The Nine Dwarves

As far as I'm concerned, this is SPAM!!!

At least, please be gracious enough to label this drivel as off-topic, OT, irrelevent, or (might I
add) useless.

"Donald Graft" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:HQUyb.391511$Fm2.406766@attbi_s04...

Quoted message said:

I'm posting this so that you all can get to know me better.

Don

-----------------

The Nine Dwarves Sara Connolly Election time is quickly approaching. As we pass the threshold of

December,

Quoted message said:

we are reminded that the election is only 11 months away, and already, our noble candidates for
office are hard at work. It is odd that the average president during his four-year term spends at
least one full year campaigning for re-election. That's 25 percent of his time in office; odd,
yes, but when you look at the caliber of the candidates challenging George
W. Bush for the presidency, one realizes that he doesn't need to begin campaigning until at least
October.

The Democratic Party has produced nine of its best, and that's not saying much, to challenge
Bush's solid incumbency as President. Bush has had astronomical approval ratings at different
points in his presidency, and

now

Quoted message said:

his rates are considered "low" at fifty-two percent. Over half of the American public loves him as
president. The Democrats have a lot to do in these 11 months, but they are confident.

The group of Democratic candidates is affectionately called "The Nine Dwarves" because none have a
particularly strong political record or are doing very well in the polls. Of these nine diminutive
fellows (and one fellowette), one noticeably towers above the other. John Kerry, a senator from
Massachusetts, stands at least a foot taller than every other candidate. Unlike the other jokes
that can be made about the candidates, John Kerry's has a punch line - "Why the long face?"
Kerry's elongated countenance is reminiscent of many "a horse walked into a bar" jokes, and serves
as his most distinguishing feature. Never mind his political

career!

Quoted message said:

It is not particularly noteworthy, but in the world of Democrats, what you actually do rarely
matters, just as what actually happens rarely

influences

Quoted message said:

"the truth." Kerry is a senator. That's enough about him.

One of the biggest names of the Democratic candidates is Howard Dean, the former governor of
Vermont. Vermont has gone from being a tough mountain state to a state infested with liberals and
supporters of gay marriage and the like. Dean is convinced that his experience governing a state
with a population smaller than Baltimore's makes him fit to be the President of

the

Quoted message said:

United States. The American people did too, apparently, as Dean's numbers were high until he was
recently overtaken by [censored] Gephardt, who we'll mention later, in the omniscient Polls of Public
Opinion. Dean was made infamous by saying that he'd like to be the candidate for guys with
"Confederate flags in their pickup trucks." Slammed by his fellow

Democrats

Quoted message said:

for being racist or something, the other candidates were quick to come out with their own versions
of the statement. Just about every candidate had a variation like "I'd like to be the candidate
for guys with American flags

in

Quoted message said:

their pickup trucks," "We don't need the guys with Confederate flags in their pickups, we're
better than that," "Sure, give me pick up trucks as long as they don't have gun racks," "Pick-up
trucks are racist and homophobic," etc. No one expected flags and pickups to be an issue in this
election, but then, when you're dealing with Democrats, anything can

happen.

Quoted message said:

One of my personal favorites is Dennis Kucinich. With a face that could grace the cover of MAD
Magazine, Kucinich is to the Nine Dwarves what

Dopey

Quoted message said:

was to Snow White's crew - the comic relief. When asked why he's aiming to be president, Kucinich
said it's "To enable the goddess of peace to

encircle

Quoted message said:

within her arms all the children of this country and all the children of

the

Quoted message said:

world." A worthy ambition, and definitely a plausible political goal.

Another good one is Carol Moseley Braun. She stands out from most of the candidates for being a
black woman. Ah, at last - a colored face in a sea

of

Quoted message said:

pasty white, and she has ovaries. That's all it takes for an endorsement from the National
Organization for Women, which, of course, she has. Interestingly enough, she has only raised
$400,000 for her campaign fund, the smallest of any candidate except for Al Sharpton. Her lack of
campaign contributions is not surprising when you consider the fact that her main supporters are
tree-hugging lesbians from San Francisco. "Peace Activist"

is

Quoted message said:

not generally a profitable profession; though they might stage a great rally, those aren't the
constituents that get anyone elected. You would think that Moseley Braun would be the hero of the
Democrats, being the darling minority that she is. Really, they're always talking about how

they

Quoted message said:

are the party of the poor and those in the minority. It's interesting that their primary
candidates are all white men. Could it be the Democrats are not so committed to diversity as they
say? Or possibly they've realized

that

Quoted message said:

being a woman with a different shade of skin does not actually make you

more

Quoted message said:

qualified than a pale-faced man?

It's like the fact that Democrats are constantly talking about being the party of the poor and
downtrodden, when in fact they have as many rich people 'on their side' as the Republicans. The
only real difference is

that

Quoted message said:

rich Democrats are singers and actors who make their millions through exploitation often
unaccompanied by talent. Republican wealthies, on the other hand, have built up their fortunes
through years of hard work in business or the like. It could be that the issue here is not money,
but where the money comes from.

The list of candidates goes on and on. There's Wesley Clark, a retired general who can now call
himself the Prince of Multilateralism. He criticized America's war against Serbia because Russia
and China did not give it their approval. It's nice to know that an aspiring president looks to
the advice of a crumbled, de-militarized post-Communist state and an oppressive, currently
Communist and excessively militarized state for

advice

Quoted message said:

on matters of foreign policy. If we do what they would, we would have to invade America, aim
nuclear weapons at Los Angeles and New York, and burn our money in favor of using vodka as
currency. At the very least, give

Clark

Quoted message said:

credit for thinking in terms of global unity and multi-lateralism. Obviously, the goddess of peace
has her arms firmly wrapped around him and his intentions.

[censored] Gephardt is another one; he's non-descript (the only word that comes

to

Quoted message said:

mind is ugly) but he's pulling ahead of Dean in the Iowa polls. He has worked in Congress as the
House Democratic leader and has the support of more congressmen than any other candidate, which
makes him totally uninteresting.

Al Sharpton, like Kucinich, is laughable. Next week, Sharpton is hosting Saturday Night Live - I
suppose he's trying to reach out to a new demographic? It's a good one to target - citizens of New
York City

recently

Quoted message said:

elected a senator who hadn't ever really lived in or thought about their state as anything other
than a political stepping stone, so they must not

be

Quoted message said:

big on "issues" or "qualification," which Sharpton lacks in spades.

Besides,

Quoted message said:

Sharpton's policies don't really extend beyond "I hate everything."

John Edwards and Joe Lieberman are both fairly middle of the road and uninteresting, and their
faces really just blend with the crowd.

I am still left wondering who will get the nomination. Frankly, I don't care. None of these guys
could beat Bush, so any of them are fine with me. Just keep Hillary away from us, and I say let
the boys keep fighting

amongst

Quoted message said:

themselves. They're good for a laugh, anyway.

"Donald Graft" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<HQUyb.391511$Fm2.406766@attbi_s04>...

Quoted message said:

I'm posting this so that you all can get to know me better.

Don

I'm posting this so that you can get to know our DESTRUCTIVE PRESIDENT better ...

Ronald Brownstein: Washington Outlook

COMMENTARY: Snowballing Debt Awaits Tomorrow's Taxpayers

Seniors with big prescription drug bills, health maintenance organizations awaiting lucrative
new subsidies, upper-middle-class families anticipating a fat tax refund, and Iraqi cities
expecting new schools or hospitals all have reason to be thankful about President Bush's
extraordinary success at pushing his agenda through the Republican-controlled Congress this
year. There may be less celebration among the young people who will inherit the tab for these
initiatives. Bush is funding every penny of every one of these goodies by increasing the
national debt. Which is another way of saying that he's sticking the bill to the next
generation. The scale of the transfer is dizzying. In just the last few months, Congress, at
Bush's request, has doled out $87 billion to rebuild and secure Iraq and Afghanistan;
approved a $401-billion defense appropriation bill, the largest ever; completed a $1-trillion
tax cut on top of the $1.35-trillion reduction the president won in 2001; and approved a
Medicare prescription drug benefit that will cost at least $400 billion over the next decade,
probably more. If the energy bill is revived next year, add to the list at least another $26
billion in tax cuts for energy companies. All of this, it's worth remembering, comes when the
federal government already faces its largest deficit ever - some $374 billion last year, $84
billion more than the previous record held by Bush's father, George H.W. Bush. Several
reliable analysts project the federal deficit will soar past $500 billion this year - and
then remain near that unprecedented level for the indefinite future, even if the economy
recovers. It's an understatement to conclude, as the Goldman Sachs investment bank did in a
recent report, that the budget process in Washington is "out of control." Project this
forward a few years and the fiscal strain on future taxpayers could become excruciating. By
2012, Bush's tax cuts would reduce federal revenue by almost $400 billion a year, according
to calculations by Peter Orszag of the Brookings Institution. Even without the new
prescription drug benefit, the swelling number of seniors and the rising cost of care would
push the annual bill for Medicare past $500 billion by then, according to the Congressional
Budget Office. The drug subsidy for seniors would add at least another $65 billion to the
tab. The CBO says that by 2012, defense spending would approach $600 billion annually - a
number other analysts say understates the price tag for Bush's long-term national security
plans. Then comes the final indignity for tomorrow's taxpayers: huge interest payments on the
debt the government is accumulating to finance this binge. When Bush took office, the CBO
estimated Washington was on track to eliminate the publicly held federal debt by 2008. That
meant federal interest payments on the debt, which were running about $200 billion a year
when Bush arrived, were expected to dwindle to virtually nothing by the end of this decade.
Now, though, the latest estimates are that amid the economic slowdown of the last two years,
and all the new spending and tax cuts Bush has pursued, the federal debt could soar to at
least $7 trillion by decade's end. That means future taxpayers will have to pay at least $350
billion a year to service that debt, precisely as they are shouldering big bills for homeland
security, defense and retiring the baby boom. To call this behavior a breakdown of fiscal
responsibility misses its true nature. This is a stunning abandonment of generational
responsibility. Washington is behaving like a father who steals his kid's credit card and
goes on a bender. Individually, America's parents make sacrifices every day to provide
opportunities for their children; but collectively, the nation is now pursuing precisely the
opposite course - indulging itself even at the price of reducing opportunity for its
children. Is anyone speaking for the next generation? At the national level, Democrats have
condemned Bush's deficits and highlighted the costs of his tax cut. But they've undercut
their credibility by repeatedly demanding more spending on their favorite causes; it's
telling that the principal criticism from Democrats about the new Medicare bill is that it
doesn't spend enough to subsidize drugs for seniors. Most Republicans are apparently hoping
they can make these deficits disappear by ignoring or discounting them; the noble exceptions
are a handful of true fiscal conservatives like Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Charles Hagel
(R-Neb.). "There is a larger point to all of this," Hagel lamented after the Senate approved
the Medicare bill last week. "Who is looking out for the future of the country?" It's
unrealistic to expect too many legislators to take that long view. Budget discipline is as
much an unnatural act for Congress as refusing campaign contributions; for legislators, the
long run is always the next election. Only a determined president can prevent Washington from
spending more than it is willing to collect in taxes. But Bush has led the U-turn from the
policies that produced surpluses for the three years immediately before he arrived. The best
case against Bush's budget policies comes from the arguments he's made for his national
security strategy. Bush often defends his vision of preemptive defense by insisting America
must confront tough problems now so future generations won't face them down the road. Yet in
his budget, Bush is creating enormous problems for future generations by avoiding tough
choices today. By slashing taxes while he increases spending, Bush is governing as if he is
in the Matrix, where the laws of gravity don't apply. But here in the real world, what goes
up still comes down, which means kids too young to protest today will pay dearly tomorrow for
the massive debts Bush is charging to their future.

Godammit, you stop it too.

Freaking morons on all sides of the issue.

"4precious" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Donald Graft" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<HQUyb.391511$Fm2.406766@attbi_s04>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm posting this so that you all can get to know me better.

Don

I'm posting this so that you can get to know our DESTRUCTIVE PRESIDENT better ...

Ronald Brownstein: Washington Outlook

COMMENTARY: Snowballing Debt Awaits Tomorrow's Taxpayers

Seniors with big prescription drug bills, health maintenance organizations awaiting
lucrative new subsidies, upper-middle-class families anticipating a fat tax refund, and
Iraqi cities expecting new schools or hospitals all have reason to be thankful about
President Bush's extraordinary success at pushing his agenda through the
Republican-controlled Congress this year. There may be less celebration among the young
people who will inherit the tab for these initiatives. Bush is funding every penny of every
one of these goodies by increasing the national debt. Which is another way of saying that
he's sticking the bill to the next generation. The scale of the transfer is dizzying. In
just the last few months, Congress, at Bush's request, has doled out $87 billion to rebuild
and secure Iraq and Afghanistan; approved a $401-billion defense appropriation bill, the
largest ever; completed a $1-trillion tax cut on top of the $1.35-trillion reduction the
president won in 2001; and approved a Medicare prescription drug benefit that will cost at
least $400 billion over the next decade, probably more. If the energy bill is revived next
year, add to the list at least another $26 billion in tax cuts for energy companies. All of
this, it's worth remembering, comes when the federal government already faces its largest
deficit ever - some $374 billion last year, $84 billion more than the previous record held
by Bush's father, George H.W. Bush. Several reliable analysts project the federal deficit
will soar past $500 billion this year - and then remain near that unprecedented level for
the indefinite future, even if the economy recovers. It's an understatement to conclude, as
the Goldman Sachs investment bank did in a recent report, that the budget process in
Washington is "out of control." Project this forward a few years and the fiscal strain on
future taxpayers could become excruciating. By 2012, Bush's tax cuts would reduce federal
revenue by almost $400 billion a year, according to calculations by Peter Orszag of the
Brookings Institution. Even without the new prescription drug benefit, the swelling number
of seniors and the rising cost of care would push the annual bill for Medicare past $500
billion by then, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The drug subsidy for seniors
would add at least another $65 billion to the tab. The CBO says that by 2012, defense
spending would approach $600 billion annually - a number other analysts say understates the
price tag for Bush's long-term national security plans. Then comes the final indignity for
tomorrow's taxpayers: huge interest payments on the debt the government is accumulating to
finance this binge. When Bush took office, the CBO estimated Washington was on track to
eliminate the publicly held federal debt by 2008. That meant federal interest payments on
the debt, which were running about $200 billion a year when Bush arrived, were expected to
dwindle to virtually nothing by the end of this decade. Now, though, the latest estimates
are that amid the economic slowdown of the last two years, and all the new spending and tax
cuts Bush has pursued, the federal debt could soar to at least $7 trillion by decade's end.
That means future taxpayers will have to pay at least $350 billion a year to service that
debt, precisely as they are shouldering big bills for homeland security, defense and
retiring the baby boom. To call this behavior a breakdown of fiscal responsibility misses
its true nature. This is a stunning abandonment of generational responsibility. Washington
is behaving like a father who steals his kid's credit card and goes on a bender.
Individually, America's parents make sacrifices every day to provide opportunities for
their children; but collectively, the nation is now pursuing precisely the opposite course
- indulging itself even at the price of reducing opportunity for its children. Is anyone
speaking for the next generation? At the national level, Democrats have condemned Bush's
deficits and highlighted the costs of his tax cut. But they've undercut their credibility
by repeatedly demanding more spending on their favorite causes; it's telling that the
principal criticism from Democrats about the new Medicare bill is that it doesn't spend
enough to subsidize drugs for seniors. Most Republicans are apparently hoping they can make
these deficits disappear by ignoring or discounting them; the noble exceptions are a
handful of true fiscal conservatives like Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Charles Hagel
(R-Neb.). "There is a larger point to all of this," Hagel lamented after the Senate
approved the Medicare bill last week. "Who is looking out for the future of the country?"
It's unrealistic to expect too many legislators to take that long view. Budget discipline
is as much an unnatural act for Congress as refusing campaign contributions; for
legislators, the long run is always the next election. Only a determined president can
prevent Washington from spending more than it is willing to collect in taxes. But Bush has
led the U-turn from the policies that produced surpluses for the three years immediately
before he arrived. The best case against Bush's budget policies comes from the arguments
he's made for his national security strategy. Bush often defends his vision of preemptive
defense by insisting America must confront tough problems now so future generations won't
face them down the road. Yet in his budget, Bush is creating enormous problems for future
generations by avoiding tough choices today. By slashing taxes while he increases spending,
Bush is governing as if he is in the Matrix, where the laws of gravity don't apply. But
here in the real world, what goes up still comes down, which means kids too young to
protest today will pay dearly tomorrow for the massive debts Bush is charging to their
future.

Count Scrofula said:

Godammit, you stop it too.

Freaking morons on all sides of the issue.

When do the spankings start to keep the children in line?

~Matt

Quoted message said:

<Snip

"Donald Graft" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<HQUyb.391511$Fm2.406766@attbi_s04>...

Quoted message said:

I'm posting this so that you all can get to know me better.

Don

For sure, that makes us know you better. But I am not sure you will gain a lot of consideration with
that. I even suspect some will think that you are even worse than what they thought before...

-- Olivier

When the "Ah Larry" crowd drops their off-topic [censored], I will do the same.

Don

"Olivier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Donald Graft" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<HQUyb.391511$Fm2.406766@attbi_s04>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm posting this so that you all can get to know me better.

Don

For sure, that makes us know you better. But I am not sure you will gain a lot of consideration
with that. I even suspect some will think that you are even worse than what they thought before...

-- Olivier

[email hidden] (Olivier) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"Donald Graft" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<HQUyb.391511$Fm2.406766@attbi_s04>...

Quoted message said:

I'm posting this so that you all can get to know me better.

Don

For sure, that makes us know you better. But I am not sure you will gain a lot of consideration
with that. I even suspect some will think that you are even worse than what they thought before...

-- Olivier

For some reason this reminds me of an old Bill Cosby joke.

He asked some people why they took illegal drugs, and one responded, "It intensifies my
personality".

To which he responded, "What if you're an a_ _hole?"

Eric

Quoted message said:

When the "Ah Larry" crowd drops their off-topic [censored], I will do the same.

Don

You sound like a little child when you complain like this. Did you used to be a tattle-tale as a
child, too?

Pat in TX