Search Results for 'Gy'

[JoB]

House.. we are glad you are so confident and optimistic that nothing bad can happen to you.

My youngest brother didn’t think so until he went water skiing one day and collapsed a lung. and then it happened again a year later when he picked a bag up.

My other brother didn’t think so either until he slipped on a ladder two stories up at a fire and ruined his back.

Both brother’s injuries effectively ended their careers. One is already retired and the other will retire this year.. long before he wanted to.

Both are strong republicans. Both chose professions with excellent health care (policeman/fireman).

Both realize now that something needs to be done about the health care system because that great health care they counted on disappears with their jobs. The youngest just turned 50. The older is only a couple of years his senior.

Perhaps they are harder for you to dismiss as winers or feeling entitled because they are republicans.

Neither of them feels entitled. They simply feel that they should receive the benefits they were promised when they signed up for their career.

The youngest knows that won’t happen because he ended up on the committee that tried to negotiate quality healthcare for retired policeman and got a good dose of reality.

the older found out when he received the paperwork for his retirement. His wife is self employed and neither of them would qualify for a work related insurance plan because of pre-existing conditions. Luckily, she was making enough in the real estate market that they didn’t need to worry. But it’s not looking so simple for them right now.

I wonder what action you would have either of them take that would stop the bleeding of their retirements from their health care expenses. Should they have chosen less dangerous occupations? In the younger’s case, should he have forgone water skiing with his kids?

He is lucky. As long as his wife continues to work as a nurse, he will have good health care. but i think she sort of thought she would get to retire some day too. maybe not.

Neither of my brothers will be able to get health insurance now that covers their expenses in any measurable way because of their pre-exisitng conditions.

And lest you make more assumptions about them being lazy overweight men who didn’t take care of their bodies… they are both exceedingly fit ex-athletes. They were gymnasts who can still do floor exercise… they both play any competitive sport… they both climb… until the latest lung collapse the younger could still outdo his athletic navy son in push ups. in fact, he just remodeled his home… doing the work himself.

These are not disabled people. And they are exceedingly confident and optimistic. In fact the younger thought he could do some shallow diving still until his nurse wife put her foot down. And by the way.. both are looking at the next half of their lives to see what they might like to do next.

these are two good republicans who worked hard, graduated from college, chose professions that guaranteed good benefits and both excelled in those professions and took great care of their bodies. What should they have done differently House?

the real problem in both cases is that they entered into contracts that were changed on them without their knowledge or approval. What you label as entitlement… they label as breached contracts.

It is not entitlement to think that you should get what you paid for… and that you should not pay more and get less for the same product… and that you should have an option to choose another product if you are unsatisfied with the one you have… for one that will give you more.. even if you pay more.

That is not what is happening with health insurance now.

so house.. how will you find a way to dismiss these republican men? Men with a tradition of service? Men whose son’s serve? Men who will vote for John McCain while shaking their head about many of the policies their party stands for. How will you show them the respect they have earned while dismissing their reality?

or will you simply use the excuse that their stories are less true because they are told by their democratic sister?

[jojofrenchfry]

Has anyone used the trainers at Allstar? How much do they charge?

[nekonoir]

There is also the X-Gym on Alki. (Or is that Harbor Ave?)

It’s a personal training gym. I used to go there and really liked it, but ummm, then I got lazy.

[Ken]

Anyone can visit a hospital to receive life threatening care (they cannot be denied by law) and anyone can go work for an employer that has health benefits….if your employer does not offer benefits, then work somewhere else.

Good work House,

I take it you’re a comedian by trade?

I am self employed and cannot get health insurance at any price. I sew my own cuts and use diet and exercise instead of the medications I have been prescribed in the past. Apparently you and George Bush think emergency rooms and Hospitals are free.

They are not. One visit could bankrupt any of the millions of people in this country who have no insurance. They already bankrupt millions who have insurance.

They don’t write off the bill, they sell it to collections agencies and lawyers who specialize in garnishments and judgments.

Nearly half of the personal bankruptcies in this country are triggered by medical bills.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/02/national/main671145.shtml

Those on welfare have a better chance of getting medical care they can afford than the average working stiff underemployed in this Bush service economy.

When I get a life-threatening illness I will die.

That’s the facts.

Also note this little gem. Companies are firing or not hiring otherwise qualified candidates because of tobacco use, cholesterol levels or blood glucose levels, to cut the cost of insurance rates. (note: Insurance companies and HMO’s now consider undiagnosed type II diabetes to be a “pre existing condition”.

http://businessshrink.biz/psychologyofbusiness/2007/09/

I am sure you will consider this an abhorrent intrusion onto the individuals rights, unless of course your a healthy, Republican non smoker.

[Anonymous]

JoB – I have a 8 to 9 year old shelter Shiba. Besides being the most unique breed I have ever encountered, she was obviously abused as a pup. I have worked with her this entire time and continue to do so, yet she still thinks I’m going to hit her every time I approach to pet. It took almost 2 years to be able to touch her tail without being bitten. She wasn’t even a year when we got her, so it seems the imprinting on her little psyche is deep and permanent. Because Shibas don’t respond like other dogs, I think in the wrong hands they are often abused. Some people want strict obedience, which is certainly not their strong suit.

Like you though, I love her to pieces. She’s extremely loyal, very affectionate on her terms, and just a riot when she’s playing. To me she seems much more like a cat. Very independent. Responds when she’s good and well ready. Little spurts of energy, where she jumps from furniture to furniture at a hundred miles per hour and races through the house or yard.

Her social skills on a leash are exactly as you describe however. She’s either completely indifferent or wants to challenge every dog she meets. Doesn’t matter if they’re ten pounds or a hundred. We’ve learned to let her have about a 2 second sniff and then snap her back to attention and walk briskly. After this many years and trying every possible method of training, I’m pretty sure what you see is what you get.

With people she’s strange also. On walks she’s not the least bit interested whether it’s a stranger or someone we know. Then at home, she’s all protective and will bark and growl and show her teeth to a stranger until we say it’s “okay”. Then if it’s a repair person or something she’ll just walk away like she’s bored to tears, but if it’s a friend or family member she goes nuts with squealing and delight.

Don’t know if this is encouraging or discouraging that you’re not alone, but you may end up having to accept your Shibas the way they are. I do know I don’t regret for a minute having this little strange creature in my life.

[Ken]

Franci:

No :)

Not really. There is a form that can be used for those deployed in the military or permanently disabled, or cannot participate due to religious observance.

Each state party chooses the date and time. I think WA dems chose a day that conflicts with the fewest number of potential voters.

Some states have their caucus on a weekday evening, some on Sunday.

What many do not realize is that this is the democracy the founding fathers knew. The secret ballot was not even suggested until the early 19th century. It was introduced as “the australian style ballot” several decades before it was adopted slowly, first in local and later in state and national.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_ballot#Chronology_of_introduction

The constitution makes no mention of ballot secrecy.

While I advocate a national holiday for the General election, the caucuses and primaries are party functions (at least the caucus is) and the idea that the state should enable a party function has it’s own flaws.

The primary is a result of the initiative process in WA as altered by the State supreme court, and is a waste of 9.2 million dollars this year.

As noted here in various posts, the caucus was scheduled at lunchtime (doors opened at noon) and many people in my precinct took lunch, came by and signed in then returned to work. There were also nearly a dozen who came in covered with little kids or pushing them in strollers. They too signed in and then left. A 10-20 min process in my precinct, but not in all. Some PCO’s were not prepared and some precincts did not have a PCO. Those may not have had the foresight to grab tables and layout the sign in forms and have a secretary and tally clerk already designated. It was still somewhat chaotic due to the record participation rates.

The more people who join in the process, and get involved in their chosen party, the smoother the process can go for the rest.

[BobLoblaw]

Amazing turnout at High Point. I estimated 350 folks and their various dependents in the gym. Wonderful conversation and a lot of excitement over our two candidates.

[hopey]

@cinnamon:

Troll

A contributor to an online discussion whose purpose in posting is primarily is to generate intense debate, often with intentionally inflammatory rhetoric. Troll literally “troll,” a form of fishing, for reaction from contributors to the forum with the intention of stimulating a flamewar.

See: http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mtroll.html

For those interested in the psychology behind trolling, Flaming: The Relationship Between Social Context Cues and Uninhibited Verbal Behavior in Computer-mediated Communication.

@JoB: looking forward to meeting you at the next Anti-Freeze. When would that be happening, btw? :)

[JanS]

Jill…did you say 7 days? My Weather.com says 10 days….I like your forecast better…hehe. While getting a bit tired of the same ol’same’ol every day, I did venture out to walk to Safeway earlier this evening. It was getting foggy, only misting, was very calm, and it was kind of nice and quiet…peaceful…and not too cold. I enjoyed it…now…I’d enjoy the early evening just as well with a beautiful, calm, quiet SUNset – lol….

[acemotel]

Complaining seems like a good thing to do tonight. Complaining can actually be a very healthy thing. I don’t get people who say things like: don’t complain! smile! sheeesh. Where in the universe is it written that I must always be happy, never complain, always look on the good side? If I don’t like something, I don’t like it! And I really really don’t like people who drive in the passing lane. oooops, wrong thread.

Someone above put it exactly right. The wind is ……..annoying. In some parts of Europe, there is a wind that rushes down through the valleys (the Mistral in France and Italy; Foehn in Germany) in winter and early spring. Some people think it affects them psychologically, making them out of sorts, irritable, and short tempered.

If only we could channel all that wind energy….

[JoB]

Tish.. i am confused.

after reading your post a second time, i asked myself.. who is Noonan?

the only Noonan i know of is a political reporter named Peggy.. a conservative political reporter.

You can’t be quoting conservatives like Peggy Noonan to be making points about political strategy for democrats… so i must have missed something.

enlighten me please.

in the meantime, i will follow your other link.

…………

ok did that. pretty impressive video by Lawrence Lessig.

But it is based on some fundamental assumptions that might not be true…

That a the image of an unknown black man as a president will be more effective than that of a woman to signal America’s willingness to change.

That Obama has more moral character than Hillary based on selected quotes from her campaign.

That Obama’s speech about opposing the war while a Senate candidate (after we had begun the war if i remember the timing accurately) was equal in weight to Clinton’s vote for a war that we (all of America) were assured would only be a war of last resort.. not an immediate engagement.

That Obama was not inconsistent between his moral stance and his actions because his vote funding the war was a separate matter from his disapproval of the war… overlooking the fact that he campaigned as a progressive yet does not have a more progressive voting record than Hillary Clinton in the Senate.

That because Bill Clinton was unable to carry through his campaign promises with a hostile congress… (and military by the way).. that he lacked moral coourage.

And that implies Hillary will do the same.

Lots more assumptions, but those are some of the basic ones..

I think i could probably sit down with a point to prove and write an equally measured response cherry picking both Obama speeches and Obama campaign materials to support it if i spent the time.

i won’t. (and yes, i hear that immense sigh of relief from the entire blog).

Suffice it to say that he had a point to make and he made it.

it is up to each of us to look at the underlying assumptions and ask ourself if you truly believe them to be accurate.

His arguments, unfortunately, are about the appearance of things.. not necessarily about their substance.

[Tish]

What I think you’re forgetting, however, is that:

1) We, as a nation, are tired of legacy candidates. Not that many people are that enthused about the fact that we have gone from Bush Sr. to Clinton to Bush Jr and possibly, back to Clinton again. That’s over 20+ years of Clinton and Bush! In this sense, people honestly DO want change.

2) The campaigns haven’t gone negative yet. Once they do, people are going to be reminded of ALL of Clinton’s scandals (travelgate, watergate, etc.) and she is going to take a major hit. After enduring all the scandals associated with Clinton and Bush, people are yearning for a candidate who is relatively scandal free.

3) Barack’s wins in the Midwest and in red states (where independents carried him to victory) clearly shows that while Hillary can carries true blue democratic states (like CA and NY) she doesn’t have the ability to pull in independents or Republicans to the degree that Obama can. This fact is not going to go away…even if she does win the nomination.

4) Last but not least, I wouldn’t discount Peggy Noonan’s predictions. After all, Bill Clinton recently hurt Hillary’s campaign (and was credited with helping her lose South Carolina) for making comments that others perceived as racist (they weren’t in my opinion). People ARE weary to attack Obama because they will be accused on being a racist. It’s the Clarence Thomas senate confirmation hearings (where Dems were afraid to attack his record for fear of being perceived as racist) all over again. It’s a simple fact.

I agree with you that we’ll have a win win either way. I still think, however, that Obama is our best choice.

[Tish]

I am basing my vote for Obama on his polcies and sound judgement. In addiiton, I happen to believe what Noonan said today on his blog is true:

“Mrs. Clinton is stoking the idea that Mr. Obama is too soft to withstand the dread Republican attack machine. (I nod in tribute to all Democrats who have succeeded in removing the phrase “Republican and Democratic attack machines” from the political lexicon. Both parties have them.) But Mr. Obama will not be easy for Republicans to attack. He will be hard to get at, hard to address. There are many reasons, but a primary one is that the fact of his race will freeze them. No one, no candidate, no party, no heavy-breathing consultant, will want to cross any line–lines that have never been drawn, that are sure to be shifting and not always visible–in approaching the first major-party African-American nominee for president of the United States.

He is the brilliant young black man as American dream. No consultant, no matter how opportunistic and hungry, will think it easy–or professionally desirable–to take him down in a low manner. If anything, they’ve learned from the Clintons in South Carolina what that gets you. (I add that yes, there are always freelance mental cases, who exist on both sides and are empowered by modern technology. They’ll make their YouTubes. But the mad are ever with us, and this year their work will likely stay subterranean.)

With Mr. Obama the campaign will be about issues. “He’ll raise your taxes.” He will, and I suspect Americans may vote for him anyway. But the race won’t go low.

Mrs. Clinton would be easier for Republicans. With her cavalcade of scandals, they’d be delighted to go at her. They’d get medals for it. Consultants would get rich on it.

The Democrats have it exactly wrong. Hillary is the easier candidate, Mr. Obama the tougher. Hillary brings negative; it’s fair to hit her back with negative. Mr. Obama brings hope, and speaks of a better way. He’s not Bambi, he’s bulletproof.

The biggest problem for the Republicans will be that no matter what they say that is not issue oriented–“He’s too young, he’s never run anything, he’s not fully baked”–the mainstream media will tag them as dealing in racial overtones, or undertones. You can bet on this. Go to the bank on it.

The Democrats continue not to recognize what they have in this guy. Believe me, Republican professionals know. They can tell. “

Enough said.

[Tish]

I don’t understand why you think that Obama will be pummelled and not Hillary. As Noonan said on his blog earlier today:

“Mrs. Clinton is stoking the idea that Mr. Obama is too soft to withstand the dread Republican attack machine. (I nod in tribute to all Democrats who have succeeded in removing the phrase “Republican and Democratic attack machines” from the political lexicon. Both parties have them.) But Mr. Obama will not be easy for Republicans to attack. He will be hard to get at, hard to address. There are many reasons, but a primary one is that the fact of his race will freeze them. No one, no candidate, no party, no heavy-breathing consultant, will want to cross any line–lines that have never been drawn, that are sure to be shifting and not always visible–in approaching the first major-party African-American nominee for president of the United States.

He is the brilliant young black man as American dream. No consultant, no matter how opportunistic and hungry, will think it easy–or professionally desirable–to take him down in a low manner. If anything, they’ve learned from the Clintons in South Carolina what that gets you. (I add that yes, there are always freelance mental cases, who exist on both sides and are empowered by modern technology. They’ll make their YouTubes. But the mad are ever with us, and this year their work will likely stay subterranean.)

With Mr. Obama the campaign will be about issues. “He’ll raise your taxes.” He will, and I suspect Americans may vote for him anyway. But the race won’t go low.

Mrs. Clinton would be easier for Republicans. With her cavalcade of scandals, they’d be delighted to go at her. They’d get medals for it. Consultants would get rich on it.

The Democrats have it exactly wrong. Hillary is the easier candidate, Mr. Obama the tougher. Hillary brings negative; it’s fair to hit her back with negative. Mr. Obama brings hope, and speaks of a better way. He’s not Bambi, he’s bulletproof.

The biggest problem for the Republicans will be that no matter what they say that is not issue oriented–“He’s too young, he’s never run anything, he’s not fully baked”–the mainstream media will tag them as dealing in racial overtones, or undertones. You can bet on this. Go to the bank on it.

The Democrats continue not to recognize what they have in this guy. Believe me, Republican professionals know. They can tell. “

Enough said.

[WSB]

Guys, I need to step in here. We obviously keep a little more distance from the forums than from comments on the main page. But the intent here is not to have anything devolve into no more than a Stranger-style or HorsesAss.org-style back-and-forth. That is not what WSB is about, either the forums or the main page. And without saying any more, because we generally do not divulge the information we are privy to via administrative privilege, I have to say that the assumptions some of you seem to be making about some participants are not necessarily true. At any rate, I would like to not have to make rules and regulations regarding the tone of discussion, which you then will of course decide if you want to abide by or want to take your business elsewhere. So far, the most serious action I’ve had to take wrt the forums is deleting user accounts for obvious spammers, and I’m hopeful that’s as heavyhanded as I’ll ever have to get. So I’ll say it now: I’m not running a complete free-for-all, and I’d like you all to respect that. Also a terminology correction for someone who said this somewhere in this thread. You are not a BLOGGER if you are in a forum or leaving a comment on a blog. The blogger is the person who writes the main content for the blog. That would be me, for this particular website, anyway. Just a point of accuracy. You can have your own blog somewhere and be a blogger, but posting in a forum is not “blogging.” Thanks.

[TheHouse]

Cha-Ching. I’m glad that my little nuggest of an analogy brewed all night and became a yummy cup of coffee.

Both Clinton and Obama support immediate withdrawl, which would immediately turn Iraq into an even larger breeding ground of terrorism and would most likely be worse for the citizens of Iraq.

I agree that the situation needs to be repaired, but I do not believe the two leading Democratic candidates or the apparent Republican front runner (McCain) are the best people for the job.

I also would hope that you understand that you will not effectively fix the situation “NOW”. It will take many years to withdraw and in many phases. With potential military force needed in Iran and North Korea, you might see our troops shift to those areas as well.

I’m glad I started all of this dialouge. Time for a new topic.

[JoB]

House.. now that is a very constructive idea… and it sounds like the money isn’t bad either.

but I don’t get your analogy for the auto accident. 911 involved the united states and Al Quaida terrorists.

Can’t say this clearly enough.

Saddam (Iraq) wasn’t in either car. They weren’t driving either car. (Egyptians) They didn’t finance either car. (again.. a lot of it came from Egyptians) They didn’t own either car. They didn’t insure either car. They didn’t tell either car where to go. (Osama Bin Laden) They didn’t tamper with streetlights or stop signs. The didn’t teach the drivers how to drive. They weren’t distracting the drivers. They weren’t even at the scene of the accident.

Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with 911.

They are largely muslim. Saddam was a dictator and did terrorize his own people. Could i say that again… his own people. He was not a nice guy. But he and Iraq had nothing to do with 911.

Saddam may have financed other terrorist acts.. never any related to Al Quaida. Osama Bin Laden was an Egyptian. That may not have meant much to us, but it sure meant a lot to saddam. He never would have financed anything that would lead to an Egyptian gaining more power.. . this is not and never was, rocket science.

911 was just the excuse we used to invade his country and depose him. Thanks to us, the Iraqi people are now dealing with Al Quaida’s terrorism. Our bad.

saying it doesn’t make it so.

[TheHouse]

JoB, once again I will use my analogy of stopping at a car accident and pointing fingers at both drivers involved as they lay on the pavement bleeding.

All of your ramblings has created a positve outcome though. Through my research I just realized that there is a $50 million reward for information leading to the capture of Osama bin Laden and the Pilots Union will throw in another $2 million. Screw blogging….I’m going to start looking for his ass!

[JoB]

New Resident, whether we personally knew someone who was directly affected by 911 or not, we were all affected by that tragedy.

I don’t think the person who made that remark meant to say that we weren’t affected, just that our lives have not been impacted in the way the lives of the Iraqi people have.

We were all affected. Our children will look back to where they were on that day the same way i look back to where i was the day kennedy was shot. it is a pivotal turning point in all our lives.

That said, it is important to focus our resulting rage on those who perpetrated that terrorist act.

What would i have done?

I would have pursued the Al Quaida by any and all means possible.

I would have let Pakistan know that it wasn’t ok to harbor them across the border and if neccessary i would have used clandestine surgical strikes… e\whether the Pakistani govt agreed or not.

I would have put pressure on Egypt to stop terrorist dollars from passing through their citizens to terrorist networks around the world.

I would have asked for worldwide assistance in shutting down any banking system willing to harbor funds from know Al Quaida operatives.

I would have immediately hired more middle eastern interpreters in our intelligence community.

I would have funded and followed up with the best medical care and counseling possible for all those who went into the disaster and participated in the cleanup of 911.

i would have taken alesson from England’s many years of dealing with irish terrorists. You don’t persecute the people, you prosecute terrorists.

I would have asked the muslim world to join in condemning senseless acts of violence perpetrated on innocent people.

I would have invested in aid programs around the world for muslim people living in destitution. In short.. i would have killed them with kindness.

I am assuming that you don’t want to know what i wouldn’t have done because that list would take a long time.

My very conservative republican niece once asked me why i supported terrorists when we were discussing the war… her approval.. my condemnation.

I will tell you what i told her. Not supporting the war in Iraq is not unpatriotic. It doesn’t mean i support terrorism. It simply means that i think we should have warred against the terrorists who warred against us… not Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi people.

I fully support our troops. I support actually spending the money to adequately equip them. i think it is a disgrace that families in the states have to hold fundraisers to provide their sons and daughters in the guard with adequate military gear.

I support their families. I support paying them adequately while they are in service. I think it is a disgrace that many of their families are forced to welfare programs just to exist.

I support giving guard members who serve the same kind of benefits we give regular military… all of the same protections as to length and number of tours and the same kind of benefits when they come home.

I support stepping up to the plate and actually providing the kind of services they need when they come home… medical care… housing assistance… job assistance… education benefits…etc.

I support a draft if that is what it will take to stop extending the active status of our soldiers well past their agreed upon discharge dates.

I think if we are going to war… we ought to treat the military who are waging that war for us very well.

I would rather we weren’t there. i would not have put us there. i don’t know if any other president … including our current president’s father… would have done so under the circumstances.

Iraq had nothing to do with 911.

In spite of every justification so far fed to us, that war has nothing to do with 911.

It is time to stop citing 911 it as though it has relevance to the war in Iraq.

I think we owe that to those who lost their lives in a totally senseless act of violence on 911.

We should honor them by responding to what killed them… not by perpetrating some senseless war. how can killing people who had nothing to do with that tragedy ever honor those who lost their lives?

[JoB]

editorials and opinion pieces:) doesn’t it show?

also poetry, short stories and the great american novel that hasn’t hatched yet:( i keep hoping.

i keep saying one of these days i will settle down and complete that book.. but it hasn’t happened yet.

i now believe i have something to say.. i just can’t seem to settle long enough to write it. i am too busy living.

today i drove around the perimeter of the peninsula, went grocery shopping, made cabbage soup, wasted a perfectly good hour watching eagles over the sound from my front room window and took the dogs for a walk in Lincoln park… and i blogged and did email… oh and wash.. and some cleaning. you know, stuff.

somehow stuff seems to take up a lot of my time.

I fogot, i did make a new phone friend. That’s good.

and sometimes i still write pieces here and there. but mostly, i live.

thanks for liking the analogy.

you know.. just life.

[Anonymous]

JoB- Loved the analogy! I noticed that you were a writer and I’m curious what context you wrote in?

[Ken]

Nice JoB JoB :)

Those interested in one of the “sources” some here would use to refute the statements JoB is making, should find this series interesting.

Sure it is on Daily KOS, but the words quoted are indeed the insane lies and crazier opinions of those 23% who would have us believe that Bush was right to invade Iraq.

William Kristol is neither stupid nor uneducated.

This does not seem to stop him from letting his ideology overrule the evidence, the history of the region, or the reports from those on the ground.

Also note, as “Dan Quayle’s Brain” in the Regan Administration, he knew first hand much of the information he continually seems to ignore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kristol

So fire up your link following tabbed browser and follow along the twisted talking points path that the wingnuts follow blindly and at deliberate speed.

Punditry Kristolized

by BarbinMD

After a New York Times editorial page editor defended the hiring of William Kristol by making the laughable claim that he was, “a serious, respected conservative intellectual,” I was inspired to put together a collection that would show how often and overwhelmingly wrong Kristol has been. In Part I of this series, Kristol’s relentless drum beat for war in Iraq was highlighted, while Part II focused on his fearmongering claims about WMD and his later rationalizations when those weapons failed to materialize. And this week I will concentrate on Kristol’s demonization of those who opposed the war and his rosy assessments of progress in Iraq.

Part 1

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/20/153833/705/250/440121

Part 2

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/27/16475/2488/123/444316

Part 3

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/3/43337/74399

The above series “Kristolizes” one question.

If a pundit is continually and disastrously wrong, why are they still employed as a “pundit?

[JoB]

Ken,

“If he told the truth there would not have been an investigation on this (don’t forget that the Clintons were investigated at least 2 other times as well).”

yes, the Clintons were investigated at least 2 other times before and it was in the wake of the 3rd investigation that they finally found their smoking clinton gun… sorry i couldn’t resist the pun… of a sexual escapade… which they then proceeded to use to embarass the President.

Long story short.. had the Mr Clinton admitted to the sexual escapade up front, there would have been exactly nothing to charge him with. It was only when he tried to keep that incident private… not public… that anything was found after 3 long investigations.

That does nothing to dismiss the fact that the country’s energy had been repeatedly focused on the continuing “need” to investigate the Clintons on any pretext possible. That was a huge waste of taxpayer money and diverted attention from things that we now know should have received a lot more attention.

It’s apparant that you believe in the smoking gun theory… there is no investigation unless there was something to investigate and if nothing was found.. then they just didn’t look far enough. I don’t. i just see it as a tremendous waste of time and energy. And in the end.. much ado about very little.

If you really want the government out of your private business, how do you justify it’s poking it’s nose into Bill Clinton’s? Just because it could.

Well, it can poke itself into yours just as easily… in fact more easily now with the patriot act. Just ask those Americans who have been caught in the crossfire of suspicion because their name is similar to someone else’s or because they happened to marry someone of middle eastern descent.

As for Saddam funding terrorism, again, there were no links to his funding of Al Quaida.. and Al Quaida was responsible for 911.

Was he a terrorist. Yes. He certainly terrorized his own people. Would he have funded terrorist acts against the United states if he had been able to afford them, control them and directly benefit from them. Probably.

But, our own government has done the same. Does that mean that someone should unilaterally invade us and depose our president if someone other than us terrorizes them? Probably not.

old news House. Doesn’t change anything.

“I would ask yourself if you need others to make decisions for you?”

No i don’t.

I resent a bunch of political cronies deciding to spend my countries resources (time, money & attention) on continuing groundless prosecutions such as those that were conducted against the Clintons without asking the American people whether they thought this was worthwhile.

I resent my President deciding that we are going to invade another country and using an unconnected terrorist act as justification.

I resent my congress not being given all the information available before voting to fund such a course because they are entrusted with being the check on such unilateral actions.

I resent the bulk of money for fighting terrorism being spent in Iraq and not directed towards the root of AlQuaida.

I resent the use of private security forces such as Blackwater in Iraq without oversight and the attempt to make them immune from all prosecution. I don’t believe that the American people even know the extent of the use our White House has made of private “security forces” Blackwater in our own country (New Orleans being the most blatant example)…and i don’t remember hearing about congressional authorization for that.

I resent the appropriations for disaster relief in New Orleans being used to fund “urban renewal” instead of aiding the actual victims of that disaster.

I resent that my President decided to trust his “gut feeling” that Global Warming was misrepresented and that his office censored EPA officials who tried to voice the scientific consensus.

No, I don’t want decisions that affect my safety and well being made for me.

I could go on and on as to the number of decisions my President and his office have made for me without asking. In fact, in some cases, totally ignoring and going against public opinion.

Not one of those were decisions were made by the democratic party for me.

So i have to ask about the relevance of that statement Was it was just pandering to emotion?

“I would ask yourself if you feel like a high percentage of your paycheck should go to other people?

It already does. your point?

A high percentage of my paycheck goes to fund a war that i don’t agree with.

A high percentage of my paycheck goes to fund corporate bailouts after their own greed causes them to collapse and carry the rest of the economy down with them… or simply to subsidize their profits.

A high percentage of my paycheck goes to give tax relief to people who don’t need it and didn’t even ask for it while the alternative minimum tax is putting the resulting tax burden right on the backs of middle class wage earners.

As a democrat, I admit, i would prefer that if my government was going to subsidize anything, i prefer people over corporations and those in need over the rich.

if nothing else, as a fiscal conservative, i think it is pure stupidity not to fund prevention programs like basic health care, nutrition, education and after school programs in favor of funding prisons and burdening our health care system by delivering health care to the indigent through the most expensive venue possible… our hospital emergency rooms… Those of us who are insured get to directly pick up the tab for that. That’s all a waste of my money when we could spend less on prevention and get more benefit..

Nothing emotional about that… though i admit i feel very strongly about all of those issues.

You can call that a rant if you like.

As for Ann.. i think all of America has spent far too much time and attention on her misdirection.

And for the last bit.. patriotism. i was careful to define how i used the word patriotism and in that context it is a true statement.

The democrats have had the power to pursue direct investigations of presidential and vice-presidential misconduct for some time and have chosen to focus the nations resources on ending the conflict in Iraq that they probably wouldn’t have chosen if all the facts had been available to them. They have chosen to focus on the nation’s priorities… little things like national security and the economy… over protracted and messy political investigations and subsequent prosecutions.

They haven’t desisted because there isn’t plenty that ought to be investigated and prosecuted… or because their constituents want them to hold back. It just isn’t a justifiable use of resources at this point… it isn’t in the country’s best interests.

Caring about your country’s best interests over your own political gain is patriotism.

I’m done. As Ken has pointed out, there are more important things to do right now.

[JoB]

house,

so i get that you think that it was a good idea for the American taxpayers to spend all of that money digging into Bill Clinton’s one sexual incident with an intern?

I am sure Ken can tell us how much.. i just know it was too much.

And that all out pursuit of this and the resulting American focus on whether we should impeach Bill Clinton for lieing was worth neglecting other issues.. such as national security.

The planning and financing for 911 occurred while America was worried about whether Bill Clinton kept his pants zipped. And Republicans created that discussion.

So you honestly believe all of that was worth the expense to this nation because in the end Bill Clinton tried to weasel out of informing his wife and family on national television that he had sexual contact … not sex… with an intern… and Republicans could rise up in moral outrage and say “he’s a liar”.

Get a grip!

We democrats didn’t treat your President that way even though we had far more reason.

Terrorism didn’t exist in Iraq before 911. It was a dictatorship and Saddam didn’t allow any competition. He killed anyone who tried to amass anything which looked liked power or influence…

And could you please site references for this money that was supposed to have floated through his country?

Wrong country House. The country you are talking about is Egypt.

and you haven’t made a peep about them

The hijackers were Egyptians House, not Iraqis.

As for those infamous Weapons of Mass destruction… we can find Hussein in a hole in the ground but the weapons were there … we just couldn’t find them. Yeah right.

This is a dead horse.

The facts speak for themselves. There were no WMD. Saddam had nothing to do with the terrorist acts on America. We entered a war with no exit strategy and no plan for controlling the massive unrest and resulting long term American presence that Dick Cheney told America was the reason for leaving Iraq quickly the first time.

I can see where you can make some kind of defense for the President being as misled as the rest of us… I suppose he could just be a fool…But there is no getting around Dick Cheney. The videotape of him explaining why getting out of Iraq was in America’s best interests the first time is unequivocal and cites all of our current problems there.

True patriotism is putting aside political maneuvering for the good of the country. And in that respect, democrats are the true patriots.

So huff and puff, call us all unpatriotic if you will House and keep repeating justifications that turned out to be just stories. Tell us how smart Ann Coulter is. Frighten America to death. Your own words betray you.

Now if you want to talk substantive differences between the Republican and Democratic candidates… that might be an interesting conversation. But just getting everyone all riled up so none of us can sleep just isn’t cutting it.

[Bernicki]

Some community centers have “indoor playground” in the gym for ages 5 and younger. They have a variety of different toys and play equipment available at each center. A parent or responsible caregiver 18 or older must be present at all times. It’s drop-in, $2 per visit per child.

Delridge Community Center

T/W/Th 10:30 a.m. – 2:30 p.m.

Fri 12:30 – 2 p.m. and 2:30 – 5:30 p.m.

High Point Community Center

T/Th 10 a.m. – 2 p.m.

Th 4 – 6 p.m.

Fri Noon – 2 p.m.

South Park Community Center

M – F 10 a.m. – 1 p.m.

Here’s where I got the info:

http://www.seattle.gov/parks/centers/Delridge/Winter07.pdf