & what became of North
Korea & Cuba under communism, so I can see wanting to stop the spread
of it, i.e. "The Domino Effect".
What boggles my mind is why so many who were/are drawn to communism
are liberal, like it was such a great thing. Not that all liberals
like communism, but the ones that do seem like a huge hypocrites,
considering how communist countries have no freedom of the press &
severly limit personal freedoms. Yet, Hollywood celebrities have gone
down to Cuba to kiss Castro's ring, gushing about what a great man he
is, the Jane Fonda incident in Vietnam, protests from college kids
during the Vietnam War waving the Viet Cong flag & wearing Che Guevara
T-shirts, calling communist guerillas "freedom fighters", etc...
Ironically, none of them ever had to live under a communist regime.
Go figure.
Cameron
fx...@nospamverizon.net
> On Jul 8, 1:50�pm, fx...@NOSPAMverizon.net wrote:
>
>
>>Good to see that Palin Derangement Syndrome is still alive and well.
>>Democrats and media seem to be obsessed with her.
>>Denny in Mass- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> As is the Obama Socialist Derangement Syndrome.
Again, funny stuff. Obama is POTUS. Our fate is in his incapable hands.
Sarah Palin is what? A moonbat, according to you. I guess you can't see
the difference here. I'm actually beginning to think the Democrats and
their media cohorts are scared to death of her.
I could care less what she is/does. More than I can say for the Obots
and their obsession.
Denny in Mass
normzauchin
> Again, funny stuff. Obama is POTUS. Our fate is in his incapable hands.
> Sarah Palin is what? A moonbat, according to you. I guess you can't see
> the difference here. I'm actually beginning to think the Democrats and
> their media cohorts are scared to death of her.
> I could care less what she is/does. More than I can say for the Obots
> and their obsession.
> Denny in Mass
Come on Denny, I know she is an embarrassment to anyone who ever voted
Republican and I know you just want her to go away but even you have
to admit that her back story is fascinating. I mean here is a woman
who is as dumb as a brick, who finds herself running for an office
that is a heartbeat away from the most powerful job in the world. I
mean how does that happen? If it were a movie you would say it was a
stretch. Of course you don't want to hear anymore about it but some
people in the Republican Party screwed up big time. Can you imagine
the scenario had McCain won and the old man became incapacitated.
Things would have gotten rough and she would have resigned. The
permutations of what ifs are endless. If you have any interest in
politics at all you have to take in the train wreck that might have
been. I hope she never goes away and plays a prominent role in
Republican politics forever. They created her and they deserve her. I
am not sure what your rules are Denny for criticism of pols in
opposing parties. It seems to me that I am not allowed to mention
Sarah because she did not get elected. Is that correct? It doesn't
matter that the Queen of Moonbats has a large following in the party
and because of that wields much influence. According to you she should
get a pass, just because she embarrasses you?
Spencerdogg
definitely Norm, in a really kinky sort of way.
Spencerdogg
> Come on Denny, I know she is an embarrassment to anyone who ever voted
> Republican and I know you just want her to go away but even you have
> to admit that her back story is fascinating. I mean here is a woman
> who is as dumb as a brick, who finds herself running for an office
> that is a heartbeat away from the most powerful job in the world. I
> mean how does that happen? If it were a movie you would say it was a
> stretch. Of course you don't want to hear anymore about it but some
> people in the Republican Party screwed up big time. Can you imagine
> the scenario had McCain won and the old man became incapacitated.
I'd venture to say that a big factor in the election was the financial
meltdow, There is a good possibility that McCain Palin wins if that
event does happen. Maybe , maybe not, but certainly concievable
Funny how democrat kids are off limits.
normzauchin
> definitely Norm, in a really kinky sort of way.
Thanks Dogg,
Then I still got it.
normzauchin
> Funny how democrat kids are off limits.
Not mine Dogg. Have at 'em.
George Leppla
"Spencerdogg" <spenc...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:a8275d17-89aa-4071...@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Seems I remember a lot of "ugly kid" jokes aimed at both Amy Carter and
Chelsea Clinton. Go back further and Harry Truman threatened to punch some
reporter's lights out for talking about the way his daughter played the
piano. Fact is, kids are never off limits. Obama's kids are too young to
screw up royally... now. But sometime down the road they'll get their turn
in the barrel, just like Bush's girls did.
The problem with Palin is that she was campaigning on a platform that
consisted in a large part about "family values" and that included sexual
abstinence for teens... and then she dragged her pregnant daughter onto the
stage. Her pregnant daughter wasn't the issue... her hypocrisy is.
No one gives a rat's ass that her daughter was pregnant... but when you run
for political office so you can pass/enforce laws that regulate how other
people live their lives, you had better be squeaky clean yourself.
George L
Nonny
"George Leppla" <geo...@cruisemaster.com> wrote in message
news:h34ur...@enews5.newsguy.com...
I believe that despite the values and teaching of the parents,
teens make mistakes, go off on a tangent, rebel or otherwise do as
they want.
>
> No one gives a rat's ass that her daughter was pregnant... but
> when you run
> for political office so you can pass/enforce laws that regulate
> how other
> people live their lives, you had better be squeaky clean
> yourself.
>
> George L
How can you prevent a teen getting pregnant or getting someone
else pregnant? I've known some of the best, most staunch,
straight, excellent, hard working moral families with this
problem. When it happens, and it does, should the parents start
wearing a big red "A" along with the kid, or should they simply
acknowledge the lapse in judgment that the kid made and try to
make the best of it? That's what I saw Palin doing. When they
get preggers, the choices are a late night abortion with the hope
nobody learns of it, sending her off to a distant relative or
simply smiling and making the best of a bad situation and trying
to make the pregnancy, birth and rearing of the child something as
pleasant as possible.
George Leppla
"Nonny" <some...@cox.net> wrote
> How can you prevent a teen getting pregnant or getting someone else
> pregnant?
You can't stop kids from having sex, but teaching them about birth control
is a start in preventing pregnancy. Palin wants kids to use abstinance.
That didn't work for her kid and it won't work for anyone else's.
http://tinyurl.com/ljo5hb The difference is that as an elected official,
she has the power to try to reduce or eliminate sex-education.
Truth is, absinence only education INCREASES the likelihood of unwanted
pregnancy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_education#Scientific_study_of_sex_education
FWIW - if someone had handed her daughter and her boyfriend a few condoms,
we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. What the Palin girl got was
some platitudes about being chaste up until marriage and a brand new baby.
>I've known some of the best, most staunch, straight, excellent, hard
>working moral families with this problem.
I was born two months premature... and weighed 7 pounds, 10 oz. <vbg> If
someone had handed my father and mother a few condoms, we probabbly wouldn't
be having this discussion.
> When it happens, and it does, should the parents start wearing a big red
> "A" along with the kid, or should they simply acknowledge the lapse in
> judgment that the kid made and try to make the best of it? That's what I
> saw Palin doing.
The lapse in judgment was made when Sara Palin taught her kid abstinence
instead of birth control.... so yes, part of the blame belongs to the
parent. When you deny children sex education, you bear some responsibility
for the resulting unwanted pregnancies.
Palin is a hypocrite but she is entitled to raise her family in any manner
that she chooses. I just don't ever want to see her in a position where she
could impose her beliefs on others.
George L
Steve Harder-Kucera
>
> How can you prevent a teen getting pregnant or getting someone
> else pregnant?
Birth Control?
octoad
Beyond her antiquated and obviously failed ideas about birth control,
another reason her kids are news is because every time that dumb broad shows
up on TV she's using them as props, or at the very least she's going on and
on about them.
Who can forget the obviously strained appearance of the "happy family" at
the Republican convention, when in an effort to appear like a good
Republican Family Values clan, she dragged that Levi slob out there and was
proclaiming to anyone who would listen that he was going to marry her
daughter? (LOL, as if anyone believed that one!).
There are a million more examples of that Palin woman using her kids for
what she thinks is political gain, like the back and forth junior high
school insult trading she did with Levi, the absurd and obviously phony
dragooning of Bristol into being an "abstinence ambassador", and most
recently as she had her kids by her side on camera once again, she even told
the world that it was they who decided that she should cut and run from her
job as Governor of Alaska, that it was her kids who decided that quitting
something midstream was the way to show the world that quitting something
midstream is wrong.
There really shouldn't be much hate for Palin anymore, now that its
positively certain that no matter how many ignorant cavemen she may have
supporting her, she has less than zero chance of ever being elected
president. Its clear to everyone that she is far too lazy, stupid, and
disorganized to ever be more than a Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan type thorn in
the side of the eventual nominee.
All that's left for her is to continue to provide comic relief for the
country; and I will guarantee you that she and her wildly dysfunctional
family will continue to do so for at least a couple of more years. So lets'
all just sit back and laugh at them.............
O
rle...@gmail.com
Mind boggling, indeed. This must be called pulling a Cameron.
Don't know how this got by Norm, the Lone Liberal, but watch out, the
cavalry has arrived.
BOB
normzauchin
> Mind boggling, indeed. �This must be called pulling a Cameron.
>
> Don't know how this got by Norm, the Lone Liberal, but watch out, the
> cavalry has arrived.
>
> BOB
I saw the post, BOB. It was just so far out and so wrong on so many
levels, both historical and political I figured no one else was going
to really pay attention to it either on the right or the left.
Besides, Cam seems to be a nice enough fellow whose heart is usually
in the right place that I chalked up most of the foolishness in the
post to age(lack of) and naivete. But more importantly BOB, can I
adopt the "Lone Liberal" moniker? It is out of place in this day and
age, what with us running the country and all, but I do like the
mental image of the mask and silver bullets.(the image may be too much
for my kinky friend on the right) and it definitely beats what you and
the guys used to call me in high school.
CLM in ND
>
> - Show quoted text -
CLM in ND
Just what was foolish about what I said? It was merely an
observation. I've seen newsreels of protests with college kids
raising the Viet Cong flag & burning the American flag. I've seen &
heard liberal college professors gush on & on about Mao, Guevara, &
Castro, saying what great ment they were. Steven Spielberg said that
a meeting with Castro were the 5 greatest hours of his life. Those
are some of the foolish & naive things I've seen & heard.
Cameron
George Leppla
"CLM in ND" <cama...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7f2f6354-b88b-4e3a...@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 9, 4:03 pm, normzauchin <normzauc...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jul 9, 4:43 pm, "rler...@gmail.com" <rler...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Mind boggling, indeed. This must be called pulling a Cameron.
>
> > Don't know how this got by Norm, the Lone Liberal, but watch out, the
> > cavalry has arrived.
>
> > BOB
>
> I saw the post, BOB. It was just so far out and so wrong on so many
> levels, both historical and political I figured no one else was going
> to really pay attention to it either on the right or the left.
> Besides, Cam seems to be a nice enough fellow whose heart is usually
> in the right place that I chalked up most of the foolishness in the
> post to age(lack of) and naivete. But more importantly BOB, can I
> adopt the "Lone Liberal" moniker? It is out of place in this day and
> age, what with us running the country and all, but I do like the
> mental image of the mask and silver bullets.(the image may be too much
> for my kinky friend on the right) and it definitely beats what you and
> the guys used to call me in high school.
>>Just what was foolish about what I said? It was merely an
observation. <<
Cam, I would never call you foolish, but don't confuse opposing the war in
Vietnam with condoning Communism.
One doesn't equal the other.
Communism as a form of government doesn't work very well... look at how fast
the Russian dominance of East Europe fell apart. Cuba is a mess, as is
North Korea. China survives because they became more capitalistic than
communistic.
I think our form of democracy is pretty good... wouldn't want to trade it
for any other. The problem is that some people forget that it is OUR form
of government and decide that we (the United States) have a right or destiny
to spread it throughout the world.
There isn't anything in the Constitution about "bringing Democracy to the
Middle East" or Vietnam or anywhere else for that matter. Like I said...
we need to stay home and take care of our own business.
George L
Steve Harder-Kucera
>
> Just what was foolish about what I said? It was merely an
> observation.
When I first read your post I thought you said that most liberals
like communism (paraphrasing of course), but when I re-read it your
statement was more why do the people who seem to like communism
seem to be libersl. That's a little like saying why do people who
lean towards the left tend to lean towards the left. I wouldn't
expect most right wingers to be attracted towards communism.
> I've seen newsreels of protests with college kids
> raising the Viet Cong flag & burning the American flag.
Sure, but was that reflective of an average viewpoint or the
more extremist?
> I've seen &
> heard liberal college professors gush on & on about Mao, Guevara, &
> Castro, saying what great ment they were.
Again, reflective of the majority or extremist minorities?
I've heard many college professors gush about Washington, Jefferson,
etc. Great men indeed but many of the things they did were more than
barbaric by todays standards.
>Steven Spielberg said that
> a meeting with Castro were the 5 greatest hours of his life. Those
> are some of the foolish & naive things I've seen & heard.
I googled the phrase "Meeting Fidel Castro were the eight most
important hours of my life" and was not able to (quickly) find any
context, only that quote all by itself on primarily right leaning
websites. It reeks of cherry picking to me. I'm certainly not denying
that Spielberg leans to the left politically but I am learning to take
all quotes with a grain of salt until I can read the entire article
or interview.
Geraldo Rivera, who I believe is not a leftist, said "[Castro] is a
towering historic figure. Meeting and interviewing him was one of
the most memorable experiences of a young reporter's life." I don't
see anything pro or con Castro in either of these quotes (without
knowing the context of either)
Of course now that I've posted this the more "black and white" thinker
amongst us will write me off as a pro-Castro communist.
CLM in ND
wrote:
Yeah, I don't get into these political-type discussions because my
views don't come across very well on paper. All I really wanted to
say was how can someone who is liberal possibly support communism,
when communism shatters & destroys just about any shread of personal
freedom. IMHO, that is the height of hypocrasy. It's also one thing
to be against our involvement in Vietnam and quite another to be pro-
North Vietnamese gov't, which is the impression I got from some of the
newsreels I've seen.
I will once again enact the Sam Drucker rule.
Cameron
CLM in ND
> "CLM in ND" <camarv...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:7f2f6354-b88b-4e3a...@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 9, 4:03 pm, normzauchin <normzauc...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 9, 4:43 pm, "rler...@gmail.com" <rler...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Mind boggling, indeed. This must be called pulling a Cameron.
>
> > > Don't know how this got by Norm, the Lone Liberal, but watch out, the
> > > cavalry has arrived.
>
> > > BOB
>
> > I saw the post, BOB. It was just so far out and so wrong on so many
> > levels, both historical and political I figured no one else was going
> > to really pay attention to it either on the right or the left.
> > Besides, Cam seems to be a nice enough fellow whose heart is usually
> > in the right place that I chalked up most of the foolishness in the
> > post to age(lack of) and naivete. But more importantly BOB, can I
> > adopt the "Lone Liberal" moniker? It is out of place in this day and
> > age, what with us running the country and all, but I do like the
> > mental image of the mask and silver bullets.(the image may be too much
> > for my kinky friend on the right) and it definitely beats what you and
> > the guys used to call me in high school.
> >>Just what was foolish about what I said? It was merely an
>
> observation. <<
>
> Cam, I would never call you foolish, but don't confuse opposing the war in
> Vietnam with condoning Communism.
> One doesn't equal the other.
>
newsreels I've seen were practically love letters to Ho Chi Min. It's
one thing to be against the war, but quite another to be against our
troops or our country. Some of those protesters apparently saw
nothing wrong with showing support to the Viet Cong & that's what my
gripe was.
Cameron
Steve Harder-Kucera
>
> Yeah, I don't get into these political-type discussions because my
> views don't come across very well on paper. All I really wanted to
> say was how can someone who is liberal possibly support communism,
> when communism shatters & destroys just about any shread of personal
> freedom. IMHO, that is the height of hypocrasy. It's also one thing
> to be against our involvement in Vietnam and quite another to be pro-
> North Vietnamese gov't, which is the impression I got from some of the
> newsreels I've seen.
Most truly committed leftists would reject the label of "liberal" as
being too wimpy. The type people you are referring to are radicals
whether they swing to the left or the right politicallywhether they
swing to the left or the right politically.
> I will once again enact the Sam Drucker rule.
Meeting Sam Drucker was perhaps the most important 8 hours of my life.
CLM in ND
"Steve Harder-Kucera" <orle...@news.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4a568350$0$1678$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>
> Meeting Sam Drucker was perhaps the most important 8 hours of my life.
>
Cameron
Gary
> Most truly committed leftists would reject the label of "liberal" as
> being too wimpy. The type people you are referring to are radicals
> whether they swing to the left or the right politicallywhether they
> swing to the left or the right politically.
Steve Harder-Kucera,
I was listening to a radio talk show today where the host postulated the
following. He said that the majority of conservatives are not
Republicans and that the majority of liberals aren't Democrats. I agree
with the first part, but disagree with the second as I firmly believe
that the vast majority of liberals are Democrats and the vast majority
of conservatives are trying to figure out where the Republican party has
gone.
It's all a moot point with our government taking over everything they
can get their hands on. They now control the auto industry, education,
executive compensation, food production and distribution, the banking
and insurance sectors and will soon have total control over health care.
It's the same thing that they did in Russia. Call it what you will, but
when government controls private industry, it's socialism.
Seig Heil Obama.
Gary
Steve Harder-Kucera
>
> I was listening to a radio talk show today where the host postulated the
> following. He said that the majority of conservatives are not
> Republicans and that the majority of liberals aren't Democrats. I agree
> with the first part, but disagree with the second as I firmly believe
> that the vast majority of liberals are Democrats and the vast majority
> of conservatives are trying to figure out where the Republican party has
> gone.
I will postulate the theory that most conservatives are in denial
regarding the benefits they receive from government involvement, and
most liberals are denial regarding the benefits they receive from free
enterprise.
> It's all a moot point with our government taking over everything they
> can get their hands on. They now control the auto industry, education,
> executive compensation, food production and distribution, the banking
> and insurance sectors and will soon have total control over health care.
> It's the same thing that they did in Russia. Call it what you will, but
> when government controls private industry, it's socialism.
I agree wholeheartedly with your position that the banking, insurance and
automobile industries were doing very well as of January 20th and Obama
maliciously took over vibrant healthy businesses in an evil power grab.
I'm just a little surprised that you didn't take a position on Unicorn
Farming. God knows those guys are next.
But seriously, the economic situation we are in predates Obama, both
Bushes and Reagan. As far as I'm concerned it's game over, has been for
a while, and self preservation is the only logical step now.
tc1...@webtv.net
out.......oh well.......tc
Nonny
looking.
Nonny
<tc1...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:11398-4A5...@storefull-3112.bay.webtv.net...
> Saw "Grace" in the thread and thought it might be worth
> checking
> out.......oh well.......tc
>
--
Nonny
Giving money and power to
liberals is like giving
whiskey and car keys
to teenage boys.
normzauchin
> Nonny
>
> Giving money and power to
> liberals is like giving
> whiskey and car keys
> to teenage boys.
Giving money and power to a conservative politician will get them laid
and you screwed.
Nonny
"normzauchin" <normz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:bb71aece-c071-47de...@h18g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
Excellent! John Edwards and our own Ensign come to mind. He's a
grown man, married and holds a tremendous seat of power. Still,
he ran to Mommy and Daddy to try to bail him out when he got
caught with the honey. What an ass.
--
normzauchin
> > Giving money and power to a conservative politician will get
> > them laid
> > and you screwed.
>
> Excellent! �John Edwards and our own Ensign come to mind.
> --
> Nonny
Now that's funny. You mention John Edwards but conveniently leave out
the numerous conservative politicians who have recently been caught
with their hand in the proverbial cookie jar. I would think same sex
liaisons count also. But other than the hypocrisy it really doesn't
bother me at all.
By the way, speaking of hypocrisy, doesn't it bother you even a little
bit that Reagan and Bush left such huge deficits that were approved by
Republican led Congresses. I am curious if you give any critical
thought to your moronic sigs. before you publish them?
rle...@gmail.com
That's called "pulling a Nonny", Norm.
BOB
CLM in ND
On Jul 10, 10:54?pm, "Nonny" <someb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > Giving money and power to a conservative politician will get
> > them laid
> > and you screwed.
>
> Excellent! ?John Edwards and our own Ensign come to mind.
> --
> Nonny
Now that's funny. You mention John Edwards but conveniently leave out
the numerous conservative politicians who have recently been caught
with their hand in the proverbial cookie jar. I would think same sex
liaisons count also. But other than the hypocrisy it really doesn't
bother me at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought Ensign was a republican? He was just giving 2 examples, a Dem &
Rep. What, did you want him to give a whole laundry list of only
Republicans? Don't be so righteous; Republicans don't have a monopoly on
hypocrisy.
Cameron
normzauchin
Republicans don't have a monopoly on
> hypocrisy.
>
> Cameron
When it comes to preaching family values and then having sex with
anything that moves, yes Republicans do pretty much have a monopoly on
hypocrisy.
rle...@gmail.com
> Don't be so righteous; Republicans don't have a monopoly on
> hypocrisy.
>
> Cameron
I believe the term your (sic) looking for, Cam, is self riotous.
BOB
Spencerdogg
Doesn't everything seem better when both Norm and BOB are both posting
again.
fx...@nospamverizon.net
Now it's come to making stuff up?
Denny in Mass
rle...@gmail.com
And when Spencerdogg joins in, seems like old times when the Toadaly
Unfunny Old Goobers ruled. Those were indeed the days, my friend.
BOB
normzauchin
> Exactly which years under Reagan did he have 'Republican led Congresses'?
> Now it's come to making stuff up?
> Denny in Mass-
Well Denny,
Perhaps you have forgotten all about Howard Baker. He was the Senate
MAJORITY leader who came in with the Reagan election of 1980. As you
are aware Denny, Congress in the terms I used it is taken to mean
either the House or the Senate. On the other hand, at least you had
the common sense not to dispute my contention that it is mostly family
value conservatives who are hypocrites when it comes to cheating on
their wives. Dems cheat of course but they seldom do it while
preaching to the rest of us why we should live clean lives. And it
also shows me something that you didn't defend Reagan and Bush for
spending like drunken sailors during their terms.
fx...@nospamverizon.net
'Control of Congress' means control of both houses, such as we have now.
You can spin it however you'd like though. The dems helped.
Denny in Mass
CLM in ND
--------------------------------------------------------------
So, it's OK for Dems to cheat on their wives so long as they don't say a
word about family values? Oh, OK, I see your point.
Cameron
normzauchin
> normzauchin wrote:
> 'Control of Congress' means control of both houses, such as we have now.
> You can spin it however you'd like though. The dems helped.
> Denny in Mass- Hide quoted text -
I apologize if I didn't make myself clear. And of course the Dems
helped. To say they didn't would be like using one of Nonny's overly
simplistic sigs, which if you remember was what started this in the
first place. Blaming Liberals or Conservatives, Dems or Republicans
for the problems of this nation is just overly simplistic bullshit.
Which is why any political sig. of fifteen or twenty words is just so
much jingoism and can easily be disproved no matter which side it is
taking. The sig. is there purely to inflame and not inform. It is a
way to claim being non political while being totally political. So
while I will defend Nonny's right to posting any way he wants,his
bullshit sigs will continue to piss me off.
rle...@gmail.com
> "normzauchin" <normzauc...@aol.com> wrote in message
Nope.
You probably do see the point, but you gave it a little spin.
BOB
normzauchin
> So, it's OK for Dems to cheat on their wives so long as they don't say a
> word about family values? �Oh, OK, I see your point.
>
> Cameron
Cameron, do you know what a straw man is? Anyway we were talking about
hypocrisy not morals. . You are much younger than I am you should have
no problem keeping up. And by the way Cam, as a leader in the Student
Mobilization along with millions of others, I cannot for the life of
me remember burning a flag, wanting American soldiers to lose their
lives or any of the other revisionist history they seem to have taught
you youngins.
CLM in ND
On Jul 11, 1:13?pm, "CLM in ND" <camarv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> So, it's OK for Dems to cheat on their wives so long as they don't say a
> word about family values? ?Oh, OK, I see your point.
>
> Cameron
Cameron, do you know what a straw man is? Anyway we were talking about
hypocrisy not morals. . You are much younger than I am you should have
no problem keeping up. And by the way Cam, as a leader in the Student
Mobilization along with millions of others, I cannot for the life of
me remember burning a flag, wanting American soldiers to lose their
lives or any of the other revisionist history they seem to have taught
you youngins.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, S-H-K had it right. The newsreels I saw were of the far, far left
extremists; they were probably anarchists, too.
I'm sorry if I misiterpreted what you wrote, but I thought it read as though
you were trying to say the Democrats are free of hypocrisy. I think you,
I, & everyone on AVLV knows that Capital Hill has enough hipocrisy for both
parties to pick & choose from.
Aside from the whole family values/infidelity issue, another of form of big
hypocrisy from Washington is when certain members of Congress tell us we
should be using less gas & conserving energy, while they fly home on a
private jet back to their 12,000 sq. fr. mansion.
Cameron
rle...@gmail.com
> "normzauchin" <normzauc...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4017ff9d-f46d-4595...@z28g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 11, 1:13?pm, "CLM in ND" <camarv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So, it's OK for Dems to cheat on their wives so long as they don't say a
> > word about family values? ?Oh, OK, I see your point.
>
> > Cameron
>
> Cameron, do you know what a straw man is? Anyway we were talking about
> hypocrisy not morals. . You are much younger than I am you should have
> no problem keeping up. And by the way Cam, as a leader in the Student
> Mobilization along with millions of others, I cannot for the life of
> me remember burning a flag, wanting American soldiers to lose their
> lives or any of the other revisionist history they seem to have taught
> you youngins.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> No, S-H-K had it right. The newsreels I saw were of the far, far left
> extremists; they were probably anarchists, too.
>
Pedal faster, Norm.
BOB
normzauchin
> Pedal faster, Norm.
>
> BOB-
Too late, BOB. Denny has already given me the same advice. I guess I
am getting to old and will have to get one of those new fangled
electric engines on my Schwin.
normzauchin
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> No, S-H-K had it right. �The newsreels I saw were of the far, far left
> extremists; they were probably anarchists, too.
>
> I'm sorry if I misiterpreted what you wrote, but I thought it read as though
> you were trying to say the Democrats are free of hypocrisy. � I think you,
> I, & everyone on AVLV knows that Capital Hill has enough hipocrisy for both
> parties to pick & choose from.
>
> Aside from the whole family values/infidelity issue, another of form of big
> hypocrisy from Washington is when certain members of Congress tell us we
> should be using less gas & conserving energy, while they fly home on a
> private jet back to their 12,000 sq. fr. mansion.
>
> Cameron
Not to put too fine a point on it Cam, but you are truly a gentleman,
and I enjoy your posts both on topic and even the few off topic ones
you make.
Walt
<1f408612-8962-4b15...@r36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
normzauchin <normz...@aol.com> wrote:
Indeed, the Dems are shrewd to reject family values altogether.
George Leppla
"Walt" <no...@none.void> wrote in message
news:110720091532344675%no...@none.void...
> In article
> <1f408612-8962-4b15...@r36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
> normzauchin <normz...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Republicans don't have a monopoly on
>> > hypocrisy.
>> >
>> > Cameron
>>
>> When it comes to preaching family values and then having sex with
>> anything that moves, yes Republicans do pretty much have a monopoly on
>> hypocrisy.
>
> Indeed, the Dems are shrewd to reject family values altogether.
I know that life is a lot more fun for me since I became a Liberal
Pagan/Druid/Hedonist.
However, it appears that I am still not getting as much sex as a Republican,
but then, I don't spend a lot of time in airport men's rooms so maybe I'm
not trying hard enough.
George L
Walt
<geo...@cruisemaster.com> wrote:
> I know that life is a lot more fun for me since I became a Liberal
> Pagan/Druid/Hedonist.
>
> However, it appears that I am still not getting as much sex as a Republican,
> but then, I don't spend a lot of time in airport men's rooms so maybe I'm
> not trying hard enough.
>
> George L
You should hang with Thomas; he's always being invited for three-ways.
I'm not sure if that makes him Republican or Democrat.
fx...@nospamverizon.net
Denny in Mass
George Leppla
"Walt" <no...@none.void> wrote in message
Neither. It just makes him fun.
George L
NomenNeisco
on the avlv that is reserved
for normiepoo
two face dem bones
NomenNeisco
cheat on their wives, murder
their lovers, lie to the courts.
but hell. they're all good
Dems.
family values dem bones
NomenNeisco
al gore
green dem bones
normzauchin
> In article
> <1f408612-8962-4b15-8a67-8d0e2b1fa...@r36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> normzauchin <normzauc...@aol.com> wrote:
normzauchin
> Indeed, the Dems are shrewd to reject family values altogether.
No, what most Dems reject is trying to force their values down other
peoples throats. Republican pols reject family values when it applies
to themselves but feel so elite that they can dictate morals to us
lesser beings. This is what is known as hypocrisy and elitism, Walt.
It is why no one trusts the conservative Republican sumbitches. What
ever happened to the real Conservatives like Barry Goldwater who lived
moral lives and stayed the hell out of my business? You people get all
upset about smoking laws and don't care about your heroes wanting to
get into my bedroom, want to define what my patriotism is etc. etc. I
would quicker vote for someone who rejects so called family values
than someone who wants to dictate what mine should be. And thank God
most of the country seems to agree with me.
octoad
****************************************************************
The irony in all this is that the political family that best represents the
true American family values of overcoming adversity through hard work,
fidelity to one's partner, and focusing on raising the kids is the Obama
family. They're the Huxtables, for crissakes.
The only thing Obama preaches about (which he should) is about men being
good fathers.
Yet its the Republicans who have made "family values" an actual issue in
political races, despite their inability to behave like the Obamas. They
behave like the Ensigns and the Vitters and the Craigs and the Sanfords and
the Palins, the McCains, Gingrich's, Limbaughs, Giulianis, etc etc etc, and
then use religion as a way to avoid personal responsibility. God forgives
everything they do, so they can go right back to doing it. Divorcing your
wife when she's in the hospital is fine, donning diapers with a hooker is
just dandy, marriage is still safe, its those darn gays that are ruining
marriage.
If they would just focus on real political issues and not try to divide the
country over personal behavior issues they'd be a hell of a lot better off.
But they just can't resist acting all high and mighty and better than
everyone else, despite their obvious inferiority.
O
Steve Harder-Kucera
> No, what most Dems reject is trying to force their values down other
> peoples throats.
From the outside looking in, it seems to me that both parties are close
to equally guilty when it comes to shoving values down our throats.
Walt
Harder-Kucera <orle...@news.sonic.net> wrote:
We get the worst of both. Economic slavery from the left and the
morality Gestapo from the right.
CLM in ND
> In article <4a593be3$0$1588$742ec...@news.sonic.net>, Steve
>
> Harder-Kucera <orlea...@news.sonic.net> wrote:
> > On 2009-07-12, normzauchin <normzauc...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > No, what most Dems reject is trying to force their values down other
> > > peoples throats.
>
> > From the outside looking in, it seems to me that both parties are close
> > to equally guilty when it comes to shoving values down our throats.
>
> We get the worst of both. Economic slavery from the left and the
> morality Gestapo from the right.
Yep, it's the morality police vs. the nanny state.
Cameron
BR Eagle
> On Jul 11, 3:32 pm, Walt <n...@none.void> wrote:
>
> > Indeed, the Dems are shrewd to reject family values altogether.
>
> No, what most Dems reject is trying to force their values down other
> peoples throats.
Cap and trade?? That's not try to from Democrat ideas down our
throats?
We need less government. SKH, when it gets TOO small I'll let you
know. I doubt I'll be letting you know in either of our lifetimes.
BR
--"We have to admit there's a gap between the clean, renewable fuel we
want and the reliable energy we need." Mitch McConnell
Steve Harder-Kucera
>
> We need less government. SHK, when it gets TOO small I'll let you
> know
I'm not sure why you address me directly RE: belief in smaller
government. That's been my position since before I started posting
on Usenet. That is one of the key reasons I can't support the Republican
Party.
BR Eagle
wrote:
I'm glad to here you believe in smaller government. It is why people
like you (and others like us) need to demand the Republican Party
return to its principles.
Plus, I know your (sic) paying attention.
normzauchin
> That's not try to from Democrat ideas down our
> throats?
I wrote values not ideas.For instance, you don't want to have an
abortion, fine. Don't stop other people from exercising their choice.
You don't want to marry some one of the same sex. Fine, don't try and
stop other people from pursuing happiness. You demand abstinence from
your kids, even though they are laughing at you behind your back.
Fine, just don't try to stop me from giving my kids birth control
advice. You want to believe in the Fred Flintstone theory of
evolution. Fine, don't try to force my kids to learn false science.
You don't want to take advantage of stem cell research. Fine with me
if you choose to deny your family possible cures for diabetes and
other diseases. Just don't try to deny the miracles of science to my
family. You don't want to deal with climate change because you are to
selfish and too stupid to understand the science. Fine, just get out
of everyone's way and let the smart people take care of the problem.
Get it? Get why Republicans get their asses kicked. Stay the fuck out
of my life and keep your wacky "values" and science to yourself.
Steve Harder-Kucera
> On Jul 11, 9:54 pm, Steve Harder-Kucera <orlea...@news.sonic.net>
> wrote:
>
> I'm glad to here you believe in smaller government. It is why people
> like you (and others like us) need to demand the Republican Party
> return to its principles.
I can't go there man.
As far as I'm concerned it's game over. Not because of what's happened
under Obama, or Bush before him.
The recent economic "crisis" pretty much put an end to all theories
regarding free markets, producers and leeches, Laissez Faire, Liberal,
Conservative, Public VS Private etc.
We can have all kinds of discussions about free markets for instance,
but the fact of the matter is that you and I have never lived in a free
market and thus have no actual life experience to draw on. Ayn Rand can
rail against concepts like public education but to my knowledge she
never refused a book royalty if the book was purchased by someone who
learned to read in a public school.
I'm 100% pro property rights, and when an industry (for instance) can do
business without encroaching on the rights of other sovereign entities
as far as I'm concerned they should be able to do what they want.
However, as soon as they encroach on the other entity (IE: The Public)
then government absolutely has the right to step in. How well government
then handles things is of course a matter of debate.
> Plus, I know your (sic) paying attention.
Political discussions can be fun, but I think real world self
preservation tactics are needed now more than ever.
CLM in ND
"Steve Harder-Kucera" <orle...@news.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4a5966dc$0$1622$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>
> Political discussions can be fun, but I think real world self
> preservation tactics are needed now more than ever.
If I'm reading that correctly, that means taking care of yourself, mainly
financially, and don't count on or rely on any politician or gov't program
to help you out. I couldn't agree more.
Cameron
Steve Harder-Kucera
> If I'm reading that correctly, that means taking care of yourself, mainly
> financially, and don't count on or rely on any politician or gov't program
> to help you out. I couldn't agree more.
>
That handles the independence thing, but there is a bit more when it
comes to a more pro active approach to self preservation.
Becoming independent of a paycheck from some other entity is a huge step
in the right direction.
octoad
"Steve Harder-Kucera" <orle...@news.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4a5966dc$0$1622$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> As far as I'm concerned it's game over. Not because of what's happened
> under Obama, or Bush before him.
>
> The recent economic "crisis" pretty much put an end to all theories
> regarding free markets, producers and leeches, Laissez Faire, Liberal,
> Conservative, Public VS Private etc.
Exactly. Last year the free market managed to almost destroy itself and
the world economy in just a couple of weeks. Everything is so intertwined,
so dependent on everything else these days that if someone sneezes at some
massive hedge fund or big Wall Street broker/dealer, every other financial
institution in the world catches the black plague.
Without massive worldwide government intervention the whole system would
have come crashing down and set us back into a permanent depression on a
scale unseen since the 1930's.
> We can have all kinds of discussions about free markets for instance,
> but the fact of the matter is that you and I have never lived in a free
> market and thus have no actual life experience to draw on. Ayn Rand can
> rail against concepts like public education but to my knowledge she
> never refused a book royalty if the book was purchased by someone who
> learned to read in a public school.
I still can't fathom how someone like BR, who is a public employee, can
honestly rail against the government as much as he does.
Do we really think that our country would be able to compete with the
subsidized economies of the world if we shut down the public schools and
universities, stopped maintaining highways and airports, threw all the old
folks off Medicare, and stopped delivering the mail?
> I'm 100% pro property rights, and when an industry (for instance) can do
> business without encroaching on the rights of other sovereign entities
> as far as I'm concerned they should be able to do what they want.
> However, as soon as they encroach on the other entity (IE: The Public)
> then government absolutely has the right to step in. How well government
> then handles things is of course a matter of debate.
I agree with those that think the government doesn't do anything all that
well. Its far too influenced by special interest lobbyists of all types to
perform at high efficiency. But when the world financial system is
imploding they have to step in. There is no other choice, since Americans
would refuse to return to the stone age while sitting back and watching
other counties prosper under more activist governments.
I certainly don't advocate communism, but it is more than a bit ironic that
the economy that continues to grow faster than any other is a command and
control communist regime in China. They use some capitalist concepts
nowadays, but the government still makes all the final decisions. And our
economy is shrinking while theirs explodes. You think Obama spent a lot on
a stimulus? Take a look at what China has done; and that's who America is
competing with.............
> Political discussions can be fun, but I think real world self
> preservation tactics are needed now more than ever.
I've been saying here for years that America is done. Its in an
irreversible long term decline no matter what party is in power because
other countries can make stuff for far less than we could even if we paid
our workers $3 an hour and eliminated all corporate taxes. Our century is
over.
Obama's policies will revive the economy for a time, but they can't possibly
save us long term. Of course if McCain had won we'd be headed for the stone
age right now, so despite the artificial nature of the coming recovery (no
more artificial than the free market real estate and financial/credit based
boom of the last 20 years---it was all a manipulated mirage), it does give
us breathing room as individuals. Now is the time for everyone to get
straight with their own personal finances and determine how one is going to
do well over the long haul.
And I for one am glad we have this breathing room.
O