hillary or osama er bama....

[Honu]

If that dumb biatch gets elected , Im moving to Canada.

[GPK]

Originally Posted by Honu

If that dumb biatch gets elected , Im moving to Canada.

OMG....I think I love you

Hope your well hun...

[Honu]

Originally Posted by T3B

OMG....I think I love you

Hope your well hun...

LOL you are too funny

[GPK]

Originally Posted by Honu

LOL you are too funny

my most endearing quality

[Honu]

Originally Posted by T3B

my most endearing quality

well at least you have one.......

[GPK]

Originally Posted by Honu

well at least you have one.......

are you emphasizing ONE??


Hows TTM?

[Honu]

Originally Posted by T3B

are you emphasizing ONE??


Hows TTM?

LOL , no Im just saying some peeps have none, at least you have one, and Im sure there is more than just a sense of humor that is endearing.

Tinny is just hangin out at Farrell Jone's in a grass paddock , he gets put up at night with a blankey Im sure .
I havent seen the farm book to know when he is coming back in for sure,
( when I say farm book, Mandella has a file or account of every horse he see's so there are usually updates added by the secretary of progress and stuff). Im thinking he will prolly be out at least another 45 days or so maybe longer , I mean whats the hurry anyway LOL he'e only 9.

[GPK]

Originally Posted by Honu

LOL , no Im just saying some peeps have none, at least you have one, and Im sure there is more than just a sense of humor that is endearing.

Tinny is just hangin out at Farrell Jone's in a grass paddock , he gets put up at night with a blankey Im sure .
I havent seen the farm book to know when he is coming back in for sure,
( when I say farm book, Mandella has a file or account of every horse he see's so there are usually updates added by the secretary of progress and stuff). Im thinking he will prolly be out at least another 45 days or so maybe longer , I mean whats the hurry anyway LOL he'e only 9.

can we consider a full set of teeth another?? I seem to be in the minority in that department out here

[Honu]

Where are you living west Virginia ?

[GPK]

Originally Posted by Honu

Where are you living west Virginia ?

close...about 30 miles from the border....but please don't tell anyone, might ruin my reputation

[Honu]

Originally Posted by T3B

close...about 30 miles from the border....but please don't tell anyone, might ruin my reputation

But at least you can marry your cousin legally there or is it your sister ?

[GPK]

Originally Posted by Honu

But at least you can marry your cousin legally there or is it your sister ?

both...but has to be at the same time. Utah of the East

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by pgardn

A short blurb from my Sister-in-Law who works for Corning.

In April 2003, a month after Corning's political action committee gave $10,000 to her re-election campaign, Mrs. Clinton announced legislation that provided hundreds of millions in federal aid to reduce diesel pollution, using, among other things, technology pioneered by Corning. It was one of several Congressional initiatives Mrs. Clinton has pushed that benefit the company.

And in April 2004, Mrs. Clinton began a push to persuade the Chinese government to relax tariffs on Corning fiber optics products, inviting the Chinese ambassador to her office and personally asking President Bush for help in the matter. One month after the beginning of that ultimately successful effort, Corning's chairman, James Houghton, held a fund-raiser at his home that collected tens of thousands of dollars for her re-election campaign....

Corning ... and its employees contributed $137,000 from the time she was elected in 2000 through the end of 2005...

So business got a lot better and the workers felt very gratified. First Democrat to ever receive money from Corning. Heck, 10,000 bucks, they just loaded her up didnt they Cannon? Drop in the bucket compared to what Rep. received from this company. BTW, Clinton intitiated the contact after reading about the problem and before any money came in for her re-election. So you did not benefit and no one you know has... I guess that covers NY.

Again it is very easy to criticize and not find anything positive about the party or person you dont particularly like. So we play this game of destruction instead of asking about anything positive. Which is exactly why politicians use Ads to slay opponents, instead of stating what they have done and will do. Its much easier to bust a bridge apart than to build one. Thats why I hate politics. Because as one reads this thread, it is clear that kicking is easier than applying a cast.

Its the same thing Dems do with Iraq. And your plan? Oh... the plans start to arise after Bush has made a decision about how to clean up a mess. But first all we do is just scream about the mess, with now idea how to clean the mess up.
Just leave Iraq immediately. Quite a plan... Very well thought out. Less well thought out than the plan to send only 120,000 troops in the first place, when 350,000 were recommended by a number of Generals. How many Democrats stood up and said this is clearly not enough troops after voting yes...?
I prefer builders, not destroyers. So lets see the smearing continue... because its so damn easy.

It's a fair point about the Dems and Iraq, pgardn, and while I'm sure there's a great deal of schadenfreude, watching Bush, after all his nasty, divisive campaigns, imploding in on his own incompetency, it sure isn't helping the situation over there.

If you were a Dem, (or a Repub, for that matter, in this hypothetical it doesn't matter) with a great interest in keeping your job, what would you do in this situation? A majority of Americans want the troops out now, and the situation over there be damned. Any sort of increase in troops is a hugely unpopular decision. So, how would you go about stating your case that what is needed is more young men and women over there? I don't mean this as an accusation, so no throwing insults, Bababooyee (teasing wink). It's a real question.

(I agree with the position, by the way, that more troops were needed, not fewer, but I think the time was back in 2003 and I'm not sure if it would make any difference now. I wonder if the Dems are sitting back and watching the thing implode because they really have no idea how to fix this mess. I don't.)

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Not sure that my being too young infers that I can't have a grasp on the situation. My age has nothing more to do with it than your unfailing belief that the Clintons had a hand in their deaths. We obviously see it different ways, and we're approaching it from those places. Age doesn't necessarily preclude one from having a grasp on history. Matter of fact, for quite awhile in college I was extremely well-versed in Chinese history, including dynasties and the incredible changes the country went through during the last several hundred years. I was also too young to know about that (as were all of us on the forum), but I managed to figure that out. History is history. Spin is spin. Having someone (who was exposed in a later post in the thread as more or less a complete whackjob) compile a list of people who knew the President (reminder: the most powerful, influential, well-known person in the nation) that died doesn't really serve to tell us anything at all, except that the President knows a lot of people.



Well if someone would say something about the Clintons that were actually factual and not just wild, partisan speculation, it might be a bit different....

As for criticizing or being skeptical of DTS' posts...do I really need to comment on that? Trust me, I'm wildly skeptical, but there are not enough hours in a day to comment back to all of them and reminding everyone about their source and subsequent veracity. I doubt you'd find many places on this forum where I responded directly to a link DTS posted and took it as unfailingly true.....because they're not. I love reading The Nation...but I hardly consider everything they say to be true, because they obviously have a partisan agenda. It's no secret and I'm smart enough to know that people spin things the way they want them spun. (Example: Bill O'Reilly can say all he wants that he's not a Republican or a Democrat and that he's not partisan and that he doesn't spin things...but one week of watching shows otherwise [i still enjoy his show], and so can DTS, say he's not partisan. It doesn't make it true.)

Using DTS' posts as an example is faulty logic in showing that either of us jumps at everything like that....because I'm not sure very many people take those links seriously to begin with. I don't at least....for the record

Oh, never mind my response- brian said it all better than I could have.

FYI, Brian, Bill O'Reilly's voter registration also belied his "I'm an independent" claim. I'm not sure how he's registered now, but when he started his claims, he was still registered Republican.

And may I say, the Colbert/O'Reilly face-off was about as lame as could be. Very disappointed. I much preferred Colbert's skewering of Dinesh D'Souza who is an insult to the word, "idiot."

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

GR/Brian: Let's wrap this thing up....Liz Michael does sound like a whackjob! But it was a list. As I said, there are others. McDougal wasn't finished testifying with Starr, having being visited last by Susan McDougal before his death. You may blithely disregard these happenings as revengeful political rantings, but I assure that's not the situation with me. The probability of all these things happening around the Clintons' is astronomical,but doesn't make that irreffutable, it draws a circle around the actions of a political machine that won't stop for 2nd place. The recent attacks on Obama,Kerry and others point to the sublety of actions(at whatever price) and her rushed announcement of her candidacy(?)is Modus operandi for this group. But, heh, I just won't vote for her! Pardon my Interruption...I'm just tired of the whole scene right now. btw...Brian: I wasn't denigrating your youth...just the time frame of your reference. Cheers!

You're so cute with your conspiracy theories, Timm. Really, I find it kind of endearing, even though I don't buy conspiracy theories. For example, I don't think the Bush gov't planned 9/11- In light of the past six years, I can't see those bozos being competent enough to pull that off. Because if they had, I would assume they'd have been smart enough to coach GW how to behave when he got the news, so he wouldn't have sat for 8 minutes staring off into space.

And I find it hilarious that the Clinton and the Bush death lists both include Ron Brown.

[Downthestretch55]

Wow!!!
What a thread!
Truth be told, I haven't posted a common dreams link for quite a while.
And now that Hillary has formed her "exploratory"...well, all I can say is that since Timm has decided not to run, and Condi is unoccupied at the moment,
I've gotten a huge flag standing up for the past couple of days.
It's erect, but a bit difficult to hide when I wear my kilt.
And for Brian, I'm with you buddy. Sometimes I don't believe myself either.
Now, where the heck did I leave the gasoline can, that fire needs to be stoked!
Feel the surge! Feel the fire!
Take a Midol if you feel the heat.
Johnny Mc C looks like his buns are in the fire as much as Dub's.
Dicky C has hunting to do.
Nancy has no balls.

And now a poem:
Obama??
Osama??
Pajama??
Alabama???
Yer Mamma???
Bowla-ramma??
Could I jamma??
Who's the famma??
Shamma, slamma!!!

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

And may I say, the Colbert/O'Reilly face-off was about as lame as could be. Very disappointed. I much preferred Colbert's skewering of Dinesh D'Souza who is an insult to the word, "idiot."

I watched both face-offs off my DVR last night. I didn't particularly enjoy either. I wondered though (and my goodness, this is not an intelligence accusation, before anyone jumps at my throat) what percentage of Bill O' Reilly's viewers "got" it. With all the Stewart-bashing that Colbert did on the show, and thinking about how many Factor viewers had ever seen it, there was likely a good percentage of his viewership that didn't even understand that it was a spoof and that Colbert was basically making fun of O'Reilly the whole time. It became a heck of a lot funnier when you thought about it that way

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

(I agree with the position, by the way, that more troops were needed, not fewer, but I think the time was back in 2003 and I'm not sure if it would make any difference now. I wonder if the Dems are sitting back and watching the thing implode because they really have no idea how to fix this mess. I don't.)

I agree 100%. It gets frustrating when Bush and others point out that the Dems don't have a plan. No kidding they don't, because there is NO plan that is going to "fix" Iraq the way Americans understand the words 'fix' and 'victory.' It has been so bumbled that there is no way out that is going to work. So while he escalates the situation and nobody agrees, he is able to pass most of the blame because he can point out that nobody else is offering any other plans. Well, besides troop withdrawal, but that just scores him more points because he can use the phrase "cut and run" again, which nobody likes to hear. If it weren't so royally f-ed up to begin with, there might still be a plan that would work.

I worry, like many others about the fact that it may just bea case of maintaining the status quo for two years until it can be passed onto someone else. The good thing is that the American public is too smart to think that the next President is at fault for inheriting the mess he made.

Though, being called a child prodigy (tongue in cheek or not) by Tim, is going in my profile as of right now

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I watched both face-offs off my DVR last night. I didn't particularly enjoy either. I wondered though (and my goodness, this is not an intelligence accusation, before anyone jumps at my throat) what percentage of Bill O' Reilly's viewers "got" it. With all the Stewart-bashing that Colbert did on the show, and thinking about how many Factor viewers had ever seen it, there was likely a good percentage of his viewership that didn't even understand that it was a spoof and that Colbert was basically making fun of O'Reilly the whole time. It became a heck of a lot funnier when you thought about it that way



I agree 100%. It gets frustrating when Bush and others point out that the Dems don't have a plan. No kidding they don't, because there is NO plan that is going to "fix" Iraq the way Americans understand the words 'fix' and 'victory.' It has been so bumbled that there is no way out that is going to work. So while he escalates the situation and nobody agrees, he is able to pass most of the blame because he can point out that nobody else is offering any other plans. Well, besides troop withdrawal, but that just scores him more points because he can use the phrase "cut and run" again, which nobody likes to hear. If it weren't so royally f-ed up to begin with, there might still be a plan that would work.

I worry, like many others about the fact that it may just bea case of maintaining the status quo for two years until it can be passed onto someone else. The good thing is that the American public is too smart to think that the next President is at fault for inheriting the mess he made.

Though, being called a child prodigy (tongue in cheek or not) by Tim, is going in my profile as of right now

Brian,
Very astute!
Billo had no clue that he was being insulted, sad to say. Can we say "clueless"?
On Dubby, have you noticed the word changes too?
"Stay the course" went to "I'm responsible for mistakes" (implied...that others have made).
"Victory" went to "success" to "failure now or later".
"Surge" changed to "augmentation".
At least the decider is doing what he said he'd do, "listen".
My guess he has them on "ignore" too.
And since he's been comparing himself to Truman lately, where the heck does the buck really stop?
Watch out Tony Snow!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

From your list, Timm:
JAMES MCDOUGAL - Clinton's convicted Whitewater partner died of an apparent heart attack, while in solitary confinement. McDougal was a key witness in Kenneth Starr's investigation.

So, under logic like this, GW Bush MUST be responsible for Ken Lays' death, right? I mean, he was chock full of Bush info (chartered him for free on the Enron jet during the '00 campaign and Bush called him "Kenny Boy") so therefore Bush must have had him killed, since he died of an apparent heart attack.

I did some googling on Liz Michael (the owner of the website you posted), and boy, she's an interesting case- wants, apparently, a new Confederacy, founded as a theocracy:

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/062916.htm

And here's her lovely comments on the "Million Mom March"

"The so-called "Million Mom March" represents a clear and present danger to every woman in this nation, especially every teenage girl in this nation. Every woman participating in this march is particpating in an act that may very well lead to her own death, assault, or rape, as well as the death, assault or rape of any woman or young girl in her family."

Lovely. I would certainly want to listen to a woman who seems to think there's an armed rapist/pedophile behind every tree.

Holy cow, how much more culture of fear can these people drum up?

the only thing that really jumped out at me in this thread is this stuff about the women marching...how would this lead to a death, assault, etc? who is that woman, and where did she get these ideas??

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

It's a fair point about the Dems and Iraq, pgardn, and while I'm sure there's a great deal of schadenfreude, watching Bush, after all his nasty, divisive campaigns, imploding in on his own incompetency, it sure isn't helping the situation over there.

If you were a Dem, (or a Repub, for that matter, in this hypothetical it doesn't matter) with a great interest in keeping your job, what would you do in this situation? A majority of Americans want the troops out now, and the situation over there be damned. Any sort of increase in troops is a hugely unpopular decision. So, how would you go about stating your case that what is needed is more young men and women over there? I don't mean this as an accusation, so no throwing insults, Bababooyee (teasing wink). It's a real question.

(I agree with the position, by the way, that more troops were needed, not fewer, but I think the time was back in 2003 and I'm not sure if it would make any difference now. I wonder if the Dems are sitting back and watching the thing implode because they really have no idea how to fix this mess. I don't.)

I think the decision for more troops makes sense, especially with the must cooperate clause. The extra troops will be used to free up more troops for Baghdad. The explaination of clearing key neighborhoods of weapons and then staying and not allowing insurgents back in(they have another fancy name for it) sounds very reasonable.

However, I think it will fail because "we" are too far down the hill now to climb back. The Iraqi government is clearly pro Shiite and is showing signs of not cooperating (this is our out) which will lead to the eventual pullout within 2-3 years based on what I have read. Saudi Arabi and othe pro Sunni governments will make sure the Shiites dont get complete control via bloodshed. The Iraqis will have to suffer much more until the Shiites realize they must come to the table because of immense suffering. The Sunnis will suffer greatly with the Shiite gov. in power allowing death squads to take out neighborhoods that are Sunni dominated and will spill the blood via their own insurgent groups supplied by the aforementioned governments, and possibly our government after we get clear.
The Arabs and Iranians will have to get this solved eventually.

My take.

Now if the Shiites in power decide to get rid of Sadr somehow and have had enough and do cooperate with us in trying to form a coalition government that splits oil revenue fairly and agrees to fairly crack down on the insurgent groups from both religious factions we will be in for longer than 2-3 years no matter who is elected. ONe cannot pullout if the situation actually starts to improve. But... I dont think the people in power have suffered enough directly to cooperate for peace.

So in conclusion: Give it a try, assess cooperation, leave because I dont think their will be cooperation. A total pullout will not allow the outside parties mentioned to solve the situation. It will be in the interest of both the Arab States and Iranians, to get the problem solved after we leave.