From: Jack Hollis on
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:31:42 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard(a)>

>On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 11:26:58 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)>
>>>He definitely was NO in charge. Cheney was the POTUS.
>>Complete nonsense. By the middle of Bush's second term, Cheney was
>>totally ignored by Bush.
>That seems to be the case. But by then it was too late.
>Although Bush came across much more articulate when discussing war
>than in discussing compassion all along, so maybe Cheney wasn't as
>responsible for policy as he looked.

All in all, I would have preferred Cheney as president rather than
Bush, but Bush did an excellent job on the foreign policy front, but
was a huge disappointment on the domestic front.

If Cheney would have gotten his way, the mess in Iran would not have
been left to the current administration. Unfortunately, it's pretty
clear that Obama doesn't have a clue how to deal with that situation
at all. So far, Obama looks like a complete fool with one deadline
being replaced by another deadline when the Iranians ignore it.
From: William Clark on
In article <t6p0p51f7t3vuisjul74ljv8r4l73238jd(a)>,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)> wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 10:53:15 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr
> <frostback2002(a)> wrote:
> >On Mar 4, 11:29=A0am, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 23:32:28 -0800, "dene" <d...(a)>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >It's hard for me to defend the worst president since Carter....but I wil=
> >l
> >> >never agree with you or anybody in saying he is a dumb man.
> >>
> >> Only a complete ideologue could ignore the objective data that Bush
> >> was a man of superior to very superior intelligence. =A0
> >
> >Rosie O'Donnell and Keith Olberwoman disagree with you!
> Rosie is as dumb as they come, but Keith seems to be pretty sharp. But
> the data is clear Bush is a very smart man. And he's a man of
> conviction and principle, which, combined with his superior
> intelligence, made him a great president.. Again, only a complete
> ideologue could ignore objective data.

Which data would those be on Dubya? We'd all like to see it.
From: William Clark on
In article <f3p0p593k12j3engei8kla795a5ee0ngme(a)>,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)> wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 10:39:54 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr
> <frostback2002(a)> wrote:
> >
> >Who gets turned down when they *NEED* health care? No one?
> Even the uninsured in America have access to better health care than
> the rest of the world.

That is just such a stupid remark it defies a response.
From: William Clark on
In article <4b9062f4$0$5078$9a6e19ea(a)>,
Carbon <nobrac(a)> wrote:

> On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 07:49:00 -0500, BAR wrote:
> > In article <4b8f0c98$0$4975$9a6e19ea(a)>,
> > nobrac(a) says...
> >>>
> >>>> So say you lose your job and can't find another, your wife leaves
> >>>> you, your dog dies, etc. Would you still have the same charming
> >>>> fuckya philosophy of life if you were one of the less fortunate?
> >>>
> >>> Do you know what integrity and principles are, some of us have them.
> >>>
> >>> It was late October 1980. My boss at the USDA said that if you
> >>> wanted to keep your job you know who to vote for for president. I
> >>> pulled the lever for Ronald Wilson Reagan. I voted for the guy who
> >>> said that he was going to reduce the federal workforce.
> >>>
> >>> I take responsibility for the choices and decisions I make in my
> >>> life. I don't complain about the curves that life has thrown at me,
> >>> I look them in the eye and deal with them and get on with my life.
> >>>
> >>> To answer your question, I will never be "less fortunate" because I
> >>> will pick myself up and move on with my life.
> >>
> >> So you believe your fuckya philosophy is A-OK because you think it
> >> will never apply to you. How very noble. It must really burn you up
> >> that so many poor people (e.g. "thieves") get free healthcare. Forget
> >> Obama. Here's the Bert Robbins healthcare plan. Install bouncers at
> >> every hospital and run the credit of everyone who walks in the door,
> >> no exceptions. It's not like they have any choice, so make the sick
> >> pay in advance. Anyone who turns out to be sicker than they have
> >> money to pay for shall be dragged out back and shot.
> >
> > I believe in personal responsibility.
> >
> > Why do you want to make everyone a ward of the state?
> As usual, you're letting yourself be blinded by ideology. Some people
> just aren't ever going to pay their share. This is what is known as a
> simple, obvious fact of life. So the pragmatic approach is to minimize
> the burden these people impose on everyone else. The way it is now,
> they can't go to the doctor, so they wait until they're really sick and
> go to Emergency. It's the most expensive possible arrangement.
> That's why haul the poor out back and shoot them. Of course, they'd catch
> on pretty quick, so really we'd have to send out search parties to hunt
> them down. It only makes sense.

Yes, but we'd be able to catch the sick ones quickly, because they won't
be able to move very fast.
From: Moderate on

"Carbon" <nobrac(a)> wrote in message
> On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 23:30:03 -0800, dene wrote:
>> There's definitely more smelly people in Florida vs. Oregon. :)
> Must be all the fried food.

Or the foreigners.