On Jun 11, 9:12*am, wrote:
On Jun 11, 12:09*am, RicodJour wrote:

You're looking through the wrong end of the telescope. *I don't mean
to be harsh, but you shouldn't have had kids if you regret bringing
them into the _this_ world. *The world doesn't change. *There are
wars, famine, etc., etc. *This is as it has always been, and there's
no reason to believe it will change in any time frame that you can
imagine. *This is neither a good thing, nor a bad thing - it just is.

I'll make some assumptions. *Your kid has a roof over his head, food
on the table, is in reasonable health and has parents that care. *With
that in mind, who gives a rat's ass about the politics?

Maybe you should ask the Germans what happens when you take that
attitude. I seem to recall a war that cost 50mil+ lives not too long
ago. *There are countless other examples I could cite, but what's the
point? *It's incredible anyone could make such a stupid statement, but
it does show where we are headed.

Oh, maybe I misunderstood you. Are you saying that Obama is Hitler,
or are you saying that the US is recovering from losing a war, just
ended some of the highest inflation the world has ever known, and the
people are used to taking orders so will just follow blithely into the
breach?

We already did that blithely into the breach thing in Iraq - I don't
think that will be happening again any time soon without a little more
justification.

My statement above was addressed to a father who seemed to be saying
that he regretted bringing his kid into this world...this political
and economic world. Do you feel that this our current situation is so
hopeless?

What is being "discussed" here is politics.
People **** on each other's shoes because they don't agree with a
political view or politician.
Wow. What a surprise.

Labeling people and moaning about the world going to hell in a hand
basket doesn't seem to improve the situation. If it did, we would
have known by now - people have been doing it for long enough.

It's akin to having a, gasp!, home repair discussion and having two
camps - the Nailers and the Screwers, then having pointless never
ending arguments about something where there is obviously room for
both, and a need for both.

These discussions turn into black and white discussions and the world
is much more nuanced than that.

Oh, and, yeah, I'll just be standing by when another Night of the Long
Knives comes around. Sheesh.

R

DGDevin wrote in message
m...
Jim Yanik wrote:
[snip]
Funny thing is,Oblama is doing mostly the same things
as Bush did, except for more communist control over
banks and businesses, screwing the stockholders to
pay off his union buddies.
[snip]
I love it when someone who has no idea what "Communist"
means throws it into any sentence about someone he dislikes,
especially someone whose grasp of the English language
appears to have stalled somewhere around Grade Seven.

You're being too generous on providing credit for Jim's mental accuity; it
is actually much lower. He was a short-bus guest between school transfers
finally pushed him to an alternative learning environment.

The Ranger

On Jun 11, 9:58*am, wrote:
On Jun 11, 9:34*am, RicodJour wrote:
On Jun 11, 9:07*am, wrote:

The really funny thing here is that this joke actually shows the
ignorance of the Bush haters suffering from BDS. * * There are NO
marines at the White House gates. * The gates are handled by the White
House Police and the Secret Service. * *The ceremonial guards are
located at the actual White House, not the street gates. * So, they
couldn't even construct a half-assed joke correctly and then one
imbecile after the other keeps repeating it. * Even if it were
correct, it isn't particularly creative or funny.

You look for factual accuracy and total originality in jokes? *Damn,
your friends probably stopped telling you jokes ages ago.

It clearly shows to me that those that suffer from BDS instead of
being as smart and superior as they believe, are actually the ignorant
ones. *The BDS crowd went around constantly pointing out any little
perceived foible Bush happened to make, trying to paint him as
stupid. * Even now that he's been gone for 6 months, they still can't
just "move on". * So, yeah I think it's entirely appropriate to point
out that those broadcasting this poor joke, are so stupid they don't
even know it doesn't make sense. * I bet if Bush had made a joke about
the Golden Gate Bridge in New York City, you'd be all over that,
wouldn't you?

No, I wouldn't. I don't look for accuracy or facts in a joke. I
happen to like absurdist humor. I loved the Three Stooges but I
didn't go around poking people in the eye.

If someone said the Golden Gate in NYC thing, and they were serious, I
would be all over it regardless of who said it. It's the stupidity
thing, not the political view/affiliation thing.

Every president gets ridiculed. It comes with the job.

It has nothing to do with you, and there's no need for you to defend
it.
Defending things such as this wastes time and talent, and distracts
from the real issues.

R

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
"George Jetson" wrote in
:

"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...
Bozo wrote:

On Jun 10, 7:51 pm, Oren wrote:

Will they use a tele-promter?

I wonder what those irrational Bush haters would have said if W. had
relied on one of those things even for events that are expected to
be spontaneous. But the propaganda machine is oiled and tuned and
we'll be lucky to be getting even a remotely reasonable facsimile of
the truth by the end of Barack's first, and God willing, last term.
Everything this guy says is shrouded in the Move-On mist. He makes
the Clintons look like amateurs.

Yeah, good point, using a teleprompter is waaaay more serious than
starting a war on false pretenses.

only one with BDS would continue to insist the Iraq was began on "false
pretenses". Before Bush became president,BJClinton also stated Saddam
still
had WMD. Foreign leaders all believed he had WMD.

Iraq did possess WMD. They used them in the war with Iran. They used them
against the Kurds. They dismantled them under UN sanctions.

And theere was more than just that reasom for going to war with Saddam.
You folks just didn't listen.

I'm not sure that I want to hear the other "reasoms" (sic) from someone so
careless in their postings that they misspell "theere", but go ahead and lay
those other reasons out for us.

thanks,
gene




Somewhere in texas a small village is going to get its idiot back, God
help them.



When are you returning?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"George Jetson" wrote in message
...
"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...
Bozo wrote:

On Jun 10, 7:51 pm, Oren wrote:

Will they use a tele-promter?

I wonder what those irrational Bush haters would have said if W. had
relied on one of those things even for events that are expected to be
spontaneous. But the propaganda machine is oiled and tuned and we'll
be lucky to be getting even a remotely reasonable facsimile of the
truth by the end of Barack's first, and God willing, last term.
Everything this guy says is shrouded in the Move-On mist. He makes
the Clintons look like amateurs.

Yeah, good point, using a teleprompter is waaaay more serious than
starting a war on false pretenses.


Somewhere in texas a small village is going to get its idiot back, God
help them.

Well, you would have to consider Dallas a small village. In some ways, it
qualifies. But bush is enough of an idiot to cover the entire metroplex.

"Limp Arbor" wrote in message
...
On Jun 11, 1:42 am, "DGDevin" wrote:


snip

... Me, I'm looking forward to
the day when the Republican Party rebuilds itself with real conservatives
in
charge (as opposed to the opportunistic clowns and right-wingnuts
currently
calling the shots). As a lifelong conservative I find it kind of
embarrassing to have no party representing my point of view available.

Amen

Even though I am a liberal, I have to agree. Goldwater, et al aren't
(weren't) my cup of tea, so to speak, but I could respect their honesty.
The present crop? Feh.

"posta..." wrote in message
...
On Jun 11, 6:00 am, wrote:

All forms of government are socialism at their core, dopey.

Personal attacks are characteristic of someone losing an argument,

a
typical tactic of those on the left who demonize all who disagree with
them.

Hey, dude. The left has no monopoly on that strategy. The right is at
least as good at it.

Notice, I didn't go so far as to label anyone a loser.

On Jun 11, 10:30*am, wrote:
On 11 Jun 2009 12:23:58 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:





"George Jetson" wrote in
:

"DGDevin" wrote in message
news:P5Kdna7eCdMxPa3XnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@earthlink. com...
Bozo wrote:

On Jun 10, 7:51 pm, Oren wrote:

Will they use a tele-promter?

I wonder what those irrational Bush haters would have said if W. had
relied on one of those things even for events that are expected to
be spontaneous. *But the propaganda machine is oiled and tuned and
we'll be lucky to be getting even a remotely reasonable facsimile of
the truth by the end of Barack's first, and God willing, last term.
Everything this guy says is shrouded in the Move-On mist. *He makes
the Clintons look like amateurs.

Yeah, good point, using a teleprompter is waaaay more serious than
starting a war on false pretenses.

only one with BDS would continue to insist the Iraq was began on "false
pretenses". Before Bush became president,BJClinton also stated Saddam still
had WMD. Foreign leaders all believed he had WMD.

And theere was more than just that reasom for going to war with Saddam.
You folks just didn't listen.

Saddam, as evil as he was, was also a major foe of Bin Laden, and was
doing a better job then we have at containing him. Taking out Saddam
was a gift to Bin Laden.

Oh, interesting and new theory. Exactly what evidence is there that
Saddam was actively involved in trying to contain Bin Laden? What
specific actions did Saddam take to contain him? AFAIK, Bin Laden
was running terrorist training camps in Afghanistan which 50K+ Al-
Qaeda went through for years. And nobody, certainly not Saddam, was
doing a damn thing about it.

"ObamaBinLyin" wrote in message
...
Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:37:38 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 6/10/2009 7:08 PM HeyBub spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

Apologies if you've already heard this one:
[snip most of joke]

The old man looked at the Marine and said, "Oh, I understand. I
just love hearing it."

The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said, "See you
tomorrow, sir."
Pretty good joke - up until the completely implausible last line.
Au contraire; I think that's the best part of the joke.


And entirely plausible since the military vote went for Obama, not the
republicans.
not true.

And you kmow this how?

"posta..." wrote in message
...
On Jun 11, 9:07 am, wrote:

As for the claim made above that the military vote went for Obama, I'd
like to see a credible reference for that.

The Daily Kos, The Huffington Post, Move-On, you know, the same
rational, well-meaning folks who continue to perpetuate the propaganda
that Bush stole the election, despite the postmortem conducted by all
the major liberal media outlets which showed that W. got more votes.

The truth of the matter was it was Gore who started the whole recount
thing trying to steal the election by demanding recounts only in
Florida counties he believed would favor the outcome for him. But no
one seems to remember or advertise that.

What was the position of the Florida Secretary of State? You know, the one
responsible for elections? A republican?

On Jun 11, 10:11*am, George wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
On Jun 11, 9:07 am, wrote:
The really funny thing here is that this joke actually shows the
ignorance of the Bush haters suffering from BDS. * * There are NO
marines at the White House gates. * The gates are handled by the White
House Police and the Secret Service. * *The ceremonial guards are
located at the actual White House, not the street gates. * So, they
couldn't even construct a half-assed joke correctly and then one
imbecile after the other keeps repeating it. * Even if it were
correct, it isn't particularly creative or funny.

You look for factual accuracy and total originality in jokes?

I do. There is plenty of accurate funny material. Jokes based on
inaccurate premises are stupid and lame.

Monty Python were lame?
The Marx Brothers were lame?
Abbot and Costello also lame?

That is going to come as quite a shock to a lot of people.
After such trauma, I hope they'll be able to recover their senses of
humor!

R

On Jun 11, 9:48*am, RicodJour wrote:
On Jun 11, 9:12*am, wrote:





On Jun 11, 12:09*am, RicodJour wrote:

You're looking through the wrong end of the telescope. *I don't mean
to be harsh, but you shouldn't have had kids if you regret bringing
them into the _this_ world. *The world doesn't change. *There are
wars, famine, etc., etc. *This is as it has always been, and there's
no reason to believe it will change in any time frame that you can
imagine. *This is neither a good thing, nor a bad thing - it just is.

I'll make some assumptions. *Your kid has a roof over his head, food
on the table, is in reasonable health and has parents that care. *With
that in mind, who gives a rat's ass about the politics?

Maybe you should ask the Germans what happens when you take that
attitude. I seem to recall a war that cost 50mil+ lives not too long
ago. *There are countless other examples I could cite, but what's the
point? *It's incredible anyone could make such a stupid statement, but
it does show where we are headed.

Oh, maybe I misunderstood you. *Are you saying that Obama is Hitler,
or are you saying that the US is recovering from losing a war, just
ended some of the highest inflation the world has ever known, and the
people are used to taking orders so will just follow blithely into the
breach?

I didn't say or imply any of that.




We already did that blithely into the breach thing in Iraq - I don't
think that will be happening again any time soon without a little more
justification.

My statement above was addressed to a father who seemed to be saying
that he regretted bringing his kid into this world...this political
and economic world. *Do you feel that this our current situation is so
hopeless?

What is being "discussed" here is politics.


Yes, and you said

"Your kid has a roof over his head, food on the table, is in
reasonable health and has parents that care. With that in mind, who
gives a rat's ass about the politics?"


Which is incredibly naive. My obvious point is, ignore politics and
you could wind up like Nazi Germany. Germany prospered under
Hitler's rule, people had better roofs, more food on the table, and
the trains ran on time. So, people didn't much care about his
politics, the morality of it, and look where it got them and the
world.

And I could give you countless other examples where that happened and
people lost their freedom and horrible effects resulted because they
didn't give a rat's ass about politics.



People **** on each other's shoes because they don't agree with a
political view or politician.
Wow. *What a surprise.

Labeling people and moaning about the world going to hell in a hand
basket doesn't seem to improve the situation. *If it did, we would
have known by now - people have been doing it for long enough.


I found the real and major problems that Windcrest listed well thought
out. Perhaps you think adding $10 trillion to the national debt over
the next decade is just politics we should ignore. I don't. And
he's right, it's a burden that our children will bear. In fact, the
Libs were frequently bitching about exactly that point during the Bush
years, when his deficits were 3X smaller than Obama's budget.
Bitching about it while at the same time passing reckless spending
bills full of pork. And now that Obama proposes DOUBLING the entire
national debt, running trillion dollar deficts for the next decade,
it's unreasonable to say one feels sorry for our children, because
they will live with the consequences? And we shouldn't give a rat's
ass as long as we still have food? Speaking out about problems and
identifying them is the first step in the process of a solution.







It's akin to having a, gasp!, home repair discussion and having two
camps - the Nailers and the Screwers, then having pointless never
ending arguments about something where there is obviously room for
both, and a need for both.

These discussions turn into black and white discussions and the world
is much more nuanced than that.

Yes, that's what the libs always want us to believe. It's all
relative. The US is just about as bad when it comes to countries as
any other one. And so, Obama goes around the world appologizing.
I utterly reject that notion.

And as to the specific case that Windcrest made over the deficits, it
is black and white when you talk about adding $10 trillion to the
national debt. The Germans told Obama it is wrong, the president of
the EU called it irresponsible, and even the communist Chinese premier
spoke publicly over concern with holding US debt. The moderate
Democrats are beginning to speak out with concern.

And now we have the next act. Suddenly, Obama tells us that we have
a "crisis" in healthcare. A crisis which must be fixed by Aug. See
a pattern here? Crisis, crisis, crisis! We must come up with
immediate legislation and it must be passed by tomorrow. Forget
about the fact that no one has time to read it or figure out what's
right or wrong with it.

The last crisis was the bailout money. Despite the "crisis" and the
need for passing legislation giving away a trillion dollars, you know
how much has actually been dispersed so far? Five months later,
It's a few percent. So much for the immediate crisis that warranted
passing it without reading it.

But, to you, it's just politics that don't matter a rat;'s ass....
You'll probably think differently when the consequences kick in. In
fact, the BIGGEST danger right now is that initially, the Obama
recklless spending is going to work. The economy will recover and
people may beging to believe this stupidity is right. It will only
be several years from now when the effects Windcrest so cogently
pointed out come in to play.

On Jun 11, 11:19*am, RicodJour wrote:
On Jun 11, 10:11*am, George wrote:

RicodJour wrote:
On Jun 11, 9:07 am, wrote:
The really funny thing here is that this joke actually shows the
ignorance of the Bush haters suffering from BDS. * * There are NO
marines at the White House gates. * The gates are handled by the White
House Police and the Secret Service. * *The ceremonial guards are
located at the actual White House, not the street gates. * So, they
couldn't even construct a half-assed joke correctly and then one
imbecile after the other keeps repeating it. * Even if it were
correct, it isn't particularly creative or funny.

You look for factual accuracy and total originality in jokes?

I do. There is plenty of accurate funny material. Jokes based on
inaccurate premises are stupid and lame.

Monty Python were lame?
The Marx Brothers were lame?
Abbot and Costello also lame?

There's a difference between general humor and jokes like the one
under discussion. The above comedians were actually funnyand told
good jokes that made everyone laugh. The joke under discussion isn't
funny, is obviously crafted by someone with BDS who exposed their own
ignorance. And that IS funny, because it's the BDS crowd that
always tries to portray Bush as the ignorant one. Yet, they don't
even know what the White House Marine Guard actually does.







That is going to come as quite a shock to a lot of people.
After such trauma, I hope they'll be able to recover their senses of
humor!

R

On Jun 11, 10:25*am, wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 03:46:01 -0700 (PDT), "posta..."

wrote:
On Jun 11, 6:00*am, wrote:

All forms of government are socialism at their core, dopey.

Personal attacks are characteristic of someone losing an argument, a
typical tactic of those on the left who demonize all who disagree with
them. *Notice, I didn't go so far as to label anyone a loser.

Dopey is a friendly term of endearment, anal- retentive asswipe.

I wasn't losing an argument, either. I was stating an opinion,
****-for-brains.

Ouch. Gee, you musta got too close to the flame and lit your short
fuse, eh, SA? "SA", short for smart-ass no doubt? Although given
what you've demonstrated thus far, "smart" would be a stretch.

wrote:
On Jun 11, 10:30 am, wrote:
On 11 Jun 2009 12:23:58 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:





"George Jetson" wrote in
:

"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...
Bozo wrote:

On Jun 10, 7:51 pm, Oren wrote:

Will they use a tele-promter?

I wonder what those irrational Bush haters would have said if W.
had relied on one of those things even for events that are
expected to be spontaneous. But the propaganda machine is oiled
and tuned and we'll be lucky to be getting even a remotely
reasonable facsimile of the truth by the end of Barack's first,
and God willing, last term. Everything this guy says is shrouded
in the Move-On mist. He makes the Clintons look like amateurs.

Yeah, good point, using a teleprompter is waaaay more serious than
starting a war on false pretenses.

only one with BDS would continue to insist the Iraq was began on
"false pretenses". Before Bush became president,BJClinton also
stated Saddam still had WMD. Foreign leaders all believed he had
WMD.

And theere was more than just that reasom for going to war with
Saddam. You folks just didn't listen.

Saddam, as evil as he was, was also a major foe of Bin Laden, and was
doing a better job then we have at containing him. Taking out Saddam
was a gift to Bin Laden.

Oh, interesting and new theory. Exactly what evidence is there that
Saddam was actively involved in trying to contain Bin Laden? What
specific actions did Saddam take to contain him? AFAIK, Bin Laden
was running terrorist training camps in Afghanistan which 50K+ Al-
Qaeda went through for years. And nobody, certainly not Saddam, was
doing a damn thing about it.

The only camp in Iraq was in the north where Saddam could not get at it because
of our "no fly zone"

Saddam and bin Laden were clearly not friendly.

posta... wrote:
On Jun 11, 6:00 am, wrote:

All forms of government are socialism at their core, dopey.

Personal attacks are characteristic of someone losing an argument, a
typical tactic of those on the left who demonize all who disagree with
them. Notice, I didn't go so far as to label anyone a loser.

The left is the side "who demonize all who disagree with them"? That's funny.

On Jun 11, 11:42*am, wrote:
On Jun 11, 11:19*am, RicodJour wrote:

Monty Python were lame?
The Marx Brothers were lame?
Abbot and Costello also lame?

There's a difference between general humor and jokes like the one
under discussion. * The above comedians were actually funnyand told
good jokes that made everyone laugh. * The joke under discussion isn't
funny, is obviously crafted by someone with BDS who exposed their own
ignorance. * *And that IS funny, because it's the BDS crowd that
always tries to portray Bush as the ignorant one. * Yet, they don't
even know what the White House Marine Guard actually does.

Smacking someone in the head with a shovel is not new, certainly not
original and not "accurate". It's absurd. Yet we still laugh.

I happen to like new takes on old jokes, at least some of the time,
and the OP's was just that.

It seems to me that you don't like who was being made fun of more than
anything else.
I also don't know what "general humor" means. There are no sacred
cows in humor.

This is another example of an argument that isn't.
I'll show you what I mean:

You win. The joke isn't funny and it isn't accurate and no one
without specific knowledge of what a Marine does at the White House
should be making such jokes.

See? I lost, you win and you've proven your point. That help?

R

On Jun 11, 11:52*am, "Bob F" wrote:
wrote:
On Jun 11, 10:30 am, wrote:
On 11 Jun 2009 12:23:58 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

"George Jetson" wrote in
:

"DGDevin" wrote in message
news:P5Kdna7eCdMxPa3XnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@earthlin k.com...
Bozo wrote:

On Jun 10, 7:51 pm, Oren wrote:

Will they use a tele-promter?

I wonder what those irrational Bush haters would have said if W.
had relied on one of those things even for events that are
expected to be spontaneous. But the propaganda machine is oiled
and tuned and we'll be lucky to be getting even a remotely
reasonable facsimile of the truth by the end of Barack's first,
and God willing, last term. Everything this guy says is shrouded
in the Move-On mist. He makes the Clintons look like amateurs.

Yeah, good point, using a teleprompter is waaaay more serious than
starting a war on false pretenses.

only one with BDS would continue to insist the Iraq was began on
"false pretenses". Before Bush became president,BJClinton also
stated Saddam still had WMD. Foreign leaders all believed he had
WMD.

And theere was more than just that reasom for going to war with
Saddam. You folks just didn't listen.

Saddam, as evil as he was, was also a major foe of Bin Laden, and was
doing a better job then we have at containing him. Taking out Saddam
was a gift to Bin Laden.

Oh, interesting and new theory. * Exactly what evidence is there that
Saddam was actively involved in trying to contain Bin Laden? *What
specific actions did Saddam take to contain him? * AFAIK, Bin Laden
was running terrorist training camps in Afghanistan which 50K+ Al-
Qaeda went through for years. * And nobody, certainly not Saddam, was
doing a damn thing about it.

The only camp in Iraq was in the north where Saddam could not get at it because
of our "no fly zone"

Saddam and bin Laden were clearly not friendly.

The issue isn't whether Saddam and Bin Laden were not friendly. The
issue is I'd like to see any credible reference for this statement:

"Saddam, as evil as he was, was also a major foe of Bin Laden, and was
doing a better job then we have at containing him"

Because I believe it's a total fabrication. Saddam wasn't doing
anything to contain Bin Laden. No one was. He was openly running
50K+ terrorists through camps in Afghanistan. Excuse me, but I think
it's important that we not re-write history.

On Jun 11, 11:36*am, wrote:
On Jun 11, 9:48*am, RicodJour wrote:
On Jun 11, 9:12*am, wrote:
On Jun 11, 12:09*am, RicodJour wrote:

You're looking through the wrong end of the telescope. *I don't mean
to be harsh, but you shouldn't have had kids if you regret bringing
them into the _this_ world. *The world doesn't change. *There are
wars, famine, etc., etc. *This is as it has always been, and there's
no reason to believe it will change in any time frame that you can
imagine. *This is neither a good thing, nor a bad thing - it just is.

I'll make some assumptions. *Your kid has a roof over his head, food
on the table, is in reasonable health and has parents that care. *With
that in mind, who gives a rat's ass about the politics?

Maybe you should ask the Germans what happens when you take that
attitude. I seem to recall a war that cost 50mil+ lives not too long
ago. *There are countless other examples I could cite, but what's the
point? *It's incredible anyone could make such a stupid statement, but
it does show where we are headed.

Oh, maybe I misunderstood you. *Are you saying that Obama is Hitler,
or are you saying that the US is recovering from losing a war, just
ended some of the highest inflation the world has ever known, and the
people are used to taking orders so will just follow blithely into the
breach?

I didn't say or imply any of that.

Then why are you bringing up Nazi Germany?

We already did that blithely into the breach thing in Iraq - I don't
think that will be happening again any time soon without a little more
justification.

My statement above was addressed to a father who seemed to be saying
that he regretted bringing his kid into this world...this political
and economic world. *Do you feel that this our current situation is so
hopeless?

What is being "discussed" here is politics.

Yes, and you said

"Your kid has a roof over his head, food on the table, is in
reasonable health and has parents that care. *With that in mind, who
gives a rat's ass about the politics?"

Which is incredibly naive. * My obvious point is, ignore politics and
you could wind up like Nazi Germany. * Germany prospered under
Hitler's rule, people had better roofs, more food on the table, and
the trains ran on time. * *So, people didn't much care about his
politics, the morality of it, and look where it got them and the
world.

And I could give you countless other examples where that happened and
people lost their freedom and horrible effects resulted because they
didn't give a rat's ass about politics.

When I refer to 'politics' I am referring to the whole conservative/
liberal, democrat/republican, you're an idiot/no you are mentality
that is rampant. I am sorry if you read into that that I don't care
about the problems we are facing. I do - of course.

What I will not do is to pass on a pessimistic outlook to the next
generation and just be another bitter old fogey bitching about how the
world was better when they were a kid.

Working towards solutions doesn't mean you have to look to the future
with apprehension. That's like a wide receiver hearing footsteps and
getting spooked. Instead of thinking, "Uh oh, if I catch this I'm
going to get run over", they should be thinking, "If I catch this I'm
going to run my ass off and let's see if they can catch me." He still
may get run over in either event, but the second mindset is far more
likely to see him running his ass off and actually doing something.

People **** on each other's shoes because they don't agree with a
political view or politician.
Wow. *What a surprise.

Labeling people and moaning about the world going to hell in a hand
basket doesn't seem to improve the situation. *If it did, we would
have known by now - people have been doing it for long enough.

I found the real and major problems that Windcrest listed well thought
out. * Perhaps you think adding $10 trillion to the national debt over
the next decade is just politics we should ignore. * I don't. * And
he's right, it's a burden that our children will bear. * In fact, the
Libs were frequently bitching about exactly that point during the Bush
years, when his deficits were 3X smaller than Obama's budget.
Bitching about it while at the same time passing reckless spending
bills full of pork. * And now that Obama proposes DOUBLING the entire
national debt, running trillion dollar deficts for the next decade,
it's unreasonable to say one feels sorry for our children, because
they will live with the consequences? *And we shouldn't give a rat's
ass as long as we still have food? * *Speaking out about problems and
identifying them is the first step in the process of a solution.



It's akin to having a, gasp!, home repair discussion and having two
camps - the Nailers and the Screwers, then having pointless never
ending arguments about something where there is obviously room for
both, and a need for both.

These discussions turn into black and white discussions and the world
is much more nuanced than that.

Yes, that's what the libs always want us to believe. * It's all
relative. * The US is just about as bad when it comes to countries as
any other one. * *And so, Obama goes around the world appologizing.
I utterly reject that notion.

And as to the specific case that Windcrest made over the deficits, it
is black and white when you talk about adding $10 trillion to the
national debt. * The Germans told Obama it is wrong, the president of
the EU called it irresponsible, and even the communist Chinese premier
spoke publicly over concern with holding US debt. * The moderate
Democrats are beginning to speak out with concern.

And now we have the next act. * Suddenly, Obama tells us that we have
a "crisis" in healthcare. * A crisis which must be fixed by Aug. * See
a pattern here? * *Crisis, crisis, crisis! * We must come up with
immediate legislation and it must be passed by tomorrow. * Forget
about the fact that no one has time to read it or figure out what's
right or wrong with it.

The last crisis was the bailout money. * Despite the "crisis" and the
need for passing legislation giving away a trillion dollars, you know
how much has actually been dispersed so far? * *Five months later,
It's a few percent. * So much for the immediate crisis that warranted
passing it without reading it.

But, to you, it's just politics that don't matter a rat;'s ass....
You'll probably think differently when the consequences kick in. * In
fact, the BIGGEST danger right now is that initially, the Obama
recklless spending is going to work. * The economy will recover and
people may beging to believe this stupidity is right. * *It will only
be several years from now when the effects Windcrest so cogently
pointed out come in to play.

http://costofwar.com/ I don't see that that money was wisely invested
in our future, do you?

It doesn't matter which party someone is affiliated with, if you're
****ing money away, you're ****ing money away.

I see problems, I look for solutions. I don't care where the
solutions come from. I am not in control of where the problems come
from (usually), and I am also not in control of how the solutions are
approached. The best I can do is to try to maintain a pleasant
demeanor and make have rational, calm discussions about what needs to
be done with as many people as will listen.

The key thing should, of course, be for people to seek common ground
and seek a solution.
All the other stuff is chest thumping and finger pointing and
interests me not in the least.

I don't expect anyone to change their opinion based on what I say, I
just want them to listen and think about it. I don't see much
listening and thinking going on. I see people using the wonders of
the Internet to easily grab information that supports their pre-
conceived ideas. That happens on all sides. It only obfuscates. I
don't want to feed into the distractions. Sorry about that!

R

On Jun 11, 12:11*pm, Shy Picker wrote:
On Jun 11, 9:58*am, wrote:





On Jun 11, 9:34*am, RicodJour wrote:

On Jun 11, 9:07*am, wrote:

The really funny thing here is that this joke actually shows the
ignorance of the Bush haters suffering from BDS. * * There are NO
marines at the White House gates. * The gates are handled by the White
House Police and the Secret Service. * *The ceremonial guards are
located at the actual White House, not the street gates. * So, they
couldn't even construct a half-assed joke correctly and then one
imbecile after the other keeps repeating it. * Even if it were
correct, it isn't particularly creative or funny.

You look for factual accuracy and total originality in jokes? *Damn,
your friends probably stopped telling you jokes ages ago.

It clearly shows to me that those that suffer from BDS instead of
being as smart and superior as they believe, are actually the ignorant
ones. *The BDS crowd went around constantly pointing out any little
perceived foible Bush happened to make, trying to paint him as
stupid.

No way. There was not enough time or people available to point out all
of Bush's mistakes. If you couldn't see that it was Bush that make
himself look stupid, then you must be is intellectual equal.

Even now that he's been gone for 6 months, they still can't just "move on".

Bull****. We still hear the over the top complaints from rightwingers
about Carter and Clinton and sometimes as far back as Roosevelt.



Do a google of this newsgroup for Carter, Clinton and Bush. See how
many threads have been started in the last month, year, any period you
like concerning each of them. The number of Bush bashing ones are
10X the other two.

And why is it that we rarely see you here in this newsgroup unless the
topic is Bush or some similar off topic thread?

wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:43:27 -0700 (PDT), "posta..."
wrote:

On Jun 11, 10:25 am, wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 03:46:01 -0700 (PDT), "posta..."

wrote:
On Jun 11, 6:00 am, wrote:

All forms of government are socialism at their core, dopey.

Personal attacks are characteristic of someone losing an argument,
a typical tactic of those on the left who demonize all who
disagree with them. Notice, I didn't go so far as to label anyone
a loser.

Dopey is a friendly term of endearment, anal- retentive asswipe.

I wasn't losing an argument, either. I was stating an opinion,
****-for-brains.

Ouch. Gee, you musta got too close to the flame and lit your short
fuse, eh, SA? "SA", short for smart-ass no doubt? Although given
what you've demonstrated thus far, "smart" would be a stretch.

So says a dimwit using google groups!

Too funny.

Wow! What a super arguement. You sure proved him wrong. You must be a genius.

Gene Jackson wrote:
"posta..." wrote in message
...
On Jun 11, 9:07 am, wrote:

As for the claim made above that the military vote went for Obama,
I'd like to see a credible reference for that.

The Daily Kos, The Huffington Post, Move-On, you know, the same
rational, well-meaning folks who continue to perpetuate the propaganda
that Bush stole the election, despite the postmortem conducted by all
the major liberal media outlets which showed that W. got more votes.

The truth of the matter was it was Gore who started the whole recount
thing trying to steal the election by demanding recounts only in
Florida counties he believed would favor the outcome for him. But no
one seems to remember or advertise that.

What was the position of the Florida Secretary of State? You know,
the one responsible for elections? A republican?

Yes. The Republican Secretary of State (Kathleen Harris), however, had zero
control over the election process. She had no authority or responsibility
regarding the counting of votes. Her job, vis-a-vis the election, was to
maintain state-wide voter registration lists and to accept the certified
results of the election from the county canvassing boards.

RicodJour wrote:
On Jun 11, 9:58 am, wrote:
On Jun 11, 9:34 am, RicodJour wrote:
On Jun 11, 9:07 am, wrote:
The really funny thing here is that this joke actually shows the
ignorance of the Bush haters suffering from BDS. There are NO
marines at the White House gates. The gates are handled by the White
House Police and the Secret Service. The ceremonial guards are
located at the actual White House, not the street gates. So, they
couldn't even construct a half-assed joke correctly and then one
imbecile after the other keeps repeating it. Even if it were
correct, it isn't particularly creative or funny.
You look for factual accuracy and total originality in jokes? Damn,
your friends probably stopped telling you jokes ages ago.
It clearly shows to me that those that suffer from BDS instead of
being as smart and superior as they believe, are actually the ignorant
ones. The BDS crowd went around constantly pointing out any little
perceived foible Bush happened to make, trying to paint him as
stupid. Even now that he's been gone for 6 months, they still can't
just "move on". So, yeah I think it's entirely appropriate to point
out that those broadcasting this poor joke, are so stupid they don't
even know it doesn't make sense. I bet if Bush had made a joke about
the Golden Gate Bridge in New York City, you'd be all over that,
wouldn't you?

No, I wouldn't. I don't look for accuracy or facts in a joke. I
happen to like absurdist humor. I loved the Three Stooges but I
didn't go around poking people in the eye.

If someone said the Golden Gate in NYC thing, and they were serious, I
would be all over it regardless of who said it. It's the stupidity
thing, not the political view/affiliation thing.

Every president gets ridiculed. It comes with the job.

It has nothing to do with you, and there's no need for you to defend
it.
Defending things such as this wastes time and talent, and distracts
from the real issues.

R
then why are you defending it?

Gene Jackson wrote:
And entirely plausible since the military vote went for Obama, not
the republicans.
not true.

And you kmow this how?

Aside from experience and common sense, here's one reference:

"The American military supports John McCain by a 3-1 margin over Obama,
68%-23%. The poll was conducted by the Military Times."

http://military.rightpundits.com/200...verwhelmingly/

Interestingly, black military members supported Obama at a rate 18% lower
than blacks in the general population (80% vs. 98%).

wrote:
On Jun 11, 11:19 am, RicodJour wrote:
On Jun 11, 10:11 am, George wrote:

RicodJour wrote:
On Jun 11, 9:07 am, wrote:
The really funny thing here is that this joke actually shows the
ignorance of the Bush haters suffering from BDS. There are NO
marines at the White House gates. The gates are handled by the White
House Police and the Secret Service. The ceremonial guards are
located at the actual White House, not the street gates. So, they
couldn't even construct a half-assed joke correctly and then one
imbecile after the other keeps repeating it. Even if it were
correct, it isn't particularly creative or funny.
You look for factual accuracy and total originality in jokes?
I do. There is plenty of accurate funny material. Jokes based on
inaccurate premises are stupid and lame.
Monty Python were lame?
The Marx Brothers were lame?
Abbot and Costello also lame?

There's a difference between general humor and jokes like the one
under discussion. The above comedians were actually funnyand told
good jokes that made everyone laugh.

I have talked to some Brits who didn't think monty was funny at all.


The joke under discussion isn't
funny, is obviously crafted by someone with BDS who exposed their own
ignorance. And that IS funny, because it's the BDS crowd that
always tries to portray Bush as the ignorant one. Yet, they don't
even know what the White House Marine Guard actually does.

Gene Jackson wrote:
"ObamaBinLyin" wrote in message
...
Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:37:38 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 6/10/2009 7:08 PM HeyBub spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

Apologies if you've already heard this one:
[snip most of joke]

The old man looked at the Marine and said, "Oh, I understand. I
just love hearing it."

The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said, "See you
tomorrow, sir."
Pretty good joke - up until the completely implausible last line.
Au contraire; I think that's the best part of the joke.

And entirely plausible since the military vote went for Obama, not the
republicans.
not true.

And you kmow this how?


asshole cruncher proposed his premise, ax him.
or try google.

"The Ranger" wrote in
ndwidth:

DGDevin wrote in message
m...
Jim Yanik wrote:
[snip]
Funny thing is,Oblama is doing mostly the same things
as Bush did, except for more communist control over
banks and businesses, screwing the stockholders to
pay off his union buddies.
[snip]
I love it when someone who has no idea what "Communist"
means throws it into any sentence about someone he dislikes,
especially someone whose grasp of the English language
appears to have stalled somewhere around Grade Seven.

You're being too generous on providing credit for Jim's mental
accuity; it is actually much lower. He was a short-bus guest between
school transfers finally pushed him to an alternative learning
environment.

The Ranger




Oh,maybe I should have said "fascist" instead of "communist".
either way,it's gov't control of production.

also,your "typical liberal" personal attacks are noted.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote in message
...
"The Ranger" wrote in
ndwidth:

DGDevin wrote in message
m...
Jim Yanik wrote:
[snip]
Funny thing is,Oblama is doing mostly the same things
as Bush did, except for more communist control over
banks and businesses, screwing the stockholders to
pay off his union buddies.
[snip]
I love it when someone who has no idea what "Communist"
means throws it into any sentence about someone he dislikes,
especially someone whose grasp of the English language
appears to have stalled somewhere around Grade Seven.

You're being too generous on providing credit for Jim's
mental accuity; it is actually much lower. He was a short-bus
guest between school transfers finally pushed him to an
alternative learning environment.

Oh,maybe I should have said "fascist" instead of "communist".
either way,it's gov't control of production.

also, your "typical liberal" personal attacks are noted.

Damnation, Jim! Such reveling in your own lack-witted, tongue-clicking
retardation. But then you are a product of your own ignorance.



The Ranger

On Jun 10, 9:12*pm, Jim Yanik wrote:

Well Jim even the MOST patriotic American would have to agree the last
8 years were the most disastrous for the USA in history!

Two unresolved and unnecessary wars, no WMDs, erosion of civil rights
all over the place, torture, wire-tapping, illegal detention etc.

By the way got your compulsory passport to leave the country and
return???? There was time when Americans didn't need that; but as a
result of a 'Fortress America' mentality; the rise of protectionism
and isolationism that imposes restrictions on other nations, means
that US citizens now have to carry passports and obtain visas; like
everybody else!

Culmination being a major economic down turn; a credit crisis due to
poor financial controls of the US banking lending and insurance
system, and finally the US auto industry fiasco. (Always said that if
GM had made Toyotas under licence there never would have been a gas
price crisis or auto-sales down turn.)

So; with old US system in crisis, other countries, many with much more
social kindly government-run Employment and Health systems recovering
quite nicely and more quickly, there are apparently STILL people who
can't see follies of the government policies of the recent past.
Running a country with honesty and good legal controls/laws isn't
Communism!

The freedom to do what YOU want in everything is ANARCHY. Gunmen in
the streets, not paying taxes, civil law disobedience, etc. is not
democracy. Neither is an attitude of "I don't agree with that; lets'
nuke it!".

The era of USA being a great country has, unfortunately, greatly
diminished since the days of WWII, the Marshall Plan and its
leadership during the Cold War. There are a lot more economic players
now; with sufficient well educated populations to be the equal of
Europe, the USA, and that's not not only China, India etc.

People can throw around labels; 'Scare words' such as 'Commie' (as in
the McCarthy era. And he was a nut-case!) or Socialist, without really
understanding what they mean! There are other forms of society which
are also democratic and elected by the people, that work just as well,
or in some cases better than the USA model, for those particular
countries.

Broaden up, be positive and take pride in what your country and other
people of the world are trying to achieve. There will aways be the
naysayers/negatives let's not join therm!

Good luck.

On Jun 11, 12:16*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:04:49 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
Excuse me, but I think
it's important that we not re-write history.

Then it is your duty to stop immediately!

""Saddam, as evil as he was, was also a major foe of Bin Laden, and
was
doing a better job then we have at containing him"



In other words, you have no reference for the above foolish claim.

On 6/11/2009 8:36 AM spake thus:

On Jun 11, 9:48 am, RicodJour wrote:

What is being "discussed" here is politics.

Yes, and you said

"Your kid has a roof over his head, food on the table, is in
reasonable health and has parents that care. With that in mind, who
gives a rat's ass about the politics?"

Which is incredibly naive. My obvious point is, ignore politics and
you could wind up like Nazi Germany. Germany prospered under
Hitler's rule, people had better roofs, more food on the table, and
the trains ran on time. So, people didn't much care about his
politics, the morality of it, and look where it got them and the
world.

This oft-repeated piece of misinformation needs refuting, again.

Like the common saying that "Mussolini made the trains run on time",
it's simply not true. Hitler *did* make (some of the) German people feel
better about themselves, and erased some of the shame they felt from
their last ignominious defeat (in WWI and its aftermath), but Germany
was not the relative paradise you describe by any means.


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

On Jun 11, 12:19*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Jun 11, 11:36*am, wrote:





On Jun 11, 9:48*am, RicodJour wrote:
On Jun 11, 9:12*am, wrote:
On Jun 11, 12:09*am, RicodJour wrote:

You're looking through the wrong end of the telescope. *I don't mean
to be harsh, but you shouldn't have had kids if you regret bringing
them into the _this_ world. *The world doesn't change. *There are
wars, famine, etc., etc. *This is as it has always been, and there's
no reason to believe it will change in any time frame that you can
imagine. *This is neither a good thing, nor a bad thing - it just is.

I'll make some assumptions. *Your kid has a roof over his head, food
on the table, is in reasonable health and has parents that care. *With
that in mind, who gives a rat's ass about the politics?

Maybe you should ask the Germans what happens when you take that
attitude. I seem to recall a war that cost 50mil+ lives not too long
ago. *There are countless other examples I could cite, but what's the
point? *It's incredible anyone could make such a stupid statement, but
it does show where we are headed.

Oh, maybe I misunderstood you. *Are you saying that Obama is Hitler,
or are you saying that the US is recovering from losing a war, just
ended some of the highest inflation the world has ever known, and the
people are used to taking orders so will just follow blithely into the
breach?

I didn't say or imply any of that.

Then why are you bringing up Nazi Germany?



Because, one more time, the attitude in Germany was exactly yours.
As long as I have food, a roof over my head and Hitler makes the
trains run on time, then I don't give a rat's ass about politics lead
to Nazi Germany. So Hitler gets more power, more control, who gives
a rat's ass, it's just politics, it doesn't matter.





We already did that blithely into the breach thing in Iraq - I don't
think that will be happening again any time soon without a little more
justification.

My statement above was addressed to a father who seemed to be saying
that he regretted bringing his kid into this world...this political
and economic world. *Do you feel that this our current situation is so
hopeless?

What is being "discussed" here is politics.

Yes, and you said

"Your kid has a roof over his head, food on the table, is in
reasonable health and has parents that care. *With that in mind, who
gives a rat's ass about the politics?"

Which is incredibly naive. * My obvious point is, ignore politics and
you could wind up like Nazi Germany. * Germany prospered under
Hitler's rule, people had better roofs, more food on the table, and
the trains ran on time. * *So, people didn't much care about his
politics, the morality of it, and look where it got them and the
world.

And I could give you countless other examples where that happened and
people lost their freedom and horrible effects resulted because they
didn't give a rat's ass about politics.

When I refer to 'politics' I am referring to the whole conservative/
liberal, democrat/republican, you're an idiot/no you are mentality
that is rampant. *I am sorry if you read into that that I don't care
about the problems we are facing. *I do - of course.

Those "problems" are directly related to and a part of politics.
That's the mechanism through which national policy is set.



What I will not do is to pass on a pessimistic outlook to the next
generation and just be another bitter old fogey bitching about how the
world was better when they were a kid.

What you see as ****imistic, I and I think Windcrest see as
reality. Perhaps you don't understand the economic significance of
what is happening. The national debt is now $11 trillion. Assuming
a family size of 4, that amounts to $125,000 in debt per family.
It's 75% of GDP. Obama's budgets propose adding $10 trillon to it
over the next decade, just about doubling it. That will take it to
levels higher relative to GDP than it was at the end of WWII. It will
be $250K per family, more than most peoples mortgages.

And back at the end of WWII, the US was the super economy in the
world. We had cheap energy, manufactured everything, and could
easily support that debt load on our economy. Saddle the economy
with it today, and it's not clear how we will ever be able to handle
it. And that doesn't factor in some other REAL national emergency,
that might add trillions more, like a war with North Korea. So,
excuse me if I think our children should know it. But if you go
around telling them everything is rosey, don't give a rat's ass about
politics, just be happy, I think it's absolutely the WRONG thing to
do. But it is what Obama would like you to do.





Working towards solutions doesn't mean you have to look to the future
with apprehension. *That's like a wide receiver hearing footsteps and
getting spooked. *Instead of thinking, "Uh oh, if I catch this I'm
going to get run over", they should be thinking, "If I catch this I'm
going to run my ass off and let's see if they can catch me." *He still
may get run over in either event, but the second mindset is far more
likely to see him running his ass off and actually doing something.



Spoken like a true kool-aid drinker.





http://costofwar.com/*I don't see that that money was wisely invested
in our future, do you?

I say the money spent on the war in Afghanistan was absolutely the
correct thing to do. That's $190Bil. The money spent in Iraq,
$677Bil, was not wisely spent. Add them together, and Obama is
going to run deficts that large or bigger EACH YEAR for the next
decade. That is what some of us are speaking out against.




It doesn't matter which party someone is affiliated with, if you're
****ing money away, you're ****ing money away.

That's true. I spoke out against the spending over the last 8 years
too, including when Republican controlled the Congress. But what
you fail to grasp is that it is now being taken to a level way beyond
what anyone thought remotely possible and if it goes unchecked, it can
bankrupt the country, turning the US into the likes of some joke of a
third world country, unable to repay loans.





I see problems, I look for solutions. *I don't care where the
solutions come from. *I am not in control of where the problems come
from (usually), and I am also not in control of how the solutions are
approached. *The best I can do is to try to maintain a pleasant
demeanor and make have rational, calm discussions about what needs to
be done with as many people as will listen.

The key thing should, of course, be for people to seek common ground
and seek a solution.
All the other stuff is chest thumping and finger pointing and
interests me not in the least.

Sure, utopia would be nice too.



I don't expect anyone to change their opinion based on what I say, I
just want them to listen and think about it. *I don't see much
listening and thinking going on. *I see people using the wonders of
the Internet to easily grab information that supports their pre-
conceived ideas. *That happens on all sides. *It only obfuscates. *I
don't want to feed into the distractions. *Sorry about that!

I don't see how getting information that supports your viewpoint
obfuscates or is a distraction. If you leave out facts, you're left
with emotion. And that is what the country is running on today. A
classic, of which Goebles would be proud, is Obama's constant harping
of "We've created or saved XXX thousands of jobs." What total
rubbish. Economists have historically measured how many new jobs were
created. Presidents have crowed about that number, usually before re-
election time. But this utter nonsense now, 5 months into a term,
about XXX jobs saved? No economist measures such a thing and you can
just make up any number to fool people you want/

In this case, there isn't much to think about. This reckeless
deficit spending has to be quickly brought under control or we and our
children will pay a very heavy price. But so far, I don;t see that
happening. And telling people that as long as they have food and
shelter to not give a rat's ass about politics, isn't helping.

ObamaBinLyin wrote:


Obama thinks there are 60 states in the Union. and you voted for him
anyway. now who is the stupid one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

It was 57. In Obama's defense, there ARE 57 venues that held Democratic
primaries.

* The 50 states, of course, plus
* District of Columbia,
* Guam,
* Puerto Rico,
* U.S. Virgin Islands,
* Patagonia,
* British Honduras, and, er...
* Either Rhodesia or Burbank. I forget.

On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:49:54 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

ObamaBinLyin wrote:


Obama thinks there are 60 states in the Union. and you voted for him
anyway. now who is the stupid one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

It was 57. In Obama's defense, there ARE 57 venues that held Democratic
primaries.
or caucuses

* The 50 states, of course, plus
* District of Columbia,
* Guam,
* Puerto Rico,
* U.S. Virgin Islands,

2 in US Virgin Islands- and 2 in American Samoa.

* Patagonia,
* British Honduras, and, er...
* Either Rhodesia or Burbank. I forget.

Jim

On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:39:25 -0400, Jim Elbrecht
wrote:

On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:49:54 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

ObamaBinLyin wrote:


Obama thinks there are 60 states in the Union. and you voted for him
anyway. now who is the stupid one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

It was 57. In Obama's defense, there ARE 57 venues that held Democratic
primaries.
or caucuses

* The 50 states, of course, plus
* District of Columbia,
* Guam,
* Puerto Rico,
* U.S. Virgin Islands,

2 in US Virgin Islands- and 2 in American Samoa.

* Patagonia,
* British Honduras, and, er...
* Either Rhodesia or Burbank. I forget.

Jim

61 now?

On Jun 11, 12:21*pm, wrote:
On Jun 11, 12:11*pm, Shy Picker wrote:



On Jun 11, 9:58*am, wrote:

On Jun 11, 9:34*am, RicodJour wrote:

On Jun 11, 9:07*am, wrote:

The really funny thing here is that this joke actually shows the
ignorance of the Bush haters suffering from BDS. * * There are NO
marines at the White House gates. * The gates are handled by the White
House Police and the Secret Service. * *The ceremonial guards are
located at the actual White House, not the street gates. * So, they
couldn't even construct a half-assed joke correctly and then one
imbecile after the other keeps repeating it. * Even if it were
correct, it isn't particularly creative or funny.

You look for factual accuracy and total originality in jokes? *Damn,
your friends probably stopped telling you jokes ages ago.

It clearly shows to me that those that suffer from BDS instead of
being as smart and superior as they believe, are actually the ignorant
ones. *The BDS crowd went around constantly pointing out any little
perceived foible Bush happened to make, trying to paint him as
stupid.

No way. There was not enough time or people available to point out all
of Bush's mistakes. If you couldn't see that it was Bush that make
himself look stupid, then you must be is intellectual equal.

Even now that he's been gone for 6 months, they still can't just "move on".

Bull****. We still hear the over the top complaints from rightwingers
about Carter and Clinton and sometimes as far back as Roosevelt.

Do a google of this newsgroup for Carter, Clinton and Bush. * See how
many threads have been started in the last month, year, any period you
like concerning each of them. * *The number of Bush bashing ones are
10X the other two.

And why is it that we rarely see you here in this newsgroup unless the
topic is Bush or some similar off topic thread?

Probably because of people like you.

"HeyBub" wrote in news:6aOdnUWJlYm1-
:

David Nebenzahl wrote:
Apologies if you've already heard this one:


One sunny day in January, 2009 an old man approached the White
House from across Pennsylvania Avenue, where he'd been sitting on a
park bench. He spoke to the U.S. Marine standing guard and said, "I
would like to go in and meet with President Bush."

The Marine looked at the man and said, "Sir, Mr. Bush is no longer
president and no longer resides here."

The old man said, "Okay", and walked away.

The following day, the same man approached the White House and
said to the same Marine, "I would like to go in and meet with
President Bush."

The Marine again told the man, "Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr.
Bush is no longer president and no longer resides here."

The man thanked him and again just walked away.

The third day, the same man approached the White House and spoke
to the very same U.S. Marine, saying "I would like to go in and meet
with President Bush."

The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looked at the
man and said, "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been
here asking to speak to Mr. Bush. I've told you already that Mr.
Bush is no longer the president and no longer resides here. Don't
you understand?"

The old man looked at the Marine and said, "Oh, I understand. I
just love hearing it."

The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said, "See you
tomorrow, sir."

Pretty good joke - up until the completely implausible last line.



Errrrr, it's a joke son, a joke.

On Jun 11, 2:32*pm, wrote:
On Jun 11, 12:19*pm, RicodJour wrote:



On Jun 11, 11:36*am, wrote:

On Jun 11, 9:48*am, RicodJour wrote:
On Jun 11, 9:12*am, wrote:
On Jun 11, 12:09*am, RicodJour wrote:

You're looking through the wrong end of the telescope. *I don't mean
to be harsh, but you shouldn't have had kids if you regret bringing
them into the _this_ world. *The world doesn't change. *There are
wars, famine, etc., etc. *This is as it has always been, and there's
no reason to believe it will change in any time frame that you can
imagine. *This is neither a good thing, nor a bad thing - it just is.

I'll make some assumptions. *Your kid has a roof over his head, food
on the table, is in reasonable health and has parents that care.. *With
that in mind, who gives a rat's ass about the politics?

Maybe you should ask the Germans what happens when you take that
attitude. I seem to recall a war that cost 50mil+ lives not too long
ago. *There are countless other examples I could cite, but what's the
point? *It's incredible anyone could make such a stupid statement, but
it does show where we are headed.

Oh, maybe I misunderstood you. *Are you saying that Obama is Hitler,
or are you saying that the US is recovering from losing a war, just
ended some of the highest inflation the world has ever known, and the
people are used to taking orders so will just follow blithely into the
breach?

I didn't say or imply any of that.

Then why are you bringing up Nazi Germany?

Because, one more time, the attitude in Germany was exactly yours.
As long as I have food, a roof over my head and Hitler makes the
trains run on time, then I don't give a rat's ass about politics lead
to Nazi Germany. * *So Hitler gets more power, more control, who gives
a rat's ass, it's just politics, it doesn't matter.

Again with the Nazi Germany. From your replies it is clear you don't
have the foggiest idea of my exact attitude.

We already did that blithely into the breach thing in Iraq - I don't
think that will be happening again any time soon without a little more
justification.

My statement above was addressed to a father who seemed to be saying
that he regretted bringing his kid into this world...this political
and economic world. *Do you feel that this our current situation is so
hopeless?

What is being "discussed" here is politics.

Yes, and you said

"Your kid has a roof over his head, food on the table, is in
reasonable health and has parents that care. *With that in mind, who
gives a rat's ass about the politics?"

Which is incredibly naive. * My obvious point is, ignore politics and
you could wind up like Nazi Germany. * Germany prospered under
Hitler's rule, people had better roofs, more food on the table, and
the trains ran on time. * *So, people didn't much care about his
politics, the morality of it, and look where it got them and the
world.

And I could give you countless other examples where that happened and
people lost their freedom and horrible effects resulted because they
didn't give a rat's ass about politics.

When I refer to 'politics' I am referring to the whole conservative/
liberal, democrat/republican, you're an idiot/no you are mentality
that is rampant. *I am sorry if you read into that that I don't care
about the problems we are facing. *I do - of course.

Those "problems" are directly related to and a part of politics.
That's the mechanism through which national policy is set.



What I will not do is to pass on a pessimistic outlook to the next
generation and just be another bitter old fogey bitching about how the
world was better when they were a kid.

What you see as ****imistic, I and *I think Windcrest see as
reality. * Perhaps you don't understand the economic significance of
what is happening. * The national debt is now $11 trillion. * Assuming
a family size of 4, that amounts to $125,000 in debt per family.
It's 75% of GDP. * *Obama's budgets propose adding $10 trillon to it
over the next decade, just about doubling it. * That will take it to
levels higher relative to GDP than it was at the end of WWII. *It will
be $250K per family, more than most peoples mortgages.

****imistic...? I like it! It's not a word, but I like it anyway.
It is appropriate even given its non-word status. That is how a lot
of people moaning come across - they're pessimistic and ****ing about
it.

And back at the end of WWII, the US was the super economy in the
world. * We had cheap energy, manufactured everything, and could
easily support that debt load on our economy. * * Saddle the economy
with it today, and it's not clear how we will ever be able to handle
it. *And that doesn't factor in some other REAL national emergency,
that might add trillions more, like a war with North Korea. * So,
excuse me if I think our children should know it. * *But if you go
around telling them everything is rosey, don't give a rat's ass about
politics, just be happy, I think it's absolutely the WRONG thing to
do. *But it is what Obama would like you to do.

Sigh. You're not reading what I wrote, you're not even reading
between the lines, you're just making stuff up.

Working towards solutions doesn't mean you have to look to the future
with apprehension. *That's like a wide receiver hearing footsteps and
getting spooked. *Instead of thinking, "Uh oh, if I catch this I'm
going to get run over", they should be thinking, "If I catch this I'm
going to run my ass off and let's see if they can catch me." *He still
may get run over in either event, but the second mindset is far more
likely to see him running his ass off and actually doing something.

Spoken like a true kool-aid drinker.

You obviously never played sports.

http://costofwar.com/*I don't see that that money was wisely invested
in our future, do you?

I say the money spent on the war in Afghanistan was absolutely the
correct thing to do. *That's $190Bil. *The money spent in Iraq,
$677Bil, was not wisely spent. * *Add them together, and Obama is
going to run deficts that large or bigger EACH YEAR for the next
decade. * That is what some of us are speaking out against.

Which part of the war in Afghanistan? The part where we backed the
current terrorists while they were fighting the Russians, provided
them with money, arms and training, or the current part?

The US is not the world's cop, and shouldn't go bankrupt trying to
prove it "still has it".

It doesn't matter which party someone is affiliated with, if you're
****ing money away, you're ****ing money away.

That's true. * I spoke out against the spending over the last 8 years
too, including when Republican controlled the Congress. * *But what
you fail to grasp is that it is now being taken to a level way beyond
what anyone thought remotely possible and if it goes unchecked, it can
bankrupt the country, turning the US into the likes of some joke of a
third world country, unable to repay loans.

Why leads you to believe I have a different view? We never raised the
issue, so you're just making stuff up. Maybe you should stop...?

I see problems, I look for solutions. *I don't care where the
solutions come from. *I am not in control of where the problems come
from (usually), and I am also not in control of how the solutions are
approached. *The best I can do is to try to maintain a pleasant
demeanor and make have rational, calm discussions about what needs to
be done with as many people as will listen.

The key thing should, of course, be for people to seek common ground
and seek a solution.
All the other stuff is chest thumping and finger pointing and
interests me not in the least.

Sure, utopia would be nice too.

Indeed. Just because it was "impossible" to put a man on the moon
didn't mean it could never be done. This is where hope and dreams
come in. You don't create hope and dreams by instilling terror about
bogeymen and financial death and destruction.

I don't expect anyone to change their opinion based on what I say, I
just want them to listen and think about it. *I don't see much
listening and thinking going on. *I see people using the wonders of
the Internet to easily grab information that supports their pre-
conceived ideas. *That happens on all sides. *It only obfuscates. *I
don't want to feed into the distractions. *Sorry about that!

I don't see how getting information that supports your viewpoint
obfuscates or is a distraction. * If you leave out facts, you're left
with emotion. * And that is what the country is running on today. * A
classic, of which Goebles would be proud, is Obama's constant harping
of "We've created or saved XXX thousands of jobs." *What total
rubbish. *Economists have historically measured how many new jobs were
created. * Presidents have crowed about that number, usually before re-
election time. * But this utter nonsense now, 5 months into a term,
about XXX jobs saved? * No economist measures such a thing and you can
just make up any number to fool people you want/

87.3% of statistics are made up.
All numbers lie.

Isn't it interesting that in the space of one paragraph you went from
contesting my point to supporting it? I find it fascinating!

In this case, there isn't much to think about. * This reckeless
deficit spending has to be quickly brought under control or we and our
children will pay a very heavy price. * * But so far, I don;t see that
happening. * And telling people that as long as they have food and
shelter to not give a rat's ass about politics, isn't helping.

It's obvious that you hold some misconceptions. Let me clarify.

I AGREE there are major problems that need fixing, and that increasing
the deficit is a BAD thing.

I never said people should stick their heads in the sand. I said
running around screaming and berating people isn't an effective way to
function and it is counterproductive when trying to influence people.

I believe people should VOTE. I am saddened that a large portion of
today's younger potential-voters don't exercise their right. When I
ask them why, they usually reply that they don't think it matters and
that all the politicians are the same. This attitude is a direct
result of having adults on both sides of the fence calling each other
names and dragging people through the mud. It's a stupid way to
behave and it sends a bad message.

You want to get out a message? Start with convincing the younger
generation that their opinions matter. Telling them that the world is
going to hell is not a good way to do that.

You want to improve the world? Start with showing your opponent some
respect.

A little hope goes a lot further than trying to scare people.

R

RicodJour wrote:
On Jun 11, 10:11 am, George wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
On Jun 11, 9:07 am, wrote:
The really funny thing here is that this joke actually shows the
ignorance of the Bush haters suffering from BDS. There are NO
marines at the White House gates. The gates are handled by the White
House Police and the Secret Service. The ceremonial guards are
located at the actual White House, not the street gates. So, they
couldn't even construct a half-assed joke correctly and then one
imbecile after the other keeps repeating it. Even if it were
correct, it isn't particularly creative or funny.
You look for factual accuracy and total originality in jokes?
I do. There is plenty of accurate funny material. Jokes based on
inaccurate premises are stupid and lame.

Monty Python were lame?
The Marx Brothers were lame?
Abbot and Costello also lame?

That is going to come as quite a shock to a lot of people.
After such trauma, I hope they'll be able to recover their senses of
humor!

R
Of course not. I didn't say all and my comment was specifically related
to the "joke" in this thread.

On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:11:50 -0400, George
wrote:

RicodJour wrote:
On Jun 11, 10:11 am, George wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
On Jun 11, 9:07 am, wrote:
The really funny thing here is that this joke actually shows the
ignorance of the Bush haters suffering from BDS. There are NO
marines at the White House gates. The gates are handled by the White
House Police and the Secret Service. The ceremonial guards are
located at the actual White House, not the street gates. So, they
couldn't even construct a half-assed joke correctly and then one
imbecile after the other keeps repeating it. Even if it were
correct, it isn't particularly creative or funny.
You look for factual accuracy and total originality in jokes?
I do. There is plenty of accurate funny material. Jokes based on
inaccurate premises are stupid and lame.

Monty Python were lame?
The Marx Brothers were lame?
Abbot and Costello also lame?

That is going to come as quite a shock to a lot of people.
After such trauma, I hope they'll be able to recover their senses of
humor!

R


Of course not. I didn't say all and my comment was specifically related
to the "joke" in this thread.

Oh, great. An Ad Hominem attack on poor, bewildered, Trader4...