Open Thread
WichitaSorry about the late post this morning...all this rain is slowing me down!
Tell us what you think!
~Dubya
WSClark said:
Dubya, would you be okay with some of us starting a thread topics? For example, writing a few lines on a news article and posting a link?
Let me know, I have one ready to go if it is okay with you......
Let me know, I have one ready to go if it is okay with you......
Dubya said:
Certainly, if you have a link you'd like to talk about, send it over to me via email and I can post a blog entry about it. :) Is that what you mean?
TRACY said:
Yahoo news must be for idiots.
Heather Mills fake leg on a dance show is the headline right now.
Who's Heather, and why should we care?
Heather Mills fake leg on a dance show is the headline right now.
Who's Heather, and why should we care?
Vaughn Tolle said:
TRACY, my ability to grasp minutiae arises. Heather Mills is the soon-to-be ex-Mrs. Paul McCartney, thus all the fervor. Speculation was that her artificial leg would come off when she was dancing on "Dancing with the Stars".
Ms Mills is most notable, IMHO, for her anti-landmine work. However, that's not why all the headlines are out there.
Ms Mills is most notable, IMHO, for her anti-landmine work. However, that's not why all the headlines are out there.
Paul said:
Why are we subsidizing corn growers? They sell their product to foreign countries (South and Central America) cheaper than the locals can grow it in country. So we put the locals out of business. The government is helping them to do this by giving the farmers subsidies. Lose lose IMHO.
How about this, we take away the subsidies for growers selling overseas (or to our southern neighbors). Saves tax dollars.
How about we entice the farmers to direct their product at ethanol refineries?
TRACY – How the heck are ya brother? Sollie from the OTHER blog.
How about this, we take away the subsidies for growers selling overseas (or to our southern neighbors). Saves tax dollars.
How about we entice the farmers to direct their product at ethanol refineries?
TRACY – How the heck are ya brother? Sollie from the OTHER blog.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Paul, as I see it, the farmers will happily sell their corn to the ethanol refineries so long as the refineries pay above the subsidy rate for the same.
Paul said:
I had a conversation about this not long back. If the government were to build the refineries and purchase the corn for the same amount the farmer would sell it on the market with the subsidies, then the government produces and sells the ethanol. The government creates the ethanol market for the E85 cars being produced. As things come online, allow the oil companies to purchase the refineries from the government. Give them ‘atta boy’ points for becoming cleaner/more productive and give the opportunity to purchase to the company with the most ‘atta boys’
The Gov’t would be out the initial cost of building and setting up, but that should be reclaimed through sales of product and the eventual sell of the refinery.
The Gov’t would be out the initial cost of building and setting up, but that should be reclaimed through sales of product and the eventual sell of the refinery.
WSClark52 said:
"send it over to me via email "
Dub, the rain has frosted over my brain today..... What is your e-mail addy? I have lost the ability to find it.
Dub, the rain has frosted over my brain today..... What is your e-mail addy? I have lost the ability to find it.
Dubya said:
WSClark, if you look on the right side of the page, they under the Keeper of the Plains, you can see a link that says Email Me. Just click that and you'll be set!
~Dubya
~Dubya
Vaughn Tolle said:
A little something on the AG AG matter; of particular interest to me were the comments of the person from AEI; the comments of Toensing; and the linked email worrying about how the deposed U.S. Attorney from Arkansas would answer questions sure to be asked of him by the Senate Committee inviting him to testify.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2965253&pa...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2965253&pa...
Vaughn Tolle said:
And, the Senate overwhelmingly votes to repeal the portion of the Patriot Act reauthorization bill which allowed the whole thing to go down without Senate confirmation of the "interim" U.S. Attorneys; goes to the House next. Also, on down the page, the speculation of who will replace AG AG should he resign.
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/16936118.htm
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/16936118.htm
Gster said:
VT- How do you think this is going to be resolved? Isn't the main issue the removing the attorneys because of what some of them were pursuing, rather a "political" removal which Bush can legally do?
Predestined said:
There are several reasons I don't agree with using Ethanol. We obviously aren't doing our water any favor by going this route, thanks to the need to irrigate the crop, especially in this area of the country.
I've also been told that ethanol burns much differently than gasoline. I think someone on the WEBlog explained that to me. Ben, maybe? Sorry, I'm too UNscientific to even try to verbalize it here. ;) But we need a better alternative to using oil to power our vehicles.
I've also heard that ethanol is hard on engines, over a long period of time.
As for subsidies, blame the gov't on that one. If memory serves me, the reason for subsidies was to stop the growth of certain crops because of surpluses. Selling to foreign countries is a part of the export of goods in this country, and it seems our exporting has diminished greatly over the past 20 years. In my pitiful opinion, that's a BAD thing.
But then I was never involved with growing corn. :)
I've also been told that ethanol burns much differently than gasoline. I think someone on the WEBlog explained that to me. Ben, maybe? Sorry, I'm too UNscientific to even try to verbalize it here. ;) But we need a better alternative to using oil to power our vehicles.
I've also heard that ethanol is hard on engines, over a long period of time.
As for subsidies, blame the gov't on that one. If memory serves me, the reason for subsidies was to stop the growth of certain crops because of surpluses. Selling to foreign countries is a part of the export of goods in this country, and it seems our exporting has diminished greatly over the past 20 years. In my pitiful opinion, that's a BAD thing.
But then I was never involved with growing corn. :)
Vaughn Tolle said:
Gster, I don't know. As I have posted previously, the DOJ bungled the whole "PR" aspect of this thing. Then, for whatever reason, it appears a "cover up" commenced.
The President can remove any political appointee at any time for any reason or for no reason; no one disputes this. However, the apparent resort to "job performance" as a reason for the action was an attempt, IMO, to give the administration cover, and thus the first shot was fired by those U.S. Attorneys who lost their job and felt, rightly or wrongly, that the publicly released reason was just BS.
I feel some resolution is occurring at this point by the repeal of the provision above cited by the Senate, soon, IMHO, to be joined by the House. The White House has signaled it would sign the bill, IIRC. The provision in question allowed an end run around the normal process of Senate Confirmation by the new appointees being labeled "interim", to serve the unexpired term of the fired U.S. Attorneys. Thus, no matter what the real reason, there was the hope, as I see it, that the firing of the attorneys in question would slide under the radar by reliance upon the statute as amended; use of the power granted, in other words. Should the "real reason" behind the firings be the pursuit of certain cases, as some have alleged, all this would have doubtlessly been a point of inquiry in the confirmation hearings, which would have served to embarrass the Administration regardless of the eventual outcome of the hearings.
I suspect, but do not know, that if the replacements had been made without all the bungled PR, but with a formal position already thought out that "we have the power to do it, everyone understands that, we have done it", without the attempt to gain cover by the "job performance" canard, there would have been a small dust up, short in duration, and things would have then gone on "as normal"; the fired attorneys would have licked their wounds, found other employment, and only the families and close associates would know about it. Instead, we are now facing Senate hearings, and, as I understand it, AG AG has an appointment before the House Appropriations Committee Thursday to testify about the budget request for the next fiscal year at which I suspect many questions not dealing with budget will be forthcoming.
There might be a "constitutional crisis" out of this based upon how hard the Senate pushes back against the expected executive privilege claims as to the testimony of Mr. Rove and Ms Miers. It is my understanding Mr. Fielding will be negotiating with the Senate on these points today. Should it come to this, there will no doubt be litigation filed, with SCOTUS action unlikely before the '08 elections.
I am particularly sensitive to this issue due to my profession, I suspect. While I am not naive enough to think all U.S. Attorneys are appointed with no regard to their political leanings, politics has no place in the daily operations of a U.S. Attorney's office. These folks, most of whom are faithful servants to the people they serve (us), have a full plate without being required to take account of the political pressures of the Administration under which they serve.
Sorry for the length of this; I can go on, but am deciding to cut it off here for now.
The President can remove any political appointee at any time for any reason or for no reason; no one disputes this. However, the apparent resort to "job performance" as a reason for the action was an attempt, IMO, to give the administration cover, and thus the first shot was fired by those U.S. Attorneys who lost their job and felt, rightly or wrongly, that the publicly released reason was just BS.
I feel some resolution is occurring at this point by the repeal of the provision above cited by the Senate, soon, IMHO, to be joined by the House. The White House has signaled it would sign the bill, IIRC. The provision in question allowed an end run around the normal process of Senate Confirmation by the new appointees being labeled "interim", to serve the unexpired term of the fired U.S. Attorneys. Thus, no matter what the real reason, there was the hope, as I see it, that the firing of the attorneys in question would slide under the radar by reliance upon the statute as amended; use of the power granted, in other words. Should the "real reason" behind the firings be the pursuit of certain cases, as some have alleged, all this would have doubtlessly been a point of inquiry in the confirmation hearings, which would have served to embarrass the Administration regardless of the eventual outcome of the hearings.
I suspect, but do not know, that if the replacements had been made without all the bungled PR, but with a formal position already thought out that "we have the power to do it, everyone understands that, we have done it", without the attempt to gain cover by the "job performance" canard, there would have been a small dust up, short in duration, and things would have then gone on "as normal"; the fired attorneys would have licked their wounds, found other employment, and only the families and close associates would know about it. Instead, we are now facing Senate hearings, and, as I understand it, AG AG has an appointment before the House Appropriations Committee Thursday to testify about the budget request for the next fiscal year at which I suspect many questions not dealing with budget will be forthcoming.
There might be a "constitutional crisis" out of this based upon how hard the Senate pushes back against the expected executive privilege claims as to the testimony of Mr. Rove and Ms Miers. It is my understanding Mr. Fielding will be negotiating with the Senate on these points today. Should it come to this, there will no doubt be litigation filed, with SCOTUS action unlikely before the '08 elections.
I am particularly sensitive to this issue due to my profession, I suspect. While I am not naive enough to think all U.S. Attorneys are appointed with no regard to their political leanings, politics has no place in the daily operations of a U.S. Attorney's office. These folks, most of whom are faithful servants to the people they serve (us), have a full plate without being required to take account of the political pressures of the Administration under which they serve.
Sorry for the length of this; I can go on, but am deciding to cut it off here for now.
Gster said:
VT- Thanks- what you posted certainly makes sense. It seems all that really remains is the action of Lam in San Diego and was she fired for what she was currently investigating or preparing to investigate. If not, much ado about nothing it seems to me.
You'd think the political animals in the administration would not use a sledge hammer approach for something so easily misinterpeted!
You'd think the political animals in the administration would not use a sledge hammer approach for something so easily misinterpeted!
darwinsdisciple said:
I think Gster is asking a good question. From what I have read, there is speculation that Lam was removed because she was going after the 3rd in command at the CIA - "Dusty" somebody. I don't guess I know why there would be reason for the Bush administration to put a halt to that. Also, Lam was looking at other Repubs as an extenstion of her Duke case - which seems like a more obvious reason for her dismissal.
What the MSM has focused on is 1) the lie that they were dismissed for performance reasons and 2) the patriot act allowance of this course of action. I also read where the the patriot act provision was slipped in by a staffer, after it was voted on. I did not think that was possible.
I still contend that Rove under oath would be a nightmare for Bush. If Rove tells the truth - that would be a big problem in any number of realms. If he perjures himself and is caught - that also would be problem for the Bush administration. Hence, I think they will fight that possiblity to the very last person standing. If, OTOH, they don't fight it, that would seem to signal that they are not very concerned about the ramifications of this "scandal".
What the MSM has focused on is 1) the lie that they were dismissed for performance reasons and 2) the patriot act allowance of this course of action. I also read where the the patriot act provision was slipped in by a staffer, after it was voted on. I did not think that was possible.
I still contend that Rove under oath would be a nightmare for Bush. If Rove tells the truth - that would be a big problem in any number of realms. If he perjures himself and is caught - that also would be problem for the Bush administration. Hence, I think they will fight that possiblity to the very last person standing. If, OTOH, they don't fight it, that would seem to signal that they are not very concerned about the ramifications of this "scandal".
lindainks55 said:
I'm very glad to see something done by Congress to undo yet another power grab bush&co sneaked in. Getting rid of this bunch of crooks can't happen fast enough. They are so used to lying and getting away with it, they now lie when it isn't even necessary.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Pre, an unscientific approach to ethanol vs. gasoline; as each molecule of ethanol (ethyl alcohol) contains less potential energy that a molecule of gasoline, to travel the same distance of X miles, it would take, IIRC, about 2x the amount of ethanol vs gasoline to make the trip.
On ethanol being hard on engines over time; I'm not equipped to make a judgment on this; I note, however, that Formula 1 racing engines use alcohol as the fuel. I am aware that ethanol causes deterioration of rubber fittings, hoses, etc., which means that copper or other metallic substances need to be used for fuel lines and the like.
On subsidies: I believe you are correct concerning the initial reason therefor. As Paul pointed out, the export of subsidized corn, for example, can be done at a lower cost than the cost of production in the importing country. There's a lot of stuff about tariffs, international trade, international relations, and other topics which enter into the discussion here about which I am singularly not qualified to present, just noting that in various "trade cases" in the EU and other arenas, the subsidies paid farmers in the United States are hot issues in the "unfair trade" areas.
On ethanol being hard on engines over time; I'm not equipped to make a judgment on this; I note, however, that Formula 1 racing engines use alcohol as the fuel. I am aware that ethanol causes deterioration of rubber fittings, hoses, etc., which means that copper or other metallic substances need to be used for fuel lines and the like.
On subsidies: I believe you are correct concerning the initial reason therefor. As Paul pointed out, the export of subsidized corn, for example, can be done at a lower cost than the cost of production in the importing country. There's a lot of stuff about tariffs, international trade, international relations, and other topics which enter into the discussion here about which I am singularly not qualified to present, just noting that in various "trade cases" in the EU and other arenas, the subsidies paid farmers in the United States are hot issues in the "unfair trade" areas.
darwinsdisciple said:
Thanks, Vaughn - our posts crossed.
When I first read about this story my question was 'why does this administration have to make everything a constitutional crisis?' Are they that arrogant, or that stupid, or is there a better explanation?
When I first read about this story my question was 'why does this administration have to make everything a constitutional crisis?' Are they that arrogant, or that stupid, or is there a better explanation?
Vaughn Tolle said:
dd and Linda, the provision in question was "snuck in" allegedly by a staffer for Senator Specter, as I recall during the Conference Committee consideration of the bill. Unfortunately, as anyone who has dealt with the Internal Revenue Code on any regular basis can tell you, last minute "changes" occur on a regular basis.
Vaughn Tolle said:
dd, my opinion is incompetence, shared by the AEI guy in one of the links posted above (he also opined perjury, but I'll stop short of that one). When personal loyalty becomes more important than competence, stuff happens, not always good.
Gster said:
I hope we are not going into a daily contrived controversy that is more hype than substantive, more smoke vs. fact, etc. With the onset of the 2008 elections, my hope is probably futile.
It certainly gets old smelling the news before you can read it.
It certainly gets old smelling the news before you can read it.
TRACY said:
(In my best Jed Clampett imitation:)
Hoooo-dawgies.
Hello sollie!
You can actually be Paul over here if ya' want.
Good to see ya' back.
Keep in touch!
Ya'll come back now, ya' hear?
Hoooo-dawgies.
Hello sollie!
You can actually be Paul over here if ya' want.
Good to see ya' back.
Keep in touch!
Ya'll come back now, ya' hear?
TRACY said:
TEN-HUT!
Good morning, you fascists.
You pigs.
You bigots.
You PINKOS.
You FAGS!
You BASTARDS.
Fuzz.
This indoctrination of vocal harassment was compiled by our own Juvenile Division in preparation for the concert this weekend.
(cue: rock music-"I Wanna Go Back To Georgia)
Good morning, you fascists.
You pigs.
You bigots.
You PINKOS.
You FAGS!
You BASTARDS.
Fuzz.
This indoctrination of vocal harassment was compiled by our own Juvenile Division in preparation for the concert this weekend.
(cue: rock music-"I Wanna Go Back To Georgia)
Gster said:
Tracy- U bin out chasin' parked cars again with Jethro?
Ain't cha tired of them headaches?
(mumbles- "Jed, that boy ain't right in the noggin' !")
Ain't cha tired of them headaches?
(mumbles- "Jed, that boy ain't right in the noggin' !")
Predestined said:
VT, Thanks, you said it much better than I could have, and it was what I'd heard, especially the rubber fittings and such. The fiance of one of my daughters is involved in racing. He explained the burn rate to me, but since my mind often slams shut when it comes to math and science (blame a bad teacher in grade school), there's no sense in me trying to explain it. *grin*
Predestined said:
Speaking of concerts, I'm excited, even though I don't have a clue what Tracy was posting. *grin*
Why am I excited? RiverFest has a great line-up this year, and I plan to attend the first Saturday night concerts if I have to go by myself. :) Why? Oh, because I'll get to see The Guess Who and Steppenwolf. Chubby Checker is performing the second weekend, I think. And for those who prefer something a little different, there's Sawyer Brown.
I've seen the Guess Who twice and, sadly, Burton Cummings, who was the lead singer with them back in the 70's is no longer with them. But Steppenwolf will be a new one for me. Let's face it, I'm old enough to appreciate the old good stuff.
To top it off, Chicago will be appearing at the State Fair in September, and since I've missed them each time they've been here, that excites me, too.
Why am I excited? RiverFest has a great line-up this year, and I plan to attend the first Saturday night concerts if I have to go by myself. :) Why? Oh, because I'll get to see The Guess Who and Steppenwolf. Chubby Checker is performing the second weekend, I think. And for those who prefer something a little different, there's Sawyer Brown.
I've seen the Guess Who twice and, sadly, Burton Cummings, who was the lead singer with them back in the 70's is no longer with them. But Steppenwolf will be a new one for me. Let's face it, I'm old enough to appreciate the old good stuff.
To top it off, Chicago will be appearing at the State Fair in September, and since I've missed them each time they've been here, that excites me, too.
TRACY said:
The words that jump out at me are:
padded wagon
headaches
right in the noggin'
rubber fittings
burn rate
I think I'm fixin ta git tortured or sumpin'.
That, and I think there is paranoid people following me.
I have fear of paranoia.
What would ya' call sumpin' like that?
padded wagon
headaches
right in the noggin'
rubber fittings
burn rate
I think I'm fixin ta git tortured or sumpin'.
That, and I think there is paranoid people following me.
I have fear of paranoia.
What would ya' call sumpin' like that?
Gster said:
PRE- I saw Steppenwolf right after I can back from VN, and basically un-civiilzed and foul mouthed to boot.
When John Kay stated singing "Pusher Man" the cops at Century II looked like they wanted to haul him off to jail. Of coure. it didn't help when he kept referring to them a the Fire Dept.
I had forgotten that episode.
When John Kay stated singing "Pusher Man" the cops at Century II looked like they wanted to haul him off to jail. Of coure. it didn't help when he kept referring to them a the Fire Dept.
I had forgotten that episode.
WSClark said:
FYI - The WE Blog Reich Wingers have "discovered" that y'all (or at least most) are planning to return April 1, 2007.
Do any of you think that ANYTHING will have changed when you return?
You will be returning to a new blog King and Queen in GSheridan and RepubliKhan. The RR feels that they have won big time and they are just licking their chops. Even the relatively moderate right wingers are taking shots at us.
Given those circumstances and the fact that there is an obvious mole in our group leads me to believe that we need to rethink our "group."
Do any of you think that ANYTHING will have changed when you return?
You will be returning to a new blog King and Queen in GSheridan and RepubliKhan. The RR feels that they have won big time and they are just licking their chops. Even the relatively moderate right wingers are taking shots at us.
Given those circumstances and the fact that there is an obvious mole in our group leads me to believe that we need to rethink our "group."
TRACY said:
Speaking of Chicago....
The stuff above was stolen from a movie.
That movie has a soundtrack by Chicago,
and the band got some bit parts.
Lee Laughnane played the speaking role of "pig man".
Here's his one line:
John Wintergreen:
I need you to give me some information.
Pig Man: I'll give you some information.
You're standing in pigshit.
The stuff above was stolen from a movie.
That movie has a soundtrack by Chicago,
and the band got some bit parts.
Lee Laughnane played the speaking role of "pig man".
Here's his one line:
John Wintergreen:
I need you to give me some information.
Pig Man: I'll give you some information.
You're standing in pigshit.
WSClark said:
"WSC, why worry about what and who is going on 'over there'?"
My concern is that most of the boycotters are planning to go back WE Blog on April 1 - without having gained anything of consequence - and that we have a mole that has passed on private info.
Other than that, I am cool.
My concern is that most of the boycotters are planning to go back WE Blog on April 1 - without having gained anything of consequence - and that we have a mole that has passed on private info.
Other than that, I am cool.
darwinsdisciple said:
The Gonzometer:
http://www.slate.com/id/2162289/
Slate is saying the chances of AG AG going are 60%. But they also said the chances of Harriet Miers being confirmed in congress was 60% - the day before she stepped down.
WSC,
I saw that, too. What are your suggestions? It is possible that there is not a mole here, too. I googled my nic and on the first page, fairly high up was a clear clue on how to get here. I think it entirely possible that comment of GS's was a deliberate disinformation attack that had useful consequences from their perspective. Blatant lying is not exactly a foreign concept to the Queen and her minions.
http://www.slate.com/id/2162289/
Slate is saying the chances of AG AG going are 60%. But they also said the chances of Harriet Miers being confirmed in congress was 60% - the day before she stepped down.
WSC,
I saw that, too. What are your suggestions? It is possible that there is not a mole here, too. I googled my nic and on the first page, fairly high up was a clear clue on how to get here. I think it entirely possible that comment of GS's was a deliberate disinformation attack that had useful consequences from their perspective. Blatant lying is not exactly a foreign concept to the Queen and her minions.
Paul said:
Seriously, y would y’all go back? We’re y’all boycotting for something? If so and your ‘demands weren’t met then…
This blog seems better anyway. Its in its infancy and kickin tail.
This blog seems better anyway. Its in its infancy and kickin tail.
Predestined said:
Who cares when they think some of us might be returning? Could be that we made all that up, just to give them something to chew on. ;)
I noticed GS mentioned that she had someone keeping her apprised of what we were doing here. My knee-jerk reaction that it was P_Mom. Frankly, my dear, I don't care who it was. The second we went to a public format, we knew (or should have known) that everything would then be public. Then, too, when you get 2 people or more together, no one is completely trustworthy. So for whomever it was, shame, shame, but life goes on.
I haven't yet hit the WEBlog yet today. Too many more important things to take care of. Things I'd best get busy TAKING care of. *grin*
Tracy, what movie? I was more than alive in /73. ;)
I noticed GS mentioned that she had someone keeping her apprised of what we were doing here. My knee-jerk reaction that it was P_Mom. Frankly, my dear, I don't care who it was. The second we went to a public format, we knew (or should have known) that everything would then be public. Then, too, when you get 2 people or more together, no one is completely trustworthy. So for whomever it was, shame, shame, but life goes on.
I haven't yet hit the WEBlog yet today. Too many more important things to take care of. Things I'd best get busy TAKING care of. *grin*
Tracy, what movie? I was more than alive in /73. ;)
Vaughn Tolle said:
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/16937882.htm
Gster: the above is a much more substantive concern for DOJ and the current administration than perhaps the U.S. Attorney matter.
Gster: the above is a much more substantive concern for DOJ and the current administration than perhaps the U.S. Attorney matter.
TRACY said:
ElectraGlide In Blue, starring Robert Blake as officer John Wintergreen!
Lee (pig-man) is Chicago's trumpet player I believe.
I used to have the vinyl, wore it out.
WSC, it's okay dude,
We're fearin' NO MAN,
We have been to the weblog,
looked down into the fires of hell...
and we HAVE OVERCOME!
Can I get an AMEN?
Lee (pig-man) is Chicago's trumpet player I believe.
I used to have the vinyl, wore it out.
WSC, it's okay dude,
We're fearin' NO MAN,
We have been to the weblog,
looked down into the fires of hell...
and we HAVE OVERCOME!
Can I get an AMEN?
Gster said:
VT_ Thanks again. To me, this issue is a big deal , and giving us the "ah shucks" apology won't get it!
The FBI has also flushed hundreds of millions dollars trying to get their computer system working , to no avail of course. I though Director Freigh was a clown, and now Director Mueller is wearing grease paint; time to go!
They seem to be trying to emulate the Keystone Cops , and very well, too.
The FBI has also flushed hundreds of millions dollars trying to get their computer system working , to no avail of course. I though Director Freigh was a clown, and now Director Mueller is wearing grease paint; time to go!
They seem to be trying to emulate the Keystone Cops , and very well, too.
CF said:
TRACY,
I'd beg to differ. As a liberal "hater," I can't help but bring it with me. Clouds of hate follow in CF's wake, wherever he finds himself. Even here.
I'd beg to differ. As a liberal "hater," I can't help but bring it with me. Clouds of hate follow in CF's wake, wherever he finds himself. Even here.
WSClark said:
Well, now even the Fleet Idiot has managed to wander his way over here to lurk about like a dirty old man at the playground.
TRACY said:
CF, I'm not feeling it man.
TRACY also wonders why CF always writes in the third person, or whatever it is?
I see WSC just got published.
Cool.
TRACY also wonders why CF always writes in the third person, or whatever it is?
I see WSC just got published.
Cool.
lindainks55 said:
Oh look at all the purty pictures! DD has himself a Kansas quarter, Predestined has that beeuutiful blue ribbon that asks our troops be returned, we have GGGG-Grandfather with us. Makes y'all look quite spiffy.
Dan Froomkin has quite a bit to say about if it comes down to a choice between Rove and Gonzales it ain't gonna be Rove. Do you suppose if all the folks who have been sacrificed to save Rove got together...
My decision was made yesterday and I haven't looked back or felt the need to reconsider or peek into what I don't miss. Feels good!
CF, we're sending lots of love your way! You should be feeling the love, man.
Dan Froomkin has quite a bit to say about if it comes down to a choice between Rove and Gonzales it ain't gonna be Rove. Do you suppose if all the folks who have been sacrificed to save Rove got together...
My decision was made yesterday and I haven't looked back or felt the need to reconsider or peek into what I don't miss. Feels good!
CF, we're sending lots of love your way! You should be feeling the love, man.
lindainks55 said:
CF, where is that picture of you drawn by your 7 year old friend? I've been looking forward to seeing it.
Gster said:
WSC- "Well, now even the Fleet Idiot has managed to wander his way over here to lurk about like a dirty old man at the playground"
I thought I felt a sudden wave of stupidity sweep over this blog. Do you suppose he's stil breathing through his ears?
I thought I felt a sudden wave of stupidity sweep over this blog. Do you suppose he's stil breathing through his ears?
WSClark said:
Mr. Fleet is critiquing our discussion of corned beef and cabbage - the day before St. Patrick's Day.
Hey, despite my HUGE cooking skills, I am not too proud to ask for a recipe, especially when Farm Grrl is on the blog.
As for Fleet................ what a maroon.
Hey, despite my HUGE cooking skills, I am not too proud to ask for a recipe, especially when Farm Grrl is on the blog.
As for Fleet................ what a maroon.
CF said:
lindainks55,
Sadly, I've tried manipulating the picture digitally, but it's too fuzzy to translate well. Wah. I've to find myself some other logo.
TRACY,
Opps, sorry--CF momentarily slipped into the first person.
As for the use of the third person, this is because CF both is and is not CF. Not that CF would ever troll himself, mind you. It's just that it's easier to create a certain mildly ironic authorial voice when referring to oneself in the third person.
It also helps when CF gets something wrong and wants to get the laughter over with more quickly.
fleetwood,
If you really are lurking here, kind of gives the lie to the smug claims of superiority and independence voiced by you and your ilk, wouldn't you say?
WSClark,
Indeed. "Fleetwood, this is the police. Step away from the sandbox."
Sadly, I've tried manipulating the picture digitally, but it's too fuzzy to translate well. Wah. I've to find myself some other logo.
TRACY,
Opps, sorry--CF momentarily slipped into the first person.
As for the use of the third person, this is because CF both is and is not CF. Not that CF would ever troll himself, mind you. It's just that it's easier to create a certain mildly ironic authorial voice when referring to oneself in the third person.
It also helps when CF gets something wrong and wants to get the laughter over with more quickly.
fleetwood,
If you really are lurking here, kind of gives the lie to the smug claims of superiority and independence voiced by you and your ilk, wouldn't you say?
WSClark,
Indeed. "Fleetwood, this is the police. Step away from the sandbox."
TRACY said:
CF, I GET IT! LET ME TRY.....
It rubs the lotion on its skin. It does this whenever it is told.
It rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again.
Yes, it will, Precious, won't it? It will get the hose!
Now it places the lotion in the basket.
It places the lotion in the basket.
Put the f*ck*ng lotion in the basket!
AHHHHH,..........
I feel much better now, thanks.
It rubs the lotion on its skin. It does this whenever it is told.
It rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again.
Yes, it will, Precious, won't it? It will get the hose!
Now it places the lotion in the basket.
It places the lotion in the basket.
Put the f*ck*ng lotion in the basket!
AHHHHH,..........
I feel much better now, thanks.
CF said:
TRACY,
CF's good conscience regarding the use of the third person voice has now been permanently eradicated. He now feels, well, dirty.
CF's good conscience regarding the use of the third person voice has now been permanently eradicated. He now feels, well, dirty.
lindainks55 said:
You two are scaring me! Did you each go choose the exact same headshot (which is actually no headshot)?
lindainks55 said:
OK, I read more carefully and see that CF has chosen a headshot. And one of CF's posts I attributed to Tracy in error. So what kinda critter is that cute little thing?
WSClark52 said:
Is that a self portrait, CF? (wink)
By the way, my avatar is an old, old relative. It is not MY picture. It is not me, no matter what anyone says....
By the way, my avatar is an old, old relative. It is not MY picture. It is not me, no matter what anyone says....
lindainks55 said:
Many posts made at same time. Confused.
A badger huh!?
When you click on him you get to see a bigger version but I couldn't identify him even then.
A badger huh!?
When you click on him you get to see a bigger version but I couldn't identify him even then.
CF said:
lindinks55,
Yeah, it's kind of hard to make out. I'm not quite sure what to do about increasing the dimensions of the image. But it seemed like the most appropriate avatar, given CF's pugnacity. A well-equipped mammal for close-quarters fighting, if not a particularly aesthetic one.
WSClark,
Sadly, no; the badger is far more toothsome and charming than is CF in real life.
Yeah, it's kind of hard to make out. I'm not quite sure what to do about increasing the dimensions of the image. But it seemed like the most appropriate avatar, given CF's pugnacity. A well-equipped mammal for close-quarters fighting, if not a particularly aesthetic one.
WSClark,
Sadly, no; the badger is far more toothsome and charming than is CF in real life.
WSClark said:
Psssssssssssst!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (For the lurking WE Bloggers..... most of us could not give a good god damn about you flaming hypocrites. You are congratulating yourselves on your decorum while you ignore the fact that the worst flame throwers were SOB, GSheridan, RepubliKhan, Fleet Idiot and Golf Nut.)
Some of us are not going back and we intend to make this a workable, respectful forum.
So, have a great day, boys and girls............
We will not miss you...............
Unless we get a clean shot.
Some of us are not going back and we intend to make this a workable, respectful forum.
So, have a great day, boys and girls............
We will not miss you...............
Unless we get a clean shot.
WSClark said:
Psssssssssssst!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (For the lurking WE Bloggers..... most of us could not give a good god damn about you flaming hypocrites. You are congratulating yourselves on your decorum while you ignore the fact that the worst flame throwers were SOB, GSheridan, RepubliKhan, Fleet Idiot and Golf Nut.)
Some of us are not going back and we intend to make this a workable, respectful forum.
So, have a great day, boys and girls............
We will not miss you...............
Unless we get a clean shot.
Some of us are not going back and we intend to make this a workable, respectful forum.
So, have a great day, boys and girls............
We will not miss you...............
Unless we get a clean shot.
J R said:
I'm sorry that someone posted the location of this forum on the WEblog.
Maybe some of you think it was me since I was against this thing.
Let me assure you it was not me. Whoever did it used a clickable link. As most of you know, I can't post links. SO that's my proof. I hope most of you don't need proof.
Keep in mind also that the "mole" was not necessarily one of this group. Any of the right on the WEblog could have googled one of your names and found this place.
This was on my mind.
Jay
Maybe some of you think it was me since I was against this thing.
Let me assure you it was not me. Whoever did it used a clickable link. As most of you know, I can't post links. SO that's my proof. I hope most of you don't need proof.
Keep in mind also that the "mole" was not necessarily one of this group. Any of the right on the WEblog could have googled one of your names and found this place.
This was on my mind.
Jay
mrcontroversy said:
Sorry I've been away, friends.
Needless to say, I am not the mole.
This has been the most productive week I've had at work in YEARS :)
Carlos is coming on my show tonight.
I've been having some trouble posting here, but it sounds like some of the bugs have been worked out.
Needless to say, I am not the mole.
This has been the most productive week I've had at work in YEARS :)
Carlos is coming on my show tonight.
I've been having some trouble posting here, but it sounds like some of the bugs have been worked out.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Somehow, I don't think this is what those who believe that sex ed should be left to the parents had in mind:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2964814
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2964814
Danny said:
Regarding ethanol, I know with ethanol it is less efficient at producing power, so it requires burning more of it to produce the same power, as a result you'll generally see you have to use fill up more often.
I don't think it is harder on engines themselves, but because it is alcohol rubber components deteriorate faster than usual(alcohol generally dries up those components). For burning purposes, I believe it burns cleaner, but production of it does require more water.
I'm not against ethanol as a possible fuel alternative, but I do think more information needs to be provided about it.
I don't think it is harder on engines themselves, but because it is alcohol rubber components deteriorate faster than usual(alcohol generally dries up those components). For burning purposes, I believe it burns cleaner, but production of it does require more water.
I'm not against ethanol as a possible fuel alternative, but I do think more information needs to be provided about it.
Danny said:
VT,
I read that a couple days ago. What the heck were they thinking?!?! *shakes head* Seriously, that is messed up. I'm generally for what happens in the bedroom should stay there, but seriously.
I read that a couple days ago. What the heck were they thinking?!?! *shakes head* Seriously, that is messed up. I'm generally for what happens in the bedroom should stay there, but seriously.
darwinsdisciple said:
Since they had posted one of ours over there, thought I would post one of their's here:
*****
There's a lot of truth to that. The fact is, the libs need the conservatives, the conservatives need the liberals. Both of us, left to own devises, are self-destructive, though perhaps for different reasons.
Has it been less exciting without them? You bet. Has there been less light generated? I'm sure that's so; many of "them" are very bright folks, though some simply parrot the DailyKos/DU line.
There's also been a great deal less heat generated, and that's a good thing. In a perfect world, we could gain the light and dispense with the heat, but so many, on both "sides," can't resist the urge to make a political/ideological disagreement personal. It needn't be so.
So, would I welcome the 'boycotters' back? Sure. But I don't think I've ever been part of the problem (then again, I suppose I can be just as self-delusional as the next guy; human beings are amazingly good at lying to themselves).
Posted by: GMC70 | March 20, 2007 at 04:20 PM
*****
Can't find a lot to disagree with there.
*****
There's a lot of truth to that. The fact is, the libs need the conservatives, the conservatives need the liberals. Both of us, left to own devises, are self-destructive, though perhaps for different reasons.
Has it been less exciting without them? You bet. Has there been less light generated? I'm sure that's so; many of "them" are very bright folks, though some simply parrot the DailyKos/DU line.
There's also been a great deal less heat generated, and that's a good thing. In a perfect world, we could gain the light and dispense with the heat, but so many, on both "sides," can't resist the urge to make a political/ideological disagreement personal. It needn't be so.
So, would I welcome the 'boycotters' back? Sure. But I don't think I've ever been part of the problem (then again, I suppose I can be just as self-delusional as the next guy; human beings are amazingly good at lying to themselves).
Posted by: GMC70 | March 20, 2007 at 04:20 PM
*****
Can't find a lot to disagree with there.
gster said:
DD_ Good post and conclusion. I've always been amazed the majority of people are MOR, and there is not a lot of daylight between the respective parties regarding this.
That was until I saw WEB! Maybe it is the case that the more outspoken partes of either ilk are more likely to make their views known, if so, it has been proven!
That was until I saw WEB! Maybe it is the case that the more outspoken partes of either ilk are more likely to make their views known, if so, it has been proven!
J R said:
I'm happy to be able to tell you that I MAY have been right.
About your not having a mole I mean.
I denounced the act of posting a link to this forum on the WEblog. (Today's open thread) It did not take long for someone to claim the credit. The poster SOB (who I think is goofnut) claims that he found this place using google and some of your nics.
About your not having a mole I mean.
I denounced the act of posting a link to this forum on the WEblog. (Today's open thread) It did not take long for someone to claim the credit. The poster SOB (who I think is goofnut) claims that he found this place using google and some of your nics.
darwinsdisciple said:
See an email I sent out recently on the alternatives that Pre mentions above. I came to my conclusion on the alternatives, but would welcome the input of others.
WSClark said:
Jeez, SOB, you have managed after a week to find our new crib. That must have pushed your miniscule intellect right to the limit.
Now go Cheney yourself.
Now go Cheney yourself.
WSClark said:
You have no friends, SOB, here or anywhere else.
I will give you this, you did pick the right nic.
I will give you this, you did pick the right nic.
SOB said:
You're not being very tolerant. Shame.
So anyway...what are we all chatting about tonight? Recipes? The "other" blog? What's a happening?
So anyway...what are we all chatting about tonight? Recipes? The "other" blog? What's a happening?
darwinsdisciple said:
Gster,
After meeting GMC, this is the kind of thing I expected him to post. But before leaving he was getting shriller and shriller, which was very different than how he usually was. I think he was the conservatives' canary in a coal mine, as it were. When GMC was having major affective issues at the WE Blog, you had to know something was wrong.
After meeting GMC, this is the kind of thing I expected him to post. But before leaving he was getting shriller and shriller, which was very different than how he usually was. I think he was the conservatives' canary in a coal mine, as it were. When GMC was having major affective issues at the WE Blog, you had to know something was wrong.
darwinsdisciple said:
So now we have some troll droppings here. See my recent email. SOB is nothing without someone to take potshots at. Actually his nothingness is a chronic condition for him. Too bad, so sad.
WSClark said:
"You're not being very tolerant. Shame."
I have prior experience with your brand of hypocrisy and attack mentality. You have yet to add anything to any thread. In truth, you are just another jerk like Fleet, RepubliKhan and KSGolfnut.
You have made your point - you can invade another Blog.
But from this moment on, you will be ignored.
I have prior experience with your brand of hypocrisy and attack mentality. You have yet to add anything to any thread. In truth, you are just another jerk like Fleet, RepubliKhan and KSGolfnut.
You have made your point - you can invade another Blog.
But from this moment on, you will be ignored.
SOB said:
My nothingness knows no bounds. Me thinks with my photo of Rush displayed there you will have a hard time missing my additions here.
CF said:
Oh, I think you overestimate yourself, SOB. When you contribute something substantive, we'll talk.
But in coming over here, you HAVE proven that you need us much, much more than we need you. I'd say you've snatched a real defeat from the jaws of a perceived victory.
But in coming over here, you HAVE proven that you need us much, much more than we need you. I'd say you've snatched a real defeat from the jaws of a perceived victory.
CF said:
WSClark,
Oh, we're good. It occurred to CF earlier in the day that by seeking us out and lurking, certain Wingnuts demonstrated conclusively that they are parasites and bullies.
It's good of SOB to oblige CF by coming here to be lectured, and not tempting CF to go to a certain place to make his point.
We won. SOB and fleetwood prove it. And SOB can now count on being ignored by CF from here on out.
Oh, we're good. It occurred to CF earlier in the day that by seeking us out and lurking, certain Wingnuts demonstrated conclusively that they are parasites and bullies.
It's good of SOB to oblige CF by coming here to be lectured, and not tempting CF to go to a certain place to make his point.
We won. SOB and fleetwood prove it. And SOB can now count on being ignored by CF from here on out.
WSClark said:
CF, we have had some expert testimony regarding SOB. The opinions are divided. I suggested that my cat had made a stinky in the litter box this morning that had more value to the human race than did SOB.
Some of the experts felt that was an insult to cat shit.
After all, cat crap can be used for fertilizer. SOB cannot be used for any worthwhile purpose.
After further deliberation, I have to agree with them.
Some of the experts felt that was an insult to cat shit.
After all, cat crap can be used for fertilizer. SOB cannot be used for any worthwhile purpose.
After further deliberation, I have to agree with them.
CF said:
DD,
I believe the technical term for such droppings is "spoor." I will post a picture of the same--posed next to a beautiful piece of Flint Hills limestone--on my site for purposes of comparison.
I believe the technical term for such droppings is "spoor." I will post a picture of the same--posed next to a beautiful piece of Flint Hills limestone--on my site for purposes of comparison.
darwinsdisciple said:
WSC,
Remember your good advice. Acknowledging these dumb bastards lets them win. Please don't do that.
Remember your good advice. Acknowledging these dumb bastards lets them win. Please don't do that.
SOB said:
And another thing: If thinking that "you won" means never ever coming back to WeBlog and spewing your lefty-logic, then that's great. I'd call that a win for me.
heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee!
heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee!
CF said:
DD,
You may have to wait on the image. I've uploaded it, but the system seems to be moving awfully slow.
Trust me--it'll be worth the wait. Like a good spoor usually is.
You may have to wait on the image. I've uploaded it, but the system seems to be moving awfully slow.
Trust me--it'll be worth the wait. Like a good spoor usually is.
darwinsdisciple said:
Just as an aside to those humans with a working cerebellum, trolls are unworthy of hatred, though that is the best they can hope for.
CF said:
DD,
Here 'tis.
http://hutocf.instantspot.com/index.cfm/event/gall...
Ah. MUCH better. More pics of the Tallgrass National Prairie to come.
Here 'tis.
http://hutocf.instantspot.com/index.cfm/event/gall...
Ah. MUCH better. More pics of the Tallgrass National Prairie to come.
darwinsdisciple said:
And in case you didn't know, having a working cerebellum would put one on the level of reptiles.
SOB said:
DD,
You have failed to ignore my presence. I claim victory. Time to hang yet another plaque.
You have failed to ignore my presence. I claim victory. Time to hang yet another plaque.
SOB said:
And now dear friends I say to you goodnight. You will now talk about me and the WeBlog tonight and/or into at least tomorrow. For that, I claim another victory. You cannot resist.
Wow! These plaques are getting expensive! Good thing I've got the cash.
Wow! These plaques are getting expensive! Good thing I've got the cash.
darwinsdisciple said:
Did I smell some troll poop? Maybe not. It wasn't even especially stinky... Just the usual, pathetic piece of crap...
WSClark said:
I just noticed that someone is using a headshot of a fat, bald-headed, Viagra smuggling, three time divorced, college drop out, hillbilly heroin addict for their avatar. Is that a reflection on their intellect or their moral values?
Just curious......
Just curious......
darwinsdisciple said:
"So, how do you like my image? Apropos, no?"
ABSOLUTELY! Another plump turd falling from the gracious ass of our hero, SOB!!!
Thank you.
ABSOLUTELY! Another plump turd falling from the gracious ass of our hero, SOB!!!
Thank you.
TRACY said:
OH, WE GOT A LAME FLAMER.
Bwess hes widdow hawt.
HB 2098: Bad definitions
and worse consequences
? Kansas would be alone. No other state has adopted all the definitions used in HB
2098. Proponents of the bill acknowledged this during a hearing of the House
Health and Human Services Committee on February 5.
? Tampering with standard scientific terms. Virtually all medical researchers
accept and use stem cell research definitions that are recognized by the National
Institutes of Health and National Academies of Science, our nation’s preeminent
scientific organizations. Those recognized definitions vary significantly from the
definitions proposed by HB 2098.
? Distorting the nature of research techniques. The bill wrongly defines somatic
cell nuclear transfer, which is a way of making stem cells that are a genetic match
for a patient, as human reproductive cloning. In SCNT, no cells are implanted into
the uterus of a woman. Any attempt to use SCNT for human reproduction should
be illegal. KCLC opposes human reproductive cloning.
? SCNT is accurately called therapeutic cloning. A patient’s own cells and a
donated human egg are used to repair or replace diseased or damaged cells in the
patient. KCLC supports therapeutic cloning for cures for life-threatening diseases
and injuries.
? By disregarding standard scientific terminology, lawmakers might easily
restrict Kansans’ access to new cures. More than 200,000 Kansas men, women,
and children suffer from life-threatening diseases and injuries that the vast
majority of scientists believe could be treated or cured using embryonic stem cells.
Although human embryonic stem cell research is less than ten years old, medical
researchers believe that it holds the promise of cures for diseases such as
Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, juvenile diabetes, spinal cord injuries, and many others
for which there currently are no cures — and for which adult stem cell cures are
unlikely. The research to date is encouraging and embryonic stem cells are
versatile for more diseases.
? The coalition’s nearly 10,000 members are Kansans of varying religious and
scientific beliefs. They share a common belief that lifesaving cures that are legal
under federal law and available to other Americans should be legal in our state
and available to Kansas patients.
Last updated 3/2/2007 8:48 AM
PO Box 188
Lawrence, Kansas 66044
(785) 841-7900 • www.kansascures.com
Bwess hes widdow hawt.
HB 2098: Bad definitions
and worse consequences
? Kansas would be alone. No other state has adopted all the definitions used in HB
2098. Proponents of the bill acknowledged this during a hearing of the House
Health and Human Services Committee on February 5.
? Tampering with standard scientific terms. Virtually all medical researchers
accept and use stem cell research definitions that are recognized by the National
Institutes of Health and National Academies of Science, our nation’s preeminent
scientific organizations. Those recognized definitions vary significantly from the
definitions proposed by HB 2098.
? Distorting the nature of research techniques. The bill wrongly defines somatic
cell nuclear transfer, which is a way of making stem cells that are a genetic match
for a patient, as human reproductive cloning. In SCNT, no cells are implanted into
the uterus of a woman. Any attempt to use SCNT for human reproduction should
be illegal. KCLC opposes human reproductive cloning.
? SCNT is accurately called therapeutic cloning. A patient’s own cells and a
donated human egg are used to repair or replace diseased or damaged cells in the
patient. KCLC supports therapeutic cloning for cures for life-threatening diseases
and injuries.
? By disregarding standard scientific terminology, lawmakers might easily
restrict Kansans’ access to new cures. More than 200,000 Kansas men, women,
and children suffer from life-threatening diseases and injuries that the vast
majority of scientists believe could be treated or cured using embryonic stem cells.
Although human embryonic stem cell research is less than ten years old, medical
researchers believe that it holds the promise of cures for diseases such as
Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, juvenile diabetes, spinal cord injuries, and many others
for which there currently are no cures — and for which adult stem cell cures are
unlikely. The research to date is encouraging and embryonic stem cells are
versatile for more diseases.
? The coalition’s nearly 10,000 members are Kansans of varying religious and
scientific beliefs. They share a common belief that lifesaving cures that are legal
under federal law and available to other Americans should be legal in our state
and available to Kansas patients.
Last updated 3/2/2007 8:48 AM
PO Box 188
Lawrence, Kansas 66044
(785) 841-7900 • www.kansascures.com
lindainks55 said:
These legislators can't do the jobs they applied for and now want to change the definitions scientists use. Do yo think there could be more to this than meets the eye? These are snakes in the grass, folks.
I've become so synical I'm not sure it will do any good; however, I will once again contact my snake in the grass to at least let him know I'm against the passage of this bill and ecnourage him to vote against it.
CF said:
linkainks55,
"My snake in the grass." Disrespectful, but funny.
CF would like to inquire into the possibility of banning trolls. Dubya, it's your place. Do you have a policy or thoughts on how you'd like to approach this?
"My snake in the grass." Disrespectful, but funny.
CF would like to inquire into the possibility of banning trolls. Dubya, it's your place. Do you have a policy or thoughts on how you'd like to approach this?
lindainks55 said:
My snake in the grass hasn't earned any respect from me. He is trying to overturn roe v wade and any inroad to that end is a good road for him. He can't hold a real job in real life (kinda like W) and is in his second term (read: he's IN like flint now). He was proven to tell constituents one thing and vote the opposite. Also proven is he doesn't have any contact with constituents unless it's FORCED. He is bought and paid for just doesn’t wear his sponsors logos so we can’t see it daily. But, hey, he is a good little republican and marches in lock step quite well.
Paul said:
Why not overturn Row v Wade? I have a solution. Just have your baby in a foreign country; most preferably Africa. Then Angelina Jolie will adopt him/her.
Paul said:
Ask Hillary
Hillary Clinton goes to a primary school in Ithaca, New York to talk about the world. After her talk she offers question time.
One little boy puts up his hand, and the Senator asks him what his name is.
"Kenneth", came the reply.
"And what is your question, Kenneth?"
"I have three questions, Ma-am: First - whatever happened to your medical health care plan? Second - why would you run for President after your husband shamed the office? And third - whatever happened to all those things you took when you left the White House?"
Just then the bell rings for recess. Hillary Clinton informs the kiddies that they will continue after recess.
When they resume Hillary says, "OK where were we? Oh, that's right, question time. Who has a question?"
This time a different little boy puts his hand up; Hillary points him out and asks him what his name is.
"Larry," he said.
"And what is your question?"
"I have five questions: First - whatever happened to your medical health care plan? Second - why would you run for President after your husband shamed the office? Third - whatever happened to all those things you took when you left the White House? Fourth - why did the recess bell go off 20 minutes early? And fifth - what happened to Kenneth?"
Hillary Clinton goes to a primary school in Ithaca, New York to talk about the world. After her talk she offers question time.
One little boy puts up his hand, and the Senator asks him what his name is.
"Kenneth", came the reply.
"And what is your question, Kenneth?"
"I have three questions, Ma-am: First - whatever happened to your medical health care plan? Second - why would you run for President after your husband shamed the office? And third - whatever happened to all those things you took when you left the White House?"
Just then the bell rings for recess. Hillary Clinton informs the kiddies that they will continue after recess.
When they resume Hillary says, "OK where were we? Oh, that's right, question time. Who has a question?"
This time a different little boy puts his hand up; Hillary points him out and asks him what his name is.
"Larry," he said.
"And what is your question?"
"I have five questions: First - whatever happened to your medical health care plan? Second - why would you run for President after your husband shamed the office? Third - whatever happened to all those things you took when you left the White House? Fourth - why did the recess bell go off 20 minutes early? And fifth - what happened to Kenneth?"
lindainks55 said:
Here's what I can guarantee you, Paul. You will never draw me into a discussion of the rights I have to make decisions about my health. Those are none of your business.
Paul said:
Rock on Linda,
It was a JOKE!!! If you want Angelina to have your baby, forge right on ahead :->
It was a JOKE!!! If you want Angelina to have your baby, forge right on ahead :->
lindainks55 said:
It doesn't matter that you and I have a difference of opinion about what is humorous/funny. I obviously didn't make myself clear so will try one last time. Try not to use me in your style of humor, please. Whether I have a baby, where I have a baby is not your business and I'm asking that I be left out of your jokes. Thanks in advance for your consideration.
Paul said:
"
Why not overturn Row v Wade? I have a solution. Just have your baby in a foreign country; most preferably Africa. Then Angelina Jolie will adopt him/her.
"
I didn't mention and or include you in that, nor shall I in the future.
Why not overturn Row v Wade? I have a solution. Just have your baby in a foreign country; most preferably Africa. Then Angelina Jolie will adopt him/her.
"
I didn't mention and or include you in that, nor shall I in the future.
lindainks55 said:
I'm going to be real brave (for me) and not run away with my tail between my legs.
I didn't misunderstand anything you said!!
8:24 a.m. My post included a sentence which read, "He is trying to overturn roe v wade..."
8:31 a.m. You posted, "Why not overturn Row v Wade? I have a solution. Just have your baby in a foreign country; most preferably Africa. Then Angelina Jolie will adopt him/her."
You didn't say anything like, "Linda, I think roe v wade should be overturned so I totally agree with your representative. Or make any other rational adult response which supported another side of the issue. Nope, you took my sentence and put it into the form of a question, then added a "dig" about me having my baby in a foreign country. No matter what you tried to say in a later post, there was no other person this comment could have been aimed at.
9:01 a.m. I responded to THAT post by telling you I wasn't going to discuss my rights with you.
Now, here is where I might get tricky so I'll type slower.
9:11 a.m. You now tell me it was a joke. But you can't stop with trying to make your words a joke. Nope, this time you repeat your "joke," aiming it more directly at me, calling me by name with your “joking” response.
9:47 a.m. I tell you I don't see the humor and ask you to leave me out of your jokes.
9:58 a.m. You go back to a post earlier (one that you didn't call out my name, one that had been responded to already) to try to wiggle out of the responsibility for what you posted.
There is no misunderstanding. So don't use that in any argument. I understand that you want me to discuss something I will not discuss with you. I didn't just meet you, there is a history. I can decide what (and with whom) I will discuss. You can too! But if you and I discuss something it will be a discussion, not an attack OR a joke. I give my opinion, you give yours – we both try to back up our thoughts with the why we came to that opinion. See how it’s done? Or, we agree to disagree.
At best what we have here is an agreement to disagree – WE DON’T HAVE A MISUNDERSTANDING!
I didn't misunderstand anything you said!!
8:24 a.m. My post included a sentence which read, "He is trying to overturn roe v wade..."
8:31 a.m. You posted, "Why not overturn Row v Wade? I have a solution. Just have your baby in a foreign country; most preferably Africa. Then Angelina Jolie will adopt him/her."
You didn't say anything like, "Linda, I think roe v wade should be overturned so I totally agree with your representative. Or make any other rational adult response which supported another side of the issue. Nope, you took my sentence and put it into the form of a question, then added a "dig" about me having my baby in a foreign country. No matter what you tried to say in a later post, there was no other person this comment could have been aimed at.
9:01 a.m. I responded to THAT post by telling you I wasn't going to discuss my rights with you.
Now, here is where I might get tricky so I'll type slower.
9:11 a.m. You now tell me it was a joke. But you can't stop with trying to make your words a joke. Nope, this time you repeat your "joke," aiming it more directly at me, calling me by name with your “joking” response.
9:47 a.m. I tell you I don't see the humor and ask you to leave me out of your jokes.
9:58 a.m. You go back to a post earlier (one that you didn't call out my name, one that had been responded to already) to try to wiggle out of the responsibility for what you posted.
There is no misunderstanding. So don't use that in any argument. I understand that you want me to discuss something I will not discuss with you. I didn't just meet you, there is a history. I can decide what (and with whom) I will discuss. You can too! But if you and I discuss something it will be a discussion, not an attack OR a joke. I give my opinion, you give yours – we both try to back up our thoughts with the why we came to that opinion. See how it’s done? Or, we agree to disagree.
At best what we have here is an agreement to disagree – WE DON’T HAVE A MISUNDERSTANDING!
Loading....