PDA

View Full Version : If The Republican Brand Was Dogfood,



Gayle in MD
05-19-2008, 08:16 AM
it would be taken off the shelf!

This is from a Republican MEMO, from Davis, no less, so don't blame me~!

I trust we won't have to be reading any more Right wing posts, that begin....

"If the Republicans are doing so bad, then how come...."

Dream on righties!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

LWW
05-19-2008, 04:45 PM
If the DNC brand was donkey crap Gayle would take a double helping and ask for more.

Oh, wait ... it is donkey crap.

LWW

DickLeonard
05-20-2008, 08:14 AM
LWW her plate would still be empty compared to your plate of Elephant Dung. Eat up.####

Gayle in MD
05-20-2008, 09:22 AM
Dick,
I've noticed that many of these righties just jump over some of my posts of late, like the one about McCain's wife, refusing to release her financial information. Same people who were on here demanding that Bill Clinton release his donators to his library, when he isn't running for the presidency, but think it's just fine for Cindy McCain, John's former mistress, to refuse to release her own.

Three major newspapers demand the release of her financial information. With McCain so heavily involved with lobbyists, particularly those lobbyists who represent Saudi Arabia, Burma, and Mayanmar, among other terrorist nations, don't you think we have a right to know about Cindy's business connections are? What is she hiding?

Gayle in Md.

eb_in_nc
05-20-2008, 09:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dick,
I've noticed that many of these righties just jump over some of my posts of late, like the one about McCain's wife, refusing to release her financial information. Same people who were on here demanding that Bill Clinton release his donators to his library, when he isn't running for the presidency, but think it's just fine for Cindy McCain, John's former mistress, to refuse to release her own.

Three major newspapers demand the release of her financial information. With McCain so heavily involved with lobbyists, particularly those lobbyists who represent Saudi Arabia, Burma, and Mayanmar, among other terrorist nations, don't you think we have a right to know about Cindy's business connections are? What is she hiding?

Gayle in Md. </div></div>

She's hiding nothing, it's just none of YOUR'S or anyone else's business since by law (remember, we are a society governed by laws so if you don't like them, lobby to have them changed) she is not obligated to disclose this information. Why do you keep asking why when the answer is black and white? Do you have some sort of learning impediment or is it that you just can't accept reality?

Deeman3
05-20-2008, 09:58 AM
I think she should release them and that Hillary and Obama should release theirs if they are pertinent, if Hillary gets the nomination.

Gayle in MD
05-20-2008, 10:02 AM
Wrong again. Do you ever get anything right? You're as bad as Kristol! I suppose Republicans screaming about Teresa's obligation to reveal her finances, and taxes, never happened? Or their incessant yelping about donations to the Clinton Library, was just a figment of my imagination? Bill isn't running for president.

I suppose this is just the usual double standard that REpublicans are know for, moral high ground, yeah right! Abramoff, Delay, the toe tapping gay cruisier, the many marital affairs and this last one leading a double life, with an illegitimate kid! BWA HA HA HA, and their all Christians!

Given McCain's campaign leader's vast connections with terrorist rogue nations, there's no telling what that former mistress of his is hiding. McCain, pays lobbyists to work for him, who represented rogue nations, and then he has the nerve to bash Obama! Obam hasn't hired any lobbyists from terrorist regimes.

When three major newspapers in this country call for her to reveal her information, and she refuses, yet expects to live in the WHite House, she's full of it! She won't get away with it, either.

Oh, and BTW, George Will is the right wing pundit that called McCain's economic plan adolecent!

Gayle in Md.

eb_in_nc
05-20-2008, 10:03 AM
What we think Deeman is opinion. What we should expect should be governed by laws. Many of us may want her to disclose, but if she does not, then it's up to you as an individual to believe that she is hiding something or not - And that might spill over to how we may vote in November.

I would think that it McCain felt it was hindering his election, she would have by now disclosed. Either way, it's not up to us to decide.

Gayle in MD
05-20-2008, 10:10 AM
Wrong again, WE've already decided.

<span style="color: #000066"> She gets no special treatment. She'll have to do what every other first lady has been asked to do or suffer the consequences.

You are really flaunting you're double standard, but then, you are a Republican.

If she's financing his campaign, which she has done, then she's required to release her information. Just because she was his mistress before she married him, she doesn't get any special treatment from the American People, who have spoken. Time for her to get off her high horse.</span>

Cindy McCain's declaration that she would never produce her tax returns has struck a chord with a few editorial pages around the country. In the past two days, the Washington Post, Washington Times and the New York Observer have all penned demands that Cindy come clean on her fortune.

Yesterday, the Observer lamented the lack of scrutiny cast on the McCain brand, and called for journalists to call for fairness:

Double standards are endemic in American journalism. But Cindy McCain, wife of the Republican presidential candidate, displayed poor taste in flaunting her family's special immunity from press scrutiny. Declaring on NBC's Today that she would "never" release her income tax returns even if she becomes first lady, the Arizona beer heiress showed no concern that she and her husband will have to meet the same tests as other would-be White House occupants--ever.
Today, papers on both side of the aisle responded. The Post declared that the last thing America needs is a president with more secrecy:

For a candidate who puts a premium on transparency and ethics, John McCain has been slow and grudging in releasing tax information. He did not commit to doing so until after he had secured the nomination, and then he disclosed only two years of taxes, far less than his Democratic rivals. Mr. McCain's wife, the heir to a liquor and beer distributorship, declined to release her returns, citing -- as Ms. Heinz Kerry did -- her children's privacy. Releasing tax information entails intrusion, but, as we wrote four years ago, presidential candidates and their spouses "relinquish a significant measure of privacy. Meanwhile, tax returns provide information not contained in financial disclosure forms, such as charitable contributions and the use of tax shelters." For Mrs. McCain to say, as she did on NBC's "Today" show this week, that she would never release her tax returns, not even if she were to become first lady, is unacceptable.
The Times points out that Cindy McCain's privacy argument doesn't carry any weight, since she has used her fortune to benefit her husband's presidential bid:

Moreover, during a crucial period of the Republican nomination contest -- from last August (after Mr. McCain's campaign had collapsed financially) through February (when its remarkable political rebound effectively clinched the Republican nomination) -- Mrs. McCain used accoutrements of her wealth to keep her husband's campaign literally "in the air," traveling from one campaign stop to another.

Many of those photos you saw of Mr. McCain carrying his own luggage through airports during that seven-month period were snapped after he disembarked from the corporate jet owned by the company headed by his wife. According to an exhaustive analysis by the New York Times, Mr. McCain complied with federal law regarding the use of the plane. But he uncharacteristically exploited a massive loophole that the Federal Election Commission has been trying to close. That loophole allowed Mr. McCain to fly relatively inexpensively. The law, whose loophole specifically exempted aircraft owned by a candidate's family or by a company it controls, enabled the campaign to use that jet as a charter plane while paying much cheaper first-class fares and indulge in a subsidy.

Gayle in MD
05-20-2008, 10:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> For a candidate who puts a premium on transparency and ethics, John McCain has been slow and grudging in releasing tax information. He did not commit to doing so until after he had secured the nomination, and then he disclosed only two years of taxes, far less than his Democratic rivals. Mr. McCain's wife, the heir to a liquor and beer distributorship, declined to release her returns, citing -- as Ms. Heinz Kerry did -- her children's privacy. Releasing tax information entails intrusion, but, as we wrote four years ago, presidential candidates and their spouses "relinquish a significant measure of privacy. Meanwhile, tax returns provide information not contained in financial disclosure forms, such as charitable contributions and the use of tax shelters." For Mrs. McCain to say, as she did on NBC's "Today" show this week, that she would never release her tax returns, not even if she were to become first lady, is unacceptable.
The Times points out that Cindy McCain's privacy argument doesn't carry any weight, since she has used her fortune to benefit her husband's presidential bid:
</div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">They already did so, according to this article, and released theirs back farther than McCain has done. Another article I read said that Teresa did release hers, after calls for her to do so. Why should McCain's wife get off?

She's got something she's hiding, that's my prediction. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif</span>

eb_in_nc
05-20-2008, 11:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wrong again, WE've already decided. <span style="color: #FF0000">You mean you and your sheep?</span>

<span style="color: #000066"> She gets no special treatment. She'll have to do what every other first lady has been asked to do or suffer the consequences. <span style="color: #FF0000">I guess we will have to wait and see won't we?</span>

You are really flaunting you're double standard, but then, you are a Republican. <span style="color: #FF0000">I'm as transparent as you are.
</span>
If she's financing his campaign, which she has done, then she's required to release her information. Just because she was his mistress before she married him, she doesn't get any special treatment from the American People, who have spoken. Time for her to get off her high horse.</span> <span style="color: #FF0000">Spoken like a true queen sheep.</span>

Cindy McCain's declaration that she would never produce her tax returns has struck a chord with a few editorial pages around the country. In the past two days, the Washington Post, Washington Times and the New York Observer have all penned demands that Cindy come clean on her fortune. <span style="color: #FF0000">Let me guess, all democratic rags not worth wiping ones butt with.
</span>
Yesterday, the Observer lamented the lack of scrutiny cast on the McCain brand, and called for journalists to call for fairness: <span style="color: #FF0000">Maybe they can get Dan Rather to do the reporting.
</span>
Double standards are endemic in American journalism. But Cindy McCain, wife of the Republican presidential candidate, displayed poor taste in flaunting her family's special immunity from press scrutiny. Declaring on NBC's Today that she would "never" release her income tax returns even if she becomes first lady, the Arizona beer heiress showed no concern that she and her husband will have to meet the same tests as other would-be White House occupants--ever.
Today, papers on both side of the aisle responded. The Post declared that the last thing America needs is a president with more secrecy: <span style="color: #FF0000">You're skull is so thick you can't get that she is not obligated under law to do so. And your assumption is that Hillary or Obama has no secrets to hide? Pretty lame logic.</span>

For a candidate who puts a premium on transparency and ethics, John McCain has been slow and grudging in releasing tax information. He did not commit to doing so until after he had secured the nomination, and then he disclosed only two years of taxes, far less than his Democratic rivals. Mr. McCain's wife, the heir to a liquor and beer distributorship, declined to release her returns, citing -- as Ms. Heinz Kerry did -- her children's privacy. Releasing tax information entails intrusion, but, as we wrote four years ago, presidential candidates and their spouses "relinquish a significant measure of privacy. Meanwhile, tax returns provide information not contained in financial disclosure forms, such as charitable contributions and the use of tax shelters." For Mrs. McCain to say, as she did on NBC's "Today" show this week, that she would never release her tax returns, not even if she were to become first lady, is unacceptable.
The Times points out that Cindy McCain's privacy argument doesn't carry any weight, since she has used her fortune to benefit her husband's presidential bid:

Moreover, during a crucial period of the Republican nomination contest -- from last August (after Mr. McCain's campaign had collapsed financially) through February (when its remarkable political rebound effectively clinched the Republican nomination) -- Mrs. McCain used accoutrements of her wealth to keep her husband's campaign literally "in the air," traveling from one campaign stop to another.

Many of those photos you saw of Mr. McCain carrying his own luggage through airports during that seven-month period were snapped after he disembarked from the corporate jet owned by the company headed by his wife. According to an exhaustive analysis by the New York Times, Mr. McCain complied with federal law regarding the use of the plane. But he uncharacteristically exploited a massive loophole that the Federal Election Commission has been trying to close. That loophole allowed Mr. McCain to fly relatively inexpensively. The law, whose loophole specifically exempted aircraft owned by a candidate's family or by a company it controls, enabled the campaign to use that jet as a charter plane while paying much cheaper first-class fares and indulge in a subsidy. <span style="color: #FF0000"> Maybe you can appreciate some the laundering of campaign dollars in the Clinton camp </span> Clinton campaign laundering (http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2007/08/28/laundering-for-hillary/)



</div></div>

Deeman3
05-20-2008, 12:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> For a candidate who puts a premium on transparency and ethics, John McCain has been slow and grudging in releasing tax information. He did not commit to doing so until after he had secured the nomination, and then he disclosed only two years of taxes, far less than his Democratic rivals. Mr. McCain's wife, the heir to a liquor and beer distributorship, declined to release her returns, citing -- as Ms. Heinz Kerry did -- her children's privacy. Releasing tax information entails intrusion, but, as we wrote four years ago, presidential candidates and their spouses "relinquish a significant measure of privacy. Meanwhile, tax returns provide information not contained in financial disclosure forms, such as charitable contributions and the use of tax shelters." For Mrs. McCain to say, as she did on NBC's "Today" show this week, that she would never release her tax returns, not even if she were to become first lady, is unacceptable.
The Times points out that Cindy McCain's privacy argument doesn't carry any weight, since she has used her fortune to benefit her husband's presidential bid:
</div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">They already did so, according to this article, and released theirs back farther than McCain has done. Another article I read said that Teresa did release hers, after calls for her to do so. Why should McCain's wife get off?

She's got something she's hiding, that's my prediction. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif</span> </div></div>

<span style="color: #FFFF66">Gayle,

I think you are now replying to me from posts and quotes I never made. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </span>

Gayle in MD
05-21-2008, 07:25 AM
Sorry, didn't mean to do so.

Pretty funny how obvious the double standard shows itself in this matter, though.

Gayle in Md.

hondo
05-21-2008, 08:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DickLeonard</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LWW her plate would still be empty compared to your plate of Elephant Dung. Eat up.#### </div></div>

Don't feed the trolls.

Deeman3
05-21-2008, 09:02 AM
While I admit the Republican brand is dogfood, it was interesting that the exit polls showed that both Hillary and Obama had both less than 50% in the trusted category in exit pools, Obama had 75% in Oregan with Hillary getting 46% there.

Of course, this was among Democratic Voters, not Republicans and Independents!

Maybe one brand is dogfood and the other is catfood. I guess we are still a long way from the general election and much can happen between now and then. As Obama and his wife won't be fair game in the general, maybe we really should hope for a Hillary upset. Obama is clearly slipping in the working white voter category while Hillary is proving to be the much better candidate. I do think she had a point that any votes for her should count, except for some for Obama and that, including the illegal alien vote, she may pull the upset.

Gayle in MD
05-21-2008, 09:22 AM
McCain does not lead either Obama, or Clinton....

The poll found Obama was seen as a better steward of the economy than McCain, leading 48 percent to 39 percent. McCain led Obama by 3 points last month on an issue that is certain to be crucial in their campaign.

Obama led McCain among independents, 47 percent to 35 percent, and led among some groups of voters who have backed Clinton during their Democratic primary battle, including Catholics, Jews, union households and voters making less than $35,000 a year.

McCain led among whites, NASCAR fans, and elderly voters. McCain led with voters who believed the United States was on the right track, and Obama led with the much higher percentage of voters who believed it was on the wrong track.

"Clearly voters are looking for change. Every problem Obama has had in consolidating his base and reaching to the center, John McCain has the same sort of problem," Zogby said.

"It's McCain's lead among voters over the age of 65 that is keeping him within shouting distance of Obama," he said.

The poll found Clinton, who has shrugged off calls to quit the Democratic race, tied at 43 percent with McCain in the national poll. She led McCain by 47 percent to 40 percent on who would be the better manager of the economy.

Obama and Clinton have refrained from attacking each other in recent weeks as Obama has turned his focus to McCain.

But Zogby said the attacks on Obama by Bush and McCain, who have been critical of his willingness to talk to leaders of countries like Iran, did not appear to hurt Obama. If anything, he said, it reminded voters of McCain's ties to Bush, whose approval rating is still mired at record lows.

"The president is so unpopular. To inject himself into a presidential campaign does not help John McCain, particularly when McCain is tied to Bush," Zogby said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/21/AR2008052100138.html

I think we may find that many Democrats, independents, and even some Republicans, will vote for Obama in order to keep McCain out, and end Republican Rule, but will do so in the same way in which McCain's mother stated that Republicans would vote for him, biting their lips.

This is probably the first real, and probably one only time an opportunity has existed for a black, and/or a woman, to win the White House, and Republicans owe it all to Bush, friend. McCain has been really stupid to jump on the Bush bandwagon, and use the Rovarian style bashing tactics. Their attacks from last week were so hypocritical, it was really obvious what they were doing, and why. Even many from the right came out against their statements.

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
05-21-2008, 10:23 AM
I don't know. Dukacus was ahead by 30 percentage pintsat this exact same time in 1981. Anyhting can happen.

I think McCain's tactics have been far from Rovian, much more Clintonesque, don't you think?

Bobbyrx
05-21-2008, 11:11 AM
Maybe we can get Obama to pose sitting in a tank.......
I know I said this when Gore was running but if the Democrats can't win this election I don't know if they ever can. And as far as tactics go, and I know you already know this, either side will use whatever tactics they think will get them in the White House. I just think it's funny when someone complains about "attacks from the Republicans last week" when thats all that the Dems have done the entire campaign. But isn't that what politics is all about?

Deeman3
05-21-2008, 12:19 PM
Yes, we will be blessed with volumes on every single critique made by McCain about Obama all the while suffering unending asault on his age, temperment and his wife's hair color just because she, unlike Hillary, didn't sit home in Kentucky baking cookies. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

I can't wait to see where she "discovers" her hyspanic roots in Porta Rico! She'll be rolling those "r's" by the middle of next week. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Chopstick
05-21-2008, 01:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">McCain does not lead either Obama, or Clinton....

</div></div>

He will be next January. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/blush.gif

hondo
05-21-2008, 01:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">McCain does not lead either Obama, or Clinton....

</div></div>

He will be next January. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/blush.gif </div></div>

Lord, I sincerely hope not.
But, of course, perhaps you have prospered during bush's 8 years
and haven't been affected by the sagging economy or had loved one's die being caught in the middle of a civil war while
trying to bring Wal-Mart to Baghdad.
But I imagine your kids will be affected when China wants
to collect on those trillions bush and MCCain if elected have borrowed.

Chopstick
05-21-2008, 02:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">McCain does not lead either Obama, or Clinton....

</div></div>

He will be next January. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/blush.gif </div></div>

Lord, I sincerely hope not.
But, of course, perhaps you have prospered during bush's 8 years
<span style="color: #3366FF">My prosperity is not dependent on whose president. </span>

and haven't been affected by the sagging economy <span style="color: #3366FF">Just bought a brand new Diamond ProAm.</span>

or had loved one's die being caught in the middle of a civil war
<span style="color: #3366FF">My family has served in every military conflict America has ever been in until this one. I am too old and the next generation is too young. I have no doubt they will serve when their time comes.</span>
while trying to bring Wal-Mart to Baghdad.<span style="color: #3366FF">Why would you want to deny those poor Iraqis a Wal Mart. They got one everywhere else.</span>

But I imagine your kids will be affected<span style="color: #3366FF">Don't have any kids. I would never take a wife or have kids until I could afford to take care of them properly. Now that I can, well, have you talked to women now days. </span>

when China wants to collect on those trillions bush and MCCain if elected have borrowed. <span style="color: #3366FF">I am going to China. I have a friend who speaks Chinese and wants to get some business going over there. So, you can sign me up for some of those trillions. While I am at it I think I would like to get me a Chinese girlfriend. There wouldn't be a billion of 'em if they weren't fun. </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/blush.gif </div></div>

hondo
05-21-2008, 05:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">McCain does not lead either Obama, or Clinton....

</div></div>

He will be next January. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/blush.gif </div></div>

Lord, I sincerely hope not.
But, of course, perhaps you have prospered during bush's 8 years
<span style="color: #3366FF">My prosperity is not dependent on whose president. </span>

and haven't been affected by the sagging economy <span style="color: #3366FF">Just bought a brand new Diamond ProAm.</span>

or had loved one's die being caught in the middle of a civil war
<span style="color: #3366FF">My family has served in every military conflict America has ever been in until this one. I am too old and the next generation is too young. I have no doubt they will serve when their time comes.</span>
while trying to bring Wal-Mart to Baghdad.<span style="color: #3366FF">Why would you want to deny those poor Iraqis a Wal Mart. They got one everywhere else.</span>

But I imagine your kids will be affected<span style="color: #3366FF">Don't have any kids. I would never take a wife or have kids until I could afford to take care of them properly. Now that I can, well, have you talked to women now days. </span>

when China wants to collect on those trillions bush and MCCain if elected have borrowed. <span style="color: #3366FF">I am going to China. I have a friend who speaks Chinese and wants to get some business going over there. So, you can sign me up for some of those trillions. While I am at it I think I would like to get me a Chinese girlfriend. There wouldn't be a billion of 'em if they weren't fun. </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/blush.gif </div></div> </div></div>


Well,you were attempting to be funny with your answers but, to be honest, your comments come across more as insensitity towards the plight of our nation than as humorous. JMHO.

sack316
05-21-2008, 05:16 PM
my question is what kind of dog food would it be? Have you seen some of this stuff out there? Some dogs eat better than I do! mmmmm... salisbury steak!

Sack

eg8r
05-22-2008, 07:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While I am at it I think I would like to get me a Chinese girlfriend. There wouldn't be a billion of 'em if they weren't fun. </div></div> Now that is absolutely hilarious. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

Deeman3
05-22-2008, 07:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="color: #3366FF"> I would never take a wife or have kids until I could afford to take care of them properly. Now that I can, well, have you talked to women now days. </span>

[/color] /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/blush.gif </div></div> [/quote]

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif <span style="color: #FF9900">Chopstick,

With all these independent women around, I think you ought to do what many are, get you a Russian babe. Much nicer looking, less attitude and it takes them a few months to learn enough language to give you grief. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif Besides, if you gonna share space with a communist, she should be attractive and a real rpofessional at it as well. </span>

DickLeonard
05-22-2008, 07:29 AM
Gayle EB inNC is LWW wife don't waste anytime trying to penetrate roc. You Queen Sheep you. LOL####

eb_in_nc
05-22-2008, 07:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">McCain does not lead either Obama, or Clinton....

</div></div>

He will be next January. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/blush.gif </div></div>

Lord, I sincerely hope not.
But, of course, perhaps you have prospered during bush's 8 years
<span style="color: #3366FF">My prosperity is not dependent on whose president. </span>

and haven't been affected by the sagging economy <span style="color: #3366FF">Just bought a brand new Diamond ProAm.</span>

or had loved one's die being caught in the middle of a civil war
<span style="color: #3366FF">My family has served in every military conflict America has ever been in until this one. I am too old and the next generation is too young. I have no doubt they will serve when their time comes.</span>
while trying to bring Wal-Mart to Baghdad.<span style="color: #3366FF">Why would you want to deny those poor Iraqis a Wal Mart. They got one everywhere else.</span>

But I imagine your kids will be affected<span style="color: #3366FF">Don't have any kids. I would never take a wife or have kids until I could afford to take care of them properly. Now that I can, well, have you talked to women now days. </span>

when China wants to collect on those trillions bush and MCCain if elected have borrowed. <span style="color: #3366FF">I am going to China. I have a friend who speaks Chinese and wants to get some business going over there. So, you can sign me up for some of those trillions. While I am at it I think I would like to get me a Chinese girlfriend. There wouldn't be a billion of 'em if they weren't fun. </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/blush.gif </div></div> </div></div>


Well,you were attempting to be funny with your answers but, to be honest, your comments come across more as insensitity towards the plight of our nation than as humorous. JMHO. </div></div>

Personally, I think Chopsticks matter-of-fact statements and levity is refreshing as it signifies that the sky is not falling like Gayle would have all of us believe.

The last thing I think it does is come across as being insensitive to relevant societal issues and woes, so you must feel somewhat guilty about what you have versus what others might not have or you would not have said what you did.

If you truly want to be sensitive to the plight of our nation, try donating your time at homeless shelters or finding other ways to be charitable.

Deeman3
05-22-2008, 07:44 AM
[quote=eb_in_ncIf you truly want to be sensitive to the plight of our nation, try donating your time at homeless shelters or finding other ways to be charitable. [/quote]

<span style="color: #FFCC66"> Eb,

Most of these types will only volunteer in places where they can get political mileage out of making the Administration look bad, such as military hospitals. The poor, while needy, are not politically convienent enough and don't get enough press to attract them yet. Give it time. </span>

Gayle in MD
05-22-2008, 10:55 AM
I think that McCain will be faced with a cabal of former National Security Advisors from both sides of the isle, who will come out against his policies.

Bush went to the Middle East, begging the Saudis in private to increase their oil production. Then he went to the stage and publically Insulted the entire Middle East, stating that the typical pattern of politics in the Middle East is to have a dictator in power and the opposition in jail.

Our position in the Middle east has so deterriorated in recent years that we have very little leverage left. Bush has insulted India, blaming their increased population for fifteen percent of the global food crises.

I can't count the many National Security Advisors who have stated that the United States MUST engage those countries which surround Iraq, including Hamas, Iran, and others.

With the greatest underutilized supply of oil, and the greatest potential gas reserves, being in Iran, and Bush's policies scuttle the opportunities for Iranians to increase either their gas production, or their exportation, we are shooting ourselves in the foot.

Other parts of the world are beginning to organize themselves against AMerican Interests, and Bush is out there insulting everyone.

Through Bush's policies, and those supported by McCain, we're shooting ourselves in the foot, and former National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski said as much this morning on the Joe Scarborough program. He also stated the names of Republican former national Security experts who agree with him, that McCain's using the same war mongering rhetoric that was used to push this country into a war which is damaging to AMerica's best interests.

McCain would be the absolute worst thing that could happen to this country right now. More National security experts will come out against his statements, as they all seem to agree, from Baker, to Keane, to Powell, and including Gates, that the United states MUST engage ALL the countries of the Middle East, including and particularly, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and including Hamas.

We do not rule the world. We are the ones in the trick bag, and Bush's policies have put us there, and anyone that thinks that the powerful Israeli Lobby in Washington D.C. has not contributed to our plight, knows very little of the path that has led us to this point.

Gayle in Md.

Bobbyrx
05-22-2008, 11:36 AM
quote Gayle: "I can't count the many National Security Advisors who have stated that the United States MUST engage those countries which surround Iraq, including Hamas, Iran, and others.
<span style="color: #FF0000">So if we engage Hamas, where do we draw the line? Hizballah? Palestinian Islamic Jihad? Harakat ul-Mujahidin? Al-Qaida? or any and all that just pop up?
</span>
With the greatest underutilized supply of oil, and the greatest potential gas reserves, being in Iran, and Bush's policies scuttle the opportunities for Iranians to increase either their gas production, or their exportation, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. <span style="color: #FF0000">Why are you not worried about the party that is keeping us for drilling for oil <span style='font-family: Arial Black'>in our own country?!?! </span> </span>

Other parts of the world are beginning to organize themselves against AMerican Interests, and Bush is out there insulting everyone.
<span style="color: #FF0000"> What you call insulting everyone I call telling it like it is and showing support for our one true ally in the Middle East, Israel. That's the difference between you and me. You blame Israel and Bush for our "plight" while I blame the terrorist groups and radical Islam</span>

Gayle in MD
05-22-2008, 11:46 AM
I blame the Israeli Lobbyists who played a huge role in the whole neocon Project For The New American Century, which pushed for this insane occupation in Iraq.

I blame Israel for doing things that were not loyal to America, like spying on us, and failing to asist us when we have asked them for assistance.

I blame Israel because they have held innocent people in jail for decades, and because they have at times refused to consider compromise with their enemies in order to bring peace to their region.

I believe that every country has an obligation to be open to diplomatic efforts, and engaging with their enemies. Israel is just as guilty of failing to compromise, and work for peace, as any other radical country I have observed. Also, they have no to pay people to slant our country's foreign policies toward what is best for them, instead of what is best for America.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
05-22-2008, 11:59 AM
You should do a earch on the 9/11 commission's statements and suggestions. You are bashing me for reiterating the statements made by National Security Experts from both sides of the Isle.

there is no party keeping us from drilling for oil in our own country. You seem to think that all environmentalists are Democrats, that is not the case. Environmentalists do not prevent Oil Companies from drilling for oil, they push them to do so without hurting the envirnment.

Since you're so worried about it, you should consider that Florida, the State which is republican led, has pushed through limits on where we can drill for oil off their coast, which extend far beyond their actual territory, for example, and gotten away with it.

I don't blame Israel for our plight, I blame Bush, the American Enterprise Institute, the powerful Israeli Lobby, Dick cheney, and all the other neocons, whose intention was to be the Supreme Power, which would go around the world and dictate to everyone else. I blame them for the mess we're in right now, and further, I blame people who don't bother to study the issues for helping to put us where we are, in a mess, with their ill-concieved votes for George Bush, and their constant denials of his lies and incompetence.

Occupying Iraq was the wrong move. Staying there is a total waste of blood and treasure, and exacerbates our problems, especially the coming six dollar a gallon oil.

Thanks to George Bush, and Dick Cheney, we have lost our leverage amongst the nations of the world. Now we're seeing a whole new cabal of righties, already out there twisting the truth on behalf of McCain. John McCain is a liar. He is more of the Goerge Bush arrogant, lying, power mongering, threatening, cowboy diplomacy that got us into the mess we're in right now, in spades!

Gayle in Md.



Gayle in Md.

Bobbyrx
05-22-2008, 12:03 PM
Are you kidding? How many zillion times has Israel offered compromise if the Palestinians would just stop the terror attacks? They can't and won't do it period. Which group teaches their children from the day they are born that Israel is the devil and Israeli's are dogs? Lobbing missles at civilian targets, blowing up civilian targets with suicide bombers. Their only compromise is "if you leave, we will stop trying to kill you. Then we can go back to killing ourselves and turn the one little speck of civilization in the middle east back into desert"

Deeman3
05-22-2008, 03:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
With the greatest underutilized supply of oil, and the greatest potential gas reserves, being in Iran, and Bush's policies scuttle the opportunities for Iranians to increase either their gas production, or their exportation, we are shooting ourselves in the foot.

Gayle in Md.

<span style="color: #FFCC66">Might we also be shooting ourselves in the foot by ignoring some of the largest deposits in the world sitting in the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, Anwar, in particular, a policy staunchly defended by the left as it is more convienent to risk the environment of those far away from us than our own precious soil? Is there any other place/people/governemnt on earth that would not farm these riches to avoid being held hostage by people who hate us? Have not proposal after proposal on nuclear power been defeated by these same folks while "selling" the smoke and mirrors corn based Ethenol that will starve the very folks the liberals claim to care so much for?

Many now act as if Bush came along as caused this festering mess in the Middle East while any sane person can easily follow the trail of adminsitration after administration and congress after congress hiding under their collective desks until we face the very same situation in gas that the rest of the world has had for a half century. Bush is no hero in this but don't pretent a higher calling by either lame side on the political spectrum.

The silly Democratic call out of Oil Company Executives was a farce yesterday and any half-way intellegent adult Democrat should be ashamed of the idiots grandstanding on one more issue for the cameras. If you would ever admit it, Nancy is sheparding groundbreaking hearings on baseball steroids, how to control Britiany's photo stalkers and even more lame things than the impotent Republican Senate ever did. You wanted a women in charge? Look what you have now....</span>



</div></div>

hondo
05-22-2008, 04:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DickLeonard</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gayle EB inNC is LWW wife don't waste anytime trying to penetrate roc. You Queen Sheep you. LOL#### </div></div>

Nope. Vocabulary is a little too extensive to be her.
She logged on and this is LWW posing as somebody else so that people will respond to him.
Notice the phrasing. Definitely the Dubster.

Lame ass, no game ass, forlorn ass , corn ass. IMHO.

hondo
05-22-2008, 04:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eb_in_nc</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">McCain does not lead either Obama, or Clinton....

</div></div>

He will be next January. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/blush.gif </div></div>

Lord, I sincerely hope not.
But, of course, perhaps you have prospered during bush's 8 years
<span style="color: #3366FF">My prosperity is not dependent on whose president. </span>

and haven't been affected by the sagging economy <span style="color: #3366FF">Just bought a brand new Diamond ProAm.</span>

or had loved one's die being caught in the middle of a civil war
<span style="color: #3366FF">My family has served in every military conflict America has ever been in until this one. I am too old and the next generation is too young. I have no doubt they will serve when their time comes.</span>
while trying to bring Wal-Mart to Baghdad.<span style="color: #3366FF">Why would you want to deny those poor Iraqis a Wal Mart. They got one everywhere else.</span>

But I imagine your kids will be affected<span style="color: #3366FF">Don't have any kids. I would never take a wife or have kids until I could afford to take care of them properly. Now that I can, well, have you talked to women now days. </span>

when China wants to collect on those trillions bush and MCCain if elected have borrowed. <span style="color: #3366FF">I am going to China. I have a friend who speaks Chinese and wants to get some business going over there. So, you can sign me up for some of those trillions. While I am at it I think I would like to get me a Chinese girlfriend. There wouldn't be a billion of 'em if they weren't fun. </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/blush.gif </div></div> </div></div>


Well,you were attempting to be funny with your answers but, to be honest, your comments come across more as insensitity towards the plight of our nation than as humorous. JMHO. </div></div>

Personally, I think Chopsticks matter-of-fact statements and levity is refreshing as it signifies that the sky is not falling like Gayle would have all of us believe.

The last thing I think it does is come across as being insensitive to relevant societal issues and woes, so you must feel somewhat guilty about what you have versus what others might not have or you would not have said what you did.

If you truly want to be sensitive to the plight of our nation, try donating your time at homeless shelters or finding other ways to be charitable. </div></div>


Some good points, Dub.

hondo
05-22-2008, 04:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[quote=eb_in_ncIf you truly want to be sensitive to the plight of our nation, try donating your time at homeless shelters or finding other ways to be charitable. </div></div>

<span style="color: #FFCC66"> Eb,

Most of these types will only volunteer in places where they can get political mileage out of making the Administration look bad, such as military hospitals. The poor, while needy, are not politically convienent enough and don't get enough press to attract them yet. Give it time. </span> [/quote]

If you want to be read, drop the coloring, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!

Deeman3
05-23-2008, 07:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo [/quote</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

If you want to be read, drop the coloring, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! </div></div>

<span style="color: #33CCFF"> Then don't read it. I can't help it if you West Virginia hillbillys have a reading/color/contrast comprehension issue. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif Just Kidding, Hondo. I'll type slower fer ya.... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif</span>

eb_in_nc
05-23-2008, 07:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DickLeonard</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gayle EB inNC is LWW wife don't waste anytime trying to penetrate roc. You Queen Sheep you. LOL#### </div></div>

Nope. Vocabulary is a little too extensive to be her.
She logged on and this is LWW posing as somebody else so that people will respond to him.
Notice the phrasing. Definitely the Dubster.

Lame ass, no game ass, forlorn ass , corn ass. IMHO. </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">LMAO, I am no wife of LWW!! Also not the Dubster for the record. </span>

Gayle in MD
05-23-2008, 08:51 AM
Gore didn't lose the election. The Florida Supreme Court ruled for a re-count. Harris suspended it before it could be completed. Bush's daddy's friends, on the Surpeme Court appointed him president. After the fact it was discovered that Harris purged from two to twenty thousand blacks from having a vote, and Republicans were sending blacks to the wrong voting locations, many closing before they could vote.

There have been disagreements which still survive, about who won that election, but what I recall is that Bush's camp experienced it as a "Street Fight" (Baker's words) and behaved like thugs, and Al gore conducted himself in a presidential manner. There were florida News Papers which said that Bush won, but using the numbers to their advantage, they ignored many voters who were either purged, or blocked through other deceitful tactics.

Republicans did not want a re-count, and blocked efforts to count every vote. Scalia, also, was wrong. It was the Reublicans that drug the counts into the fray, first.

I recall when the Newspapers realized that the Republicans had flown young campaign workers into Florida to perform rowdy demonstrations, storm the doors of the re-counting efforts, and create as much chaos as possible.

Had Gore used the kinds of sleazy tactics they used, things may have turned out very different.

I don't agree that Democratic tactics are as dirty and filthy as Republicans. McCain has been trying to paint Obama as a Muslim, in concert with Hamas, for example, just because they have stated support for him, which I think is pretty dirty tactics, and I don't think I've seen either Hillary, or Obama, use the politics of personal destruction, in that manner.

Deeman3
05-23-2008, 09:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I don't think I've seen either Hillary, or Obama, use the politics of personal destruction, in that manner.

</div></div>

<span style="color: #FFFF66">Gayle,

While I respect your opinion, you have lost touch with reality here. </span>

Bobbyrx
05-23-2008, 09:57 AM
Sleazy tactics like trying to keep the overseas military votes from being counted? Nawwww not Al.......Every recount done, even by the NY Times showed that Gore lost.......which he did. The networks announced Gore won Florida before the polls had closed in the predominately Republican pan handle, but I'm sure that was an accident. And why did blacks in Florida have to ask Republicans where to vote anyway???? Those myths have long been busted. BUT, THE POINT WAS that there was no way that the election should have even been close considering what a terrible candidate Bush was unless Gore was just completely inept, which he turned out to be.....and Kerry followed in his foot steps.

Gayle in MD
05-23-2008, 10:00 AM
To state the history of Middle East strife, is no saving grace for the fact that Bush created further de-stablization in the region, and completely mis-managed an un-necessary war.

To justify this costly war, in both lives, and treasure, by pointing to Saddam as being the evil POS that he was, does not fly either, given that all foreign experts, both Republican and Democratic, agree, that the policy was wrong, naive, and recklessly rushed into, without enough knowledge, or respect for the inevitable results which in part, increased Iran's power, al Qaeda's recruitment, further de-stablized and already unstable area, and weakened our own influence and leverage in the region, just to name a few of the damaging results.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Might we also be shooting ourselves in the foot by ignoring some of the largest deposits in the world sitting in the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, Anwar, in particular, a policy staunchly defended by the left as it is more convienent to risk the environment of those far away from us than our own precious soil? <span style="color: #000066">While concerns about the environment are often painted as "The Left" I think you might find that to a very large degree, it is a regional phenomena, in that those people who live nearby are usually the ones who become outraged, and lobby against the locations in our country. Florida, for example, which has worked to keep oil companies far off their shores. </span> Is there any other place/people/governemnt on earth that would not farm these riches to avoid being held hostage by people who hate us? <span style="color: #000066">I agree that our own oil reserves should be utilized, but think as well, that there are many thing we could have been doing all along to recude consumption, and while Democrats are not innocent in the circumstances you list, a clean environment is a good thing, and the president who worked hardest to direct our atttention toward addressing our situation with fossile fuels, and the coming plight which we face presently, was a Democrat, Jimmy Carter. I believe though that George Bush one singed the clean air act, did he not? </span> Have not proposal after proposal on nuclear power been defeated by these same folks <span style="color: #000066"> Which same folks? Have not Republicans had the White House, and the Senate and congress</span> while "selling" the smoke and mirrors corn based Ethenol that will starve the very folks the liberals claim to care so much for? <span style="color: #000066">Biofuels are an important link, but not the complete answer. Most scientists believe that our energy policy should include quite a number of varried efforts to reduce consumption, including how we work and live day to day. A throw away society, for example, also contributes to higher usage, too long commutes to work, more public transportation, more people who are allowed to work from home, better community planning, using more solar and wind. There was an effort mostly by Democrats to push for these alternatives. While Democrats are not totally innocent, they have not been the greatest representatives of subsidies for big oil, without the Oil Companies spending some of their windfall huge profits on better technology, and surely the Automobile Industry, here, has failed to be aggressive in increasing CAfe' standards, also a Republican based result, IMO. Corporate Bailouts for corporations which are irresponsible about producing automobiles with higher cafe' standards, like Crysler, and maintaining the enron loopholes, both of which Bush has been remiss in his handling, as was reagan, have also contributed to our present circumstances. </span>

Many now act as if Bush came along as caused this festering mess in the Middle East while any sane person can easily follow the trail of adminsitration after administration and congress after congress hiding under their collective desks until we face the very same situation in gas that the rest of the world has had for a half century. <span style="color: #000066">Any sane person would be aware of how much worse Bush has made everything, IMO. Any sane person, wouold also recall Carter's many urgent warnings. Any sane person, would also recall previous Republican efforts in the Middle East, which set the festering to the level of terrorism, in the first place, resulting from the Reagan Administrationm and from Bush one. </span> Bush is no hero in this but don't pretent a higher calling by either lame side on the political spectrum. <span style="color: #000066">I credit Democrats for trying to do a better job looking after our Veterans, maintaining concern for people who cannot buy medicane for their children, and still put food on the table. For implimenting a pay-go rule, raising the minimum wage, putting pressure on the corrupt Maliki government, forcing policies which provide better equipment for our soldiers, and providing oversight on many illegal activities by the Bush Administration, which have hurt our country. I do not think they are innocent of any wrong minded deeds, but I also don't think they have conducted themselves of late with the same degree of corruption, and shabby behavior, secrecy and antiamerican activities, as I have observed in recent years coming from Republicans, including bad foreign policy, irresponsible corporate oversight, corporate bailouts for corporations which have bilked the public, illogical nation building, disregard for pollution, and tax cuts that favor the rich. </span>

The silly Democratic call out of Oil Company Executives was a farce yesterday and any half-way intellegent adult Democrat should be ashamed of the idiots grandstanding on one more issue for the cameras. <span style="color: #330099">I was long overdue, IMO&lt; and not irrate enough, given what we've been handing out to them, their record profits, and the lack of progress they have shown in improving our circumstances. </span> If you would ever admit it, Nancy is sheparding groundbreaking hearings on baseball steroids, how to control Britiany's photo stalkers and even more lame things than the impotent Republican Senate ever did. <span style="color: #330099">She is also protecting the Department of Justice from politiziation and corruption from Bush, trying to protect our troops, trying to limit the disaster of a continuing fubar in Iraq, trying to assist those in our society who have hit the wall after having been bilked by corrupt corporations, trying to protect our Constitution, and providing much needed oversight. </span> You wanted a women in charge? Look what you have now.... <span style="color: #330099"> You wanted Bush in charge, a man, but are you happy with him? Nancy is doing a much better job than Gingrich, and the liar that followed him, IMO, and had we had a majority in 2000, we wouldn't be stuck in Iraq right now since the majority of Democrats voted NO!
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif
</span>



</div></div>