OT: political leanings are half genetic

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Wed, 30 May 2007 18:07:40 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> I infinitely prefer a bit of hypocrisy to not having any shame.
>Anyone can lower standards to the point where there are no standards at all.
>I do not admire the Dems for having low standards.

Oh, I wouldnt' say the Democrats or liberals have no standards -- just
that they are less likely to foist their standards on personal issues
on the public.

But let's look at personal life and see what we find. Take, for
example, the current Republican and Democratic candidates for
president. Which group has a larger percentage of failed marriages?
Which group has a larger percentage of former or current adulterers?

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Wed, 30 May 2007 16:26:27 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> as long as they
>> could but the truth has a habit of surfacing sooner or later. No one
>> forced or entrapped the young-man lover Foley - his actions were his
>> own as were those who tried to cover it up.
>
>"They" played and preyed on his weaknesses.

Who is they? These supposed Democratic operatives that set the guy up?
Please give us some evidence. And the rantings/speculation of some
nut commentator on TV or radio is not evidence.




--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Wed, 30 May 2007 18:38:36 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Bush and Cheney want to stay and win;

Sure they want to stay and win, but winning is not possible. So they
are in fact having the US stay and lose and lose and lose. What they
want is irrelevant at this point.

>your liberal Dems want to cut and run.
>Why?

See above.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Wed, 30 May 2007 18:48:53 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Difficult to say Forrest. I have seen it both ways - tenter hooks and tender
>hooks.

I've seen it both ways as well. Even saw tender hooks today. Doesn't
mean that is right.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Wed, 30 May 2007 19:06:59 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Nope, it is not for nothing. We have not been attacked since 9/11 thanks to
>the Bush foreign policy of taking the war to the Jihadists.

Funny. Probably not true (we don't know who sent the anthrax for
example). And worldwide, terrorism has gone up since the invasion of
Iraq.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Wed, 30 May 2007 19:06:59 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>3,000 dead and however many wounded are as nothing compared to
>all previous wars.

That doesn't mean that those lives were lost in a productive way.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Wed, 30 May 2007 19:06:59 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>3,000 dead and however many wounded are as nothing compared to
>all previous wars.
Roughly 600,000 people have lost their lives as a result of the US
invasion of Iraq, probably a couple million has been wounded, and many
million have been displaced.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Wed, 30 May 2007 19:06:59 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Of course, I realize liberals these days do not like wars
>and would rather be enslaved than fight them.

What evidence do you have of that?

And, at least as importantly, what evidence is there that the people
who pushed for this war actually have any experience in fighting.
Bush? Cheney, Wolfowitze, Feith? The list goes on.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Jay Beattie]

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 30 May 2007 18:07:40 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> I infinitely prefer a bit of hypocrisy to not having any shame.
>>Anyone can lower standards to the point where there are no standards at
>>all.
>>I do not admire the Dems for having low standards.
>
> Oh, I wouldnt' say the Democrats or liberals have no standards -- just
> that they are less likely to foist their standards on personal issues
> on the public.

Actually, I have had a lot of lefties foist their standards and personal
issues on me. Living in PDX, I am awash in lefties. That's fine because I
swing left on a lot of issues. But I am sure tired of the PC line all the
time. Even the cycling community (which is huge) is constantly grinding its
axe and expects me to fall in line politically -- which I can't because some
of their demands are stupid (like running interference for the no-brake
crowd). I don't want my city counselors voting on whether we should be nuke
free (I ain't got no nukes, do you?) or whether PDX should (or should not)
support the war -- those are state or federal matters and not local. Fill
the GD pot holes I say! Sometimes I yearn for plain old conservatives who
drink bad coffee and wear plaid shirts and keep the sewers fixed.

Now, I'm not supporting racists and bigots, etc., but the old school
conservatives that I know (including my 82 year old father -- who now votes
democrat because of Bush, among others), are some of the least likely to
impose their views on anyone. I think the WWII generation was much more
civil in terms of not discussing sex, religion and politics when it was
clear that their views would clash with others. The modern conservatives
are a whole other ball of wax.

>
> But let's look at personal life and see what we find. Take, for
> example, the current Republican and Democratic candidates for
> president. Which group has a larger percentage of failed marriages?
> Which group has a larger percentage of former or current adulterers?

If spousal faithfulness were an indicator of polical accumen, then I would
care. Nixon was faithful. Kennedy was not. FDR was not. Eisenhower was not
(if you believe the stories), Reagan was on wife two, Clinton got blow jobs
in the closet, Carter was faithful, Ford, too. Bush I was faithful. Truman
was really faithful. I think Truman is the only faithful one that I would
vote for. Otherwise, I would go for a couple of the cheaters. -- Jay
Beattie.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Wed, 30 May 2007 18:14:39 -0700, "Jay Beattie"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Actually, I have had a lot of lefties foist their standards and personal
>issues on me.

By law?

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Conservatives are not really into government like liberals are.
> >> Conservatives mainly just want to make some money and live the
> >> good life. But liberals truly want to govern. Therein lies your
> >> explanation.
> >
> > Nah. The difference is that liberals think the government can
> > actually be good for something.
>
> I wish conservatives were more into government like liberals are.
> There are indeed one hundred and one things that the government is
> good for. Defense of the nation comes immediately to mind. Funny how
> this is always the last thought of a liberal. It takes a Pearl Harbor
> to wake them up. At least it used to. Now we could have any number of
> 9/11's and I don't believe it would matter to them in the slightest.

You weren't paying attention at the time, obviously.

> The main thing with them is to give amnesty to illegal immigrants.

Without whom Worthington's economy would suffer. But never mind that.

> And, oh yes, get out of Iraq even though our casualties there have
> been minimal. Hey Tim, how many? A few thousand - even though we are
> nation of 300 million.

More Americans have died in Iraq than died in the 9/11 attacks. Never
mind that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 nor that al Qaeda
had no presence in Iraq prior to the "shock and awe" misfire.

I am sorry that you think so little of the lives of American soldiers
that you- like Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney, Perle, et al- consider them
expendable. You're the one who is traitorous and cowardly. Sign up and
get your ass over to Iraq.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Wed, 30 May 2007 17:14:30 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>And, oh yes, get out of Iraq even though our casualties there have
> >>been minimal. Hey Tim, how many? A few thousand - even though we
> >>are nation of 300 million.
> >
> > I think most people would agree that that number of casulaties is
> > not large if the cause is just and the fighting is effective.
> > That's what US soldiers do, and it's a good thing.
> >
> > It's sad that over three thousand US soldiers have died for
> > nothing, or worse than nothing. It's a tragedy.
>
> Nope, it is not for nothing. We have not been attacked since 9/11
> thanks to the Bush foreign policy of taking the war to the Jihadists.

That's ******** as far as Iraq is concerned and relatively accurate as
far as Afghanistan is concerned. The invasion of Afghanistan and the
overthrow of the Taliban was justifiable based on facts. It is too bad
that the incompetence of the Bush Adminstration led them to drop the
ball there, allowing the Taliban to regroup and develop a resurgence.

> However, it may now be that Iraq should be split up into 3 parts (the
> Biden plan) since it is apparent that ethnic and religious hatreds
> rule supreme there. We shall still have to stand by though no matter
> how much we would like to leave.

Iraq as a coherent nation is dead. That's the fault of the Bush
Adminstration, who predicated their pre-emptive war on lies and
delusions.

> It is very interesting to read about the casualties in previous wars
> of the past century. 3,000 dead and however many wounded are as
> nothing compared to all previous wars. Of course, I realize liberals
> these days do not like wars and would rather be enslaved than fight
> them. Unfortunately for them, most Americans would rather fight then
> give in to the enemy no matter the Democrat liberal penchant for
> cowardice and treason.

Cowards and traitors are running the White House now. Obviously you
consider yourself one of them.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:
> [...]
> >>
> >> Tim McNamara is not qualified to have an opinion on Conservatives
> >> since he is a Minnesota Democrat Farmer-Labor moron. I mean, would
> >> you vote for Mondale like he did? Hells Bells, he probably even
> >> liked that freaking Hubert Horatio Humphry. Thank God he is dead
> >> now (bladder cancer) and no longer orating here in Minnesota.
> >
> > Ah, you're delusional again, Ed. You're wrong on just about every
> > single point in your paragraph there. I'm not a DFLer, I didn't
> > vote for Mondale, and I didn't even live in Minnesota when HHH was
> > around.
>
> Well, if you had been here back then you would have voted for Mondale
> and your would have liked Humphrey. Those are the essential points,
> not that you were in diapers.

The Amazing Fathead strikes again. Wow! You can read the mind of
someone you've never met! LOL. You're a funny guy, Ed. I don't mean
amusing.

> > However, the abundant evidence of the Right's destruction of
> > conservatism is all around you. Pull your head out of your ass and
> > get some fresh air. There are medications that can help you.
>
> I am none too happy about how conservatives see the domestic scene.
> But it is a question of priorities. Conservatives mean to defend this
> nation against the Jihadists and the Dems are out to lunch as always
> (ever since Vietnam). Sorry, but unless and until the Dems get up to
> speed on defending this nation, I can never support them.

Hmm, because the Republicans have done such a bang-up job? ROFTL!

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Donald Gillies" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >>I have also been a flaming liberal in my past but I am now quite
> >>conservative. What does this make me overall, pray tell?
> >
> > Genetically unstable ???
> >
> >
>
> I think most young folks really want to be liberal and it is only as
> we grow older that we realize the limitations of human nature, and so
> we become conservatives. I would have preferred to be a Romantic and
> an idealist all of my life, but after a certain age, it becomes
> impossible.
>
> I do not condemn young people for being liberal. On the contrary, I
> expect it. But when I encounter an older person who is a liberal, I
> question their sanity.

Considering the source of the question, I feel much more secure. Thank
you!

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> "Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> >
> >> > How many conscientious objectors are right wingers, for
> >> > instance?
> >>
> >> How many cowards and traitors are left wingers, for instance?
> >
> > Versus the cowards and traitors running the White House as we
> > speak?
>
> Bush and Cheney want to stay and win; your liberal Dems want to cut
> and run. Why?

Bush and Cheney just want to stay. Winning is not important to them,
this war serves other purposes. If nothing else, they just want to stay
in until after 1/20/08. If Bush and Cheney really wanted to win, Plan B
wouldn't be "make Plan A work."

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:

> The NY Times and the Washington Post are anti-Bush a pro-Democrat.
> The media are more and more coming to resemble the European press.
> They are becoming political rags pure and simple. All the networks
> (except Fox News) are anti-conservative and pro-liberal. Who can
> doubt this?

Anybody who's actually a liberal. If you were, you'd understand that
the media has a right-leaning bias. ;-)

 

[still me]

On Wed, 30 May 2007 21:03:39 -0500, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> The NY Times and the Washington Post are anti-Bush a pro-Democrat.
>> The media are more and more coming to resemble the European press.
>> They are becoming political rags pure and simple. All the networks
>> (except Fox News) are anti-conservative and pro-liberal. Who can
>> doubt this?
>
>Anybody who's actually a liberal. If you were, you'd understand that
>the media has a right-leaning bias. ;-)

Or, if they could even look at the issue through something other than
neo-con bamboozled glasses, they'd realize that the media is not
displaying "liberal bias" but instead is concentric with "current
public opinion".

The people in this country are not too sharp, but eventually the truth
pierces even their concurrently thick and easily brainwashed heads and
they smarten up. The media just goes along for the ride most of the
time.

 

[still me]

On Wed, 30 May 2007 20:48:01 -0500, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> The main thing with them is to give amnesty to illegal immigrants.
>
>Without whom Worthington's economy would suffer. But never mind that.

I thought amnesty was a Bush agenda item.

>More Americans have died in Iraq than died in the 9/11 attacks. Never
>mind that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 nor that al Qaeda
>had no presence in Iraq prior to the "shock and awe" misfire.

Not to mention, Saddaam and Al Squeaky are (were) significant
religious enemies of each other. But, let's not let facts get in the
way.

>I am sorry that you think so little of the lives of American soldiers
>that you- like Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney, Perle, et al- consider them
>expendable. You're the one who is traitorous and cowardly. Sign up and
>get your ass over to Iraq.

3000 lives but $400b spent by the gov't into the pocket of US
companies, not to mention the specific oil company benefits, it's all
an acceptable ratio, don't you think?

 

[still me]

On Wed, 30 May 2007 21:10:01 -0500, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Just 'cause I
>disagree with you doesn't mean I think you shouldn't be able to express
>yourself. Oops, sorry, that was another little bit of liberalism.

Actually, it's a strong bit of conservatism too - but not
neo-conservatism.

 

[DI]

"still me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 3000 lives but $400b spent by the gov't into the pocket of US
> companies, not to mention the specific oil company benefits, it's all
> an acceptable ratio, don't you think?

What oil company?