Dean

[HARDCORE]

"DECORUM GENTLEMEN, DECORUM!!"

But then who in the hell am I to speak!! We are all brothers and sisters, and no matter who is at the reins of power, who wins or who loses, we all remain related in a common cause - THE UNITED STATES!!

VERITAS

[SuperScout]

Gimpy, it's probably that knot in your panties, applying so much pressure on brain that caused you to totally misinterpret my quoting of former Senator Max Clelland; I have nothing but respect for the man, and simply wanted to include his comments on Howard Dean as it applied to the subject at hand. Anybody like Clelland who has achieved so much, irrespective of his debilitating injuries has my complete admiration and respect. And since you don't know what I did with respect to the senatorial election in question, and since you appear to be too stupid or arrogant to ask, it almost is a lost cause to even attempt to educate you on the matter, as your bigotry, hatred and narrow mind obviates the absorbtion of information. But being a compassionate and caring soul, I'll tell you anyway: despite the fact that I couldn't vote in the Georgia election, and because Clelland has been one of the most stalwart supporters of veterans, I used my rather extensive network of friends, family and veterans in that state to work on Clelland's behalf. Many of them did, others supported him financially and through phone banks. Contrary to popular opinion, I have no control over what the GOP prepares as televison commercials, or the efforts of personnel in the White House, or the campaign direction that any senatorial campaign takes or doesn't take.

BTW: if the DUI's for either Bush or Cheney are valid, at least neither of them was involved in vehicular homicide, where the accident was not reported for hours while handlers could figure out how to spin the facts. But then it was a Kennedy involved, what can one expect?

And I find it fascinatingly predictable how much of a non-thinking parrot you are, picking up on the buzz-word de jeure, "neo-con," as ample evidence of your inability of unwillingness to think for yourself. The mental image of a semi-plucked parrot with ill-fitting panties immediately comes to mind. That image, babbling incoherently, has brought a bit of levity to an already wonderful day!

[exlrrp]

[i]ke.

BTW: if the DUI's for either Bush or Cheney are valid, at least neither of them was involved in vehicular homicide, where the accident was not reported for hours while handlers could figure out how to spin the facts. But then it was a Kennedy involved, what can one expect?

And I find it fascinatingly predictable how much of a non-thinking parrot you are, picking up on the buzz-word de jeure, "neo-con," as ample evidence of your inability of unwillingness to think for yourself. The mental image of a semi-plucked parrot with ill-fitting panties immediately comes to mind. That image, babbling incoherently, has brought a bit of levity to an already wonderful day!

Re the first part
I never voted for Ted Kennedy nor would I. I might point out that 4 of the Kennedys in Tk's generation were killed in public service. But ted kennedy is not the problem here--The point in question is George Bush, our President, whose glaring faults you seem to totally ignore in your haste to cut other people down. Once again, because your side has nothing at all to brag about, you go to the fingerpointing, although i must admit, very eruditely put
Do you think George Bush hasn't had the Red Carpet treatment since he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth? Do you think that evry door hasn't been opened for him, every special treatment for the wealthy lavished on him? It sure has and he only is where he is now because of his name and wealth and all the "affirmative action" that helped his career all his life. That especially goes for th coverup of his substance (s) abuse problem
He showed no more enthusiasm for military career than dean did and got every special treatment while in it. I seem to remember the neocons (yes, I like the word, it does sound more upbeat than Neanderthals) slandering the pants off of Al Gore who did in fact volunteer to go to Vietnam--by the time you were through with him he was made to look like he volunteered for treason.

I'm glad I bring a little good into your day-- I wish I could say th same about you but I find dealing with someone as 'compassionate and caring" as you to be a real pain in the --its why I cant take a steady diet of it and my hat is off to Gimpy. just trying to be rigorously honest here--one of us should
Happy Thanksgiving, though--you too Gimpy

James

PS--Re: panties--you must be talking about someone else here, I havent worn underpants since I left Vietnam--why are you thinking about my underpants, anyway?

[HARDCORE]

JAMES & GIMPY -

OOOPS!

VERITAS

[Gimpy]

OBVIATE huh? Damn, I just love it when you use those intellectual words and phases that can show how well read you are. You noticed I said "well read".........NOT.........intellectually competent! Stupid is such a "harsh" and intellectually crass way to describe one of lacking in analytical & observational skills..........such as it is so obvious you fall into this category!

Case in point...............BTW, I'm extremely pleased to see you haven't COMPLETELY sold your soul to the devil (the repubs, or neo-cons...since you seem to prefer that term). You should be commended for your support of Max Cleland, for that I truly and sincerely commend your efforts. However oblivious it seems you are to the deplorable and despicable behavior exibited by the "partry" leadership of your "choice" (to include the president and his close advisors and leadership of the republican party) you can NOT distance or escape the fact that these "fellows" are YOUR CHOICE to lead this country??????

These same folks who have done SOOOOOOOOO much to ignore and degrade the military veterans (like Max Cleland) and their families by NOT keeping the "promises" made during their 2000 campaign and actually making things WORSE than they were when they took office.

I fail to understand HOW a "veteran" .....with a true and complete knowledge of the FACTS that are indisputable with regards to military and veterans LACK of support from THIS administration......could support these a$$holes! Not to mention the "tactics" they use to achieve their political objectives!

:cd: :cd: :cd: :cd: :cd: :cd: :cd: :cd:

[SuperScout]

It was indeed Gimpy's methaphorical panties to which I was referring. (Quick, Gimpy, run get a dictionary, and ask someone to read you the definition!) My raising the point about Ted Kennedy and his incident at Chappaquidick (sp?) was simply to counter your mentioning the dui's of Bush and Cheney, and as I recall, no one died in the dui's. And wasn't it the prestige, wealth, influence and power that helped Teddy avoid prosecution for willfully contributing to the death of Mary Jo? And yet you refuse to allow the same perks for GWB for a mere ticket? Sounds a bit hypocritical on your part, now doesn't it? And your recitation of the historical fact that other Kennedys have died in the service to our country - and your point is? In addition to reading the latest edition of "Neo-Con Small Arms Catalogue", and the world's smallest book, "Intellectual Liberals", we do read an occasional history book down here in this part of America! But thank you for sharing.

Do you think I care if someone has received special treatment because of wealth? Re-read my point above: if Kennedy didn't receive special treatment, then Saturday doesn't follow Friday. And my program helps me avoid such sources of resentment, being rigorously honest, as it has also taught me to be.

What was it that can be labeled as slander of Gore? Did you ever hear me utter one word about Al Gore? If it isn't uttered, it can't be slander; if it's uttered, and true, it can't be slander. If it's printed, it might be libel; if it's printed and if it's true, it can't be libel. Just because someone possesses a VFW or a MOPH membership card should not grant them carte blanche approval for every other action or word thenceforth.

Gimpy, my political "partry", as I've written numerous times, is more directed towards individuals rather than entities; there's not one political "partry" that I agree with entirely. I embrace much of the Libertarian philosophy, but have real difficulties with their position on legalizing all drugs, for example. There are several planks in the GOP that I oppose, the federal education department for one, their need to devote more resources to the DVA for another. But for me, there are many political issues that need attention, and the short-changed veteran is one, but just one. And a just one! And yes, I am a "veteran." Your grasp of the obvious is overwhelming. I see nothing in the current crop of Democrat candidates for President that inspires enthusiasm or confidence; very little innovative ideas, daily flip-flops on answers, and rampant dog-chasing-tail syndrome. Thanks but no thanks!

[Stick]

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
I sure can't pick up that stone.
Yesterday, while enjoying the day with my family, giving thanks and loving on several of my grandchildren, the most politically connected man in this country commandeered an airplane and told the pilot to fly him to the troops. Troops that he commanded. Troops that he ordered to take the American way of thinking to an enemy who was an enigma to those who he sent and would gladly kill them. That enemy felt that it was right to kill anyone who thought differently than themselves.
Heck, Hitler sent the Jews to closed chambers and killed those Jews with gas. Sadam killed people that he was the supposed representative of, in their own homes. Gassing open land in order to make sure that he got all that didn?t agree with his way of thinking. Huge grave plots cover them today but when Sadam was in power it was a carnal sin to go and morn those buried there. They didn?t agree with his religious or political philosophy and therefore deserved to die.
Sadam commanded that enemy force and ordered them to kill everyone that didn?t agree with Sadam. That very same enemy philosophy will be the motive to kill Americans. Imagine what a feather in the cap it would be for that enemy to shoot down Air Force One.
It was our President that chose to take American philosophy of liberty and freedom to those who were oppressed by the monster Sadam.
Do I support this President 100% of the way?
No.
Is he the head of the greatest nation?
Yes.
I?m proud that he is the Commander and Chief of those who are responsible for taking the American philosophies and freedoms to.
After watching the news last night I was glad that Geedubya is my President. I do reserve the right and freedom to change my mind today though. After all, it?s the American way.

[Gimpy]

Since your first three paragraphs seem to be directed to James, (with the exception of your reference to my aquiring a dictionary.......of which I own, but have very little need of since it appears I'm at LEAST as well read and versed as you are, how bout that?)............I'll let James speak for himself regarding the information contained therein.

Now...............to address your comments RE: this quote......"Gimpy, my political "partry", as I've written numerous times, is more directed towards individuals rather than entities;"......Is that supposed to be a "joke".......Surely you can't expect us to believe that YOU believe that bull$hit, do you?

The ONLY "individuals" your "party" directs itself to are the wealthy industrialists and big business ( Like Enron, Halliburton, Exxon, etc., etc.) CEO's and large stockholders that continue to pour $$$$ after $$$$ into the cofers of the crooked political "machine" that shows NOTHING but comtempt and total disregard for the average Americans!

Hers's a short "list" of a few of the things that your "partry" of "cheap-labor" conservatives dislike:

Cheap-labor conservatives don?t like social spending or our ?safety net?. Why? Because when you?re unemployed and desperate, corporations can pay you whatever they feel like ? which is inevitably next to nothing. You see, they want you ?over a barrel? and in a position to ?work cheap or starve?.

Cheap-labor conservatives don?t like the minimum wage, or other improvements in wages and working conditions. Why? These reforms undo all of their efforts to keep you ?over a barrel?.

Cheap-labor conservatives like ?free trade?, NAFTA(yeah, I know, Clinton signed this shit, but it was PUSHED by the Repubs in Congress ), GATT, etc. Why? Because there is a huge supply of desperately poor people in the third world, who are ?over a barrel?, and will work cheap.

Cheap-labor conservatives oppose a woman?s right to choose. Why? Unwanted children are an economic burden that put poor women ?over a barrel?, forcing them to work cheap.

Cheap-labor conservatives don?t like unions. Why? Because when labor ?sticks together?, wages go up. That?s why workers unionize. Seems workers don?t like being ?over a barrel?.

Cheap-labor conservatives constantly bray about ?morality?, ?virtue?, ?respect for authority?, ?hard work? and other ?values?. Why? So they can blame your being ?over a barrel? on your own ?immorality?, lack of ?values? and ?poor choices?.

Cheap-labor conservatives encourage racism, homophobia and other forms of bigotry. Why? Bigotry among wage earners distracts them, and keeps them from recognizing their common interests as wage earners.

Unemployment was 23 percent when FDR took office in 1933. It dropped to 2.5 percent by time the next Republican was in the White House in 1953. It climbed back to 6.5 percent by the end of the Eisenhower administration. It dropped to 3.5 percent by the time LBJ left office. It climbed over 5 percent shortly after Nixon took office, and stayed there for 27 years, until Clinton brought it down to 4.5 percent early in his second term.

Cheap-labor conservatives continually claim that ?liberals are destroying America.? In fact, cheap-labor conservatives have howled with outrage and indignation against New Deal liberalism from its inception in the 1930?s all the way to the present. You can go to ?Free Republic? or Hannity?s forum right now, and find a cheap-labor conservative comparing New Deal Liberalism to ?Stalinism?.

? Cheap-labor conservatives opposed virtually all of the New Deal, including every improvement in wages and working conditions.
? Cheap-labor conservatives have a long and sorry history of opposing virtually every advancement in this country?s development ? going right back to the American revolution

? Cheap-labor conservatives have hated Social Security and Medicare since their inception.

? Many cheap-labor conservatives are hostile to public education. They think it should be privatized. But why are we surprised? Cheap-labor conservatives opposed universal public education in its early days. School vouchers are just a backdoor method to ?resegregate? the public schools.

? Cheap-labor conservatives hate the progressive income tax like the devil hates holy water.

? Cheap-labor conservatives like budget deficits and a huge national debt for two reasons. A bankrupt government has a harder time doing any ?social spending? ? which cheap-labor conservatives oppose, and . . .

? Wealthy cheap-labor conservatives like say, George W. Bush, buy the bonds and then earn tax free interest on the money they lend the government. [Check out Dubya?s financial disclosures. The son of a bitch is a big holder of the T-bills that finance the deficit he is helping to expand.] The deficit created by cheap-labor conservatives ? while they posture as being ?fiscally conservative? -- may count as the biggest con job in American history.

The ugly truth is that cheap-labor conservatives just don?t like working people. They don?t like ?bottom up? prosperity, and the reason for it is very simple. If people are too prosperous their corporate lords have a harder time kicking them around. As soon as everyone understands this about the cheap-labor conservatives, the real motivation for their policies makes perfect sense. Remember, cheap-labor conservatives believe in social hierarchy and privilege, so the only prosperity they want is limited to them. They want to see absolutely nothing that benefits the guy ? or more often the woman ? who works for an hourly wage.
So you see SuperFella, it's all about "their agendas" and making SURE the "average Joe" doesn't get TOO much in the way of "help" from anybody----ESPECIALLY the government!

If enough people will ?get with the program?, it won?t be long before you can?t look at an editorial page, listen to the radio, turn on the TV, or log onto your favorite message board without seeing the phrase ?cheap labor conservatives? ? and have plenty of examples to reinforce the message. By election day of 2004, every politically sentient American should understand exactly what a ?cheap labor conservative? is, and what he stands for.

[theoddz]

THANK YOU for putting it all into an exemplary definition!!

When I was very young, I asked my father to explain to me exactly what the difference was/is between a Democrat and a Republican. He told me, "The Democrats are for the people and the Republicans are for the big companies." I was too young to understand this all then, but I know and understand exactly what you are saying now.

It takes being out there and "kicked around" a bit, so to speak, before one truly understands this difference.

Thanks again!!!!

Peace.

[exlrrp]

Brice_-I was going to move on to the next thing but since you specifically asked me these questions I wanted to get them answered

Originally posted by SuperScout [/i]It was indeed Gimpy's methaphorical panties to which I was referring. (Quick, Gimpy, run get a dictionary, and ask someone to read you the definition!) My raising the point about Ted Kennedy and his incident at Chappaquidick (sp?) was simply to counter your mentioning the dui's of Bush and Cheney, and as I recall, no one died in the dui's.

the point of my bringing them up was to show what ill judgement and irresponsibilty our President and Vice President have shown in the past, due to substance abuse and that this is irrefutable, a matter of public record--that Ted Kennedy has also had bad judgement is not germane to the issue. Bush and Cheney are our President and VP--TK is not. Whether or not someone died in their DUIS is also not germane to the issue, DUIs themselves are prety major offenses to society. You know as well as I do that that means actual years of drunken driving before being caught and two DUIs only shows some real persistence in folly.
The You in that paragraph may be rhetorical--I have seen you praise A Coulter and say that you quote her frequently--I have heard her malign and slander the kennedy's enough to where I was thinking you probably thought the same as seemed to be evident by your comment on the Kennedy's. If I was wrong here, I apologize, but I have seen too many knocks on the Kennedy's without pointing out some of th many reasons they were America's First Family for quite some time.




And wasn't it the prestige, wealth, influence and power that helped Teddy avoid prosecution for willfully contributing to the death of Mary Jo? And yet you refuse to allow the same perks for GWB for a mere ticket? Sounds a bit hypocritical on your part, now doesn't it?
I'm not refusing to allow GWB to do anything, this happened long before I ever heard of it. But I'd never deny being a hypocrite no matter how hard I fight against it. Thats why I know it when I see it
I don't know the real facts of the Chapp case and I suspect neither do you. I think Andy would be the person to ask and him I might believe. I think that Kennedy should have been investigated and charged if the fcts waranted it and I know that G Bush and Cheney WERE arrested AND CONVICTED because the facts warranted it and that they ALL showed some pretty poor judgement. And if any of them got off becuase of wealth and privilege I think it sucks. That sounds pretty consistent to me.
but as long as we're pointin out inconsistencies, you refer to a drug taking s. predator above, it was what inspired me to write this part. There's no doubt in your mind that GW Bush used illegal drugs recreationally is there?--because there's plenty of evidence that he did and h's never denied it when thequestion has been put to him directly--only shrugged it off s "Youthful indiscretions." Tales of him as a party animal are plentiful.Conservatives made much of Clintons "but I didnt inhale" and TKs substance abuse problem also. GWB not only inhaled but snorted, too. And DUIs are direct evidnece of substance abuse, you know that as well as I. Why do you forgive Bush for what you accuse (Clinton? Kennedy?) of doing? actually I don't give dam if he did or not--I certainly did in my youthful indiscretions. but it is the inconsistencies of holding Bush and Cheney as being in any way morally superior to Clinton or Kennedy or any one else without confronting this aspect. they ALL made mistakes



And your recitation of the historical fact that other Kennedys have died in the service to our country - and your point is?
I thought the point in your introducing the kennedy motif into the conversation was to knock the kennedy's and specificlly ted Kennedy. I just wanted to point out that, in spite of their wealth, the Kennedy's have "died for their country" chops like the Bushes never will have and that this ought to get some respect. The Bushes are patriotic no doubt about that.
And with ted Kennedy? Well, the law never touched him and he's still a senator, has been for decades. Thats what history knows him as, Chappaqudick is just a footnote. Same with Bush and Cheney's DUIs

In addition to reading the latest edition of "Neo-Con Small Arms Catalogue", and the world's smallest book, "Intellectual Liberals", we do read an occasional history book down here in this part of America! But thank you for sharing.

Youre welcome. Re: Intellectual liberals: Thats what happens when you get all your reading from PXs and 7-11s. start with ben Franklin, then Thomas Jefferson, then Lincoln. try some Voltaire if you ever get tired of th gun book. Youre welcome again

Just because someone possesses a VFW or a MOPH membership card should not grant them carte blanche approval for every other action or word thenceforth.

Well see now, we do agree on something--then, getting back to the original post, why is Deans decision not to join the military an issue? I mean the guy went to med school, that certainly is outwardly public minded. I think that people who wound up putting time into their careers instead of theVietnam War made the right choice in the long run. It certainly set my career back.
Is: "what did you do during the Vietnam War" really going to be an issue in this next election? I don't think it should either, I am much more concerned with how someone is going to deal with the issues. I sure don't like the way GWB deals with them, he's got as much of a credibilty problem as Clinton has.

James