"He died Oct. 23 of heart failure while mountain biking with friendsin the desert near Moab, Utah"

On 2010-01-07, Edward Dolan wrote:

"Wolf Leverich" wrote in message
...
On 2010-01-07, Edward Dolan wrote:

"Wolf Leverich" wrote in message
...
On 2010-01-07, Edward Dolan wrote:
"Wolf Leverich" wrote in message
[...]
I literally do not know a single person today of normal or
better intelligence who self-describes as conservative.
Everybody of moderate or better intelligence is in hiding
waiting for the idiots to go back to NASCAR and burning
crosses on the lawns of their unfortunate Black neighbors.

That is because you move in very small circles. Americans are right of
center and only an idiot like you would not know that.

Yup, of course. And that's why Obama, a liberal, beat McCain,
a right-of-center candidate, in pretty much a landslide.

We conservatives hated McCain. He was the pick of the liberal mass media,
not conservatives.

Idiot.

And goodie for you. And you all voted for Obama, or stayed
home? Idiot.

Nope, I held my nose and voted for McCain. After all, I am not a
liberal-socialist-communist like Mr. Sherman.

What happened is that Democratic voters who usually are too
lazy to vote actually showed up at the polls, and we got
creamed.

Blacks vote overwhelmingly Dem no matter what. Most Jews also vote Dem for
some strange reason.

This is why we need to keep the Blacks and other liberal
constituencies away from the polls. They outnumber us.
By a lot.

The country is center right, not center left.
[...]

Are you insane? By definition, Obama is where the country *is*.
Is Obama center right? What do words mean to you?

It is possible to have a consistent center right government in
a center left country if you vote and you prevent the left from
doing so. We have done that for years. We failed in 2008.

We will succeed in the future as long as we stay grounded in
reality and understand that there's more of them than us, and
we win by voting and by keeping them from voting.

One of my biggest nightmares is that our people start believing
this center-right hogwash and then failing to vote in the same
way the Democrats do. If we voted like they do, we'd never win
anywhere outside of Utah ...


Republican activist since Barry Goldwater. I just don't
come from the idiots' wing of the party.

Their day has come and gone. It is now time for conservatives to take
charge.

No, you mean "idiots to take charge".

Conservatives don't run deficits.

Conservatives don't expand Medica they're pledged
to kill it.

Conservatives don't waste money on pointless foreign
wars.

You people aren't conservatives: you're idiots. Stop
substituting stupidity for policy in my party.


Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Love, Wolf.

"Wolf Leverich" wrote in message
...
On 2010-01-07, Edward Dolan wrote:

"Wolf Leverich" wrote in message
...
On 2010-01-07, Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
For God's sakes, stop apologizing for being a conservative. It is these
god
damn ****ing liberal assholes who ought to be apologizing. All they
ever
know how to do is to make a mess of everything. They can't even get a
health
care reform bill right. **** 'em!

Yup, boy, the liberals sure made a mess of Iraq, and goddam
them for the invasiveness of the Patriot Act, and this whole
economic mess is their fault.

Iraq may well end up on our side in the war against Islamic terrorism
because Bush had the good sense to change that regime at very little cost
to
us. The economic mess was the end result of Americans spending more than
they had to spend. That is ever the reward of spendthrifts. Obama is only
going to make matters worse.

Idiot, idiot, and more idiot.

The original Baathist regime was a secular Stalinist
organization. The last thing on Earth they would support
was Islamic fundamentalism.

But they were supporting it. But other than that, there were many other
reasons to take out that regime.

What we're gonna leave behind is a Shiite almost-Iran.
Prolly with Sharia law.

Great progress that was.

Not necessarily. After all, there is a sizeable Sunni and Kurdish population
that cannot be ignored. Also the Iraqi Shiites will not cater to Iran.

And "very little cost"? Tell that to 4373 dead soldiers,
and to some tens of thousands with serious physical or
psychological problems. You're not just an idiot, you
obviously think our troops are ****.

Nope, like I said, very little cost. Read your history of WWI and WWII to
get an idea of what true wars cost. The Iraq War was over in a matter of a
few weeks. The insurgency was more a police operation than a war.

And more than $2 trillion in long-term costs from Iraq alone.
Dunno about you, but I wouldn't ordinarily characterize that
as "very little cost".

But I would. See what Obama and the Dems are spending now in comparison.

And the economic mess was caused by deregulated, too-large-to-
fail banks making bad Las Vegas bets. There's a reason why,
even in the midst of the worst recession since the Great
Depression, personal bankrupcies are being filed by well under
1% of consumers but 100% of the banks are on life support in
the form of dozens of explicit and implicit Federal subsidies.

Even so, do not the folks who were getting those loans not have any
responsibility? Let's face it, it was a bubble in the economy brought on by
generalized greed.

And, based on history since 1960, your remark about Obama is
correct but pretty much misses the point. When does the
deficit *really* grow? Under Republicans. Look at the
historical time series.

Bush was not my kind of conservative at all. He also wanted to admit
Mexicans into the US no matter the laws.

Look, STUPID, *we* just screwed up. We screwed up by being
stupid and drifting away from Republican principles. We need
to salute the fact that Bush was a straight-up disaster and
figure out how not to do that again.

Bush will go down in history as a great president for taking on the Islamic
terrorists. He protected the country when it was at risk. Who knows what
Obama is going to do about the problem.

I only wish Cheney had been president instead of Bush. He is a real ass
kicker, not a pretend ass kicker. Poor Obama can't even find his own ass.
Everyone in the world is going to kick his sorry ass. Iran is already
doing
it.
[...]

Right. You wanna replace a drunken, indolent draft-dodger
who managed to at least squeak through Yale with another
draft-dodger who failed to make it through Yale and who is
so stupid and irresponsible that he drinks a few beers,
picks up a gun, and then goes and shoots a friend in the face.

I prefer that presidents not ever be in the military at all. Those who have
been have not turned out to be great presidents. I give you Grant and
Eisenhower as examples. Most commentators at the time regarded Goldwater as
being incredibly stupid.

You want a draft-dodging college failure with a drinking
problem and a lack of personal responsiblity running your
country.

Bush got acceptable grades while at Yale. You and I would most likely flunk
out.

Wow.

Did your mother drop you, or did you just come out of the
womb with a serious intelligence deficit?

Insults roll off me like water off a duck's back.

A Bush-Cheney hater like you could not possibly be a Repub. Get on over and
kiss Obama's ass why don't you!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"Wolf Leverich" wrote in message
...
On 2010-01-07, Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
The country is center right, not center left.
[...]

Are you insane? By definition, Obama is where the country *is*.
Is Obama center right? What do words mean to you?

Obama is not where the country is. He is a mere blip on the radar screen of
presidents.

It is possible to have a consistent center right government in
a center left country if you vote and you prevent the left from
doing so. We have done that for years. We failed in 2008.

We will succeed in the future as long as we stay grounded in
reality and understand that there's more of them than us, and
we win by voting and by keeping them from voting.

One of my biggest nightmares is that our people start believing
this center-right hogwash and then failing to vote in the same
way the Democrats do. If we voted like they do, we'd never win
anywhere outside of Utah ...

I do think the country is ripe for more welfare programs, especially health
care reform. It should have a public option of course and ideally it would
be a single payer system like they have in Canada and Britain. But there is
no appetite for socialism in this country.

Old style Repubs and old style Dems cannot win anymore. The country has
moved beyond that. It is now liberal vs. conservative. Woe betide any Repub
who thinks he can be a moderate. The Dems own that territory. Repubs must
become unabashedly conservatives if they ever want to win at the polls.

Republican activist since Barry Goldwater. I just don't
come from the idiots' wing of the party.

Their day has come and gone. It is now time for conservatives to take
charge.

No, you mean "idiots to take charge".

Conservatives don't run deficits.

Conservatives don't expand Medica they're pledged
to kill it.

Conservatives don't waste money on pointless foreign
wars.

I think you are more libertarian than you are Repub. Repubs (conservatives)
do all those things that you say they don't do. If they didn't do them, they
would never win an election anywhere, except like you said, in Utah. God
bless all those retrograde Mormons.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

On 2010-01-07, Edward Dolan wrote:

"Wolf Leverich" wrote in message
...
On 2010-01-07, Edward Dolan wrote:

"Wolf Leverich" wrote in message
...
On 2010-01-07, Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
For God's sakes, stop apologizing for being a conservative. It is these
god
damn ****ing liberal assholes who ought to be apologizing. All they
ever
know how to do is to make a mess of everything. They can't even get a
health
care reform bill right. **** 'em!

Yup, boy, the liberals sure made a mess of Iraq, and goddam
them for the invasiveness of the Patriot Act, and this whole
economic mess is their fault.

Iraq may well end up on our side in the war against Islamic terrorism
because Bush had the good sense to change that regime at very little cost
to
us. The economic mess was the end result of Americans spending more than
they had to spend. That is ever the reward of spendthrifts. Obama is only
going to make matters worse.

Idiot, idiot, and more idiot.

The original Baathist regime was a secular Stalinist
organization. The last thing on Earth they would support
was Islamic fundamentalism.

But they were supporting it. But other than that, there were many other
reasons to take out that regime.

Cites?

And as far as reasons to take out that regime, those
same reasons would lead us to take out dozens of other
regimes, including regimes we ourselves installed in
places like Chile.


What we're gonna leave behind is a Shiite almost-Iran.
Prolly with Sharia law.

Great progress that was.

Not necessarily. After all, there is a sizeable Sunni and Kurdish population
that cannot be ignored. Also the Iraqi Shiites will not cater to Iran.

Yes, and Tinkerbell may come down and scatter pixie dust
across the country.

We've disarmed the Sunnis. A majority of the country is
Shiite. They have explicit support from across the
Iranian border.

The fact that Iraqi Shiites are prolly not interested in
becoming Iranian pawns does not mean that they're gonna
be a force for modern secularism. Sharia isn't peculiar
to Tehran.


And "very little cost"? Tell that to 4373 dead soldiers,
and to some tens of thousands with serious physical or
psychological problems. You're not just an idiot, you
obviously think our troops are ****.

Nope, like I said, very little cost. Read your history of WWI and WWII to
get an idea of what true wars cost. The Iraq War was over in a matter of a
few weeks. The insurgency was more a police operation than a war.

Idiot.

4373 dead is 4373 dead. For a negative result.


And more than $2 trillion in long-term costs from Iraq alone.
Dunno about you, but I wouldn't ordinarily characterize that
as "very little cost".

But I would. See what Obama and the Dems are spending now in comparison.

Actually, if you untangled the dead hand of Bush's fiscal policies,
HCR is the big recurring cost and at this point it looks like it's
at least tied to compensating tax increases, which means it's
deficit neutral.

Things like Bush's wars, Bush's tax cuts for the rich, and Bush's
expansion of Medicare were not matched with tax increases, so the
last thing they were is deficit neutral.

I don't know how to score TARP, all the implicit subsidies to the
banks, and the stimulus package. TARP and the subsidies were done
by Bush to clean up a Republican-caused mess. Part of the stimulus
prolly ought to be charged to Bush, but Obama clearly didn't choose
the most-bang-for-the-buck stimulus mechanisms and so prolly ought
to be charged for the cost of the program beyond what the most
efficient stimulus would have been.


And the economic mess was caused by deregulated, too-large-to-
fail banks making bad Las Vegas bets. There's a reason why,
even in the midst of the worst recession since the Great
Depression, personal bankrupcies are being filed by well under
1% of consumers but 100% of the banks are on life support in
the form of dozens of explicit and implicit Federal subsidies.

Even so, do not the folks who were getting those loans not have any
responsibility? Let's face it, it was a bubble in the economy brought on by
generalized greed.

Idiot.

The bad loans themselves were a (relatively) trivial part
of the problem. Estimates for end-of-the-day losses on
subprimes are around $400 billion, which in real terms in
not a whole lot scarier than the savings-and-loan crisis
from 20ish years ago.

The actual cause of the banking crisis were CDOs and their
friends, where you had third parties making literal casino
bets on whether loans held by other people would go bad or
not. Unwinding the casino bets, along with uncertainty
about how big or how bad the bets actually were, is what
provoked the credit crisis.


And, based on history since 1960, your remark about Obama is
correct but pretty much misses the point. When does the
deficit *really* grow? Under Republicans. Look at the
historical time series.

Bush was not my kind of conservative at all. He also wanted to admit
Mexicans into the US no matter the laws.

Look, STUPID, *we* just screwed up. We screwed up by being
stupid and drifting away from Republican principles. We need
to salute the fact that Bush was a straight-up disaster and
figure out how not to do that again.

Bush will go down in history as a great president for taking on the Islamic
terrorists. He protected the country when it was at risk. Who knows what
Obama is going to do about the problem.

The stupid generally don't get the opportunity to write
history.

Bush will be remembered as an unimpressive President who
pointlessly invaded Iraq and debased the economy.


I only wish Cheney had been president instead of Bush. He is a real ass
kicker, not a pretend ass kicker. Poor Obama can't even find his own ass.
Everyone in the world is going to kick his sorry ass. Iran is already
doing
it.
[...]

Right. You wanna replace a drunken, indolent draft-dodger
who managed to at least squeak through Yale with another
draft-dodger who failed to make it through Yale and who is
so stupid and irresponsible that he drinks a few beers,
picks up a gun, and then goes and shoots a friend in the face.

I prefer that presidents not ever be in the military at all. Those who have
been have not turned out to be great presidents. I give you Grant and
Eisenhower as examples. Most commentators at the time regarded Goldwater as
being incredibly stupid.

What can I say? If you think draft-dodging is a qualification
for being President ...


You want a draft-dodging college failure with a drinking
problem and a lack of personal responsiblity running your
country.

Bush got acceptable grades while at Yale. You and I would most likely flunk
out.

I graduated from Harvard. With departmental honors. I've
seen Bush's transcript. Singularly unimpressive, even for
a legacy at a school populated by Harvard rejects.


Wow.

Did your mother drop you, or did you just come out of the
womb with a serious intelligence deficit?

Insults roll off me like water off a duck's back.

A Bush-Cheney hater like you could not possibly be a Repub. Get on over and
kiss Obama's ass why don't you!

You bet I'm a Republican. Fiscal conservative, pro-
business, anti-socialism, the whole enchilada. Just
not stupid.


Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Love, Wolf.

"Wolf Leverich" wrote in message
...
On 2010-01-07, Edward Dolan wrote:

"Wolf Leverich" wrote in message
...
[...]
The original Baathist regime was a secular Stalinist
organization. The last thing on Earth they would support
was Islamic fundamentalism.

But they were supporting it. But other than that, there were many other
reasons to take out that regime.

Cites?

It was believed universally at the time that Iraq had weapons of mass
destruction. That was more than reason enough to change the regime.

And as far as reasons to take out that regime, those
same reasons would lead us to take out dozens of other
regimes, including regimes we ourselves installed in
places like Chile.

Chile does not sit on top of the world resources of oil. I think the US
should be the world's cop, but I recognize that most Americans will not
support that position.
[...]

We've disarmed the Sunnis. A majority of the country is
Shiite. They have explicit support from across the
Iranian border.

The Iraqi Shiites are nationalists more than they are Shiites.

The fact that Iraqi Shiites are prolly not interested in
becoming Iranian pawns does not mean that they're gonna
be a force for modern secularism. Sharia isn't peculiar
to Tehran.

But the Shiites in Iraq are stuck with the Sunnis and the Kurds. That will
prevent any extremism.

And "very little cost"? Tell that to 4373 dead soldiers,
and to some tens of thousands with serious physical or
psychological problems. You're not just an idiot, you
obviously think our troops are ****.

Nope, like I said, very little cost. Read your history of WWI and WWII to
get an idea of what true wars cost. The Iraq War was over in a matter of
a
few weeks. The insurgency was more a police operation than a war.

Idiot.

4373 dead is 4373 dead. For a negative result.

God Damn it all the way to Hell and back! Quit ****ing around and look up
the casualties of the main battles of WWI and WWII. 4000 dead is next to
nothing in a nation of 300 million. I think 40,000 people die in this
country every year of motor vehicle accidents. There has got to be something
wrong with the way your brain functions!
[...]

And the economic mess was caused by deregulated, too-large-to-
fail banks making bad Las Vegas bets. There's a reason why,
even in the midst of the worst recession since the Great
Depression, personal bankrupcies are being filed by well under
1% of consumers but 100% of the banks are on life support in
the form of dozens of explicit and implicit Federal subsidies.

Even so, do not the folks who were getting those loans not have any
responsibility? Let's face it, it was a bubble in the economy brought on
by
generalized greed.

Idiot.

The bad loans themselves were a (relatively) trivial part
of the problem. Estimates for end-of-the-day losses on
subprimes are around $400 billion, which in real terms in
not a whole lot scarier than the savings-and-loan crisis
from 20ish years ago.

The actual cause of the banking crisis were CDOs and their
friends, where you had third parties making literal casino
bets on whether loans held by other people would go bad or
not. Unwinding the casino bets, along with uncertainty
about how big or how bad the bets actually were, is what
provoked the credit crisis.

Nope, the crisis was initiated by all the bad loans (mortgages), especially
those by the two government backed loan agencies. Bush tired to correct the
situation on several occasions, but a liberal Congress prevented any
reforms. They wanted the poor to own their own houses.

And, based on history since 1960, your remark about Obama is
correct but pretty much misses the point. When does the
deficit *really* grow? Under Republicans. Look at the
historical time series.

It grows even more under Dems. Clinton was stuck with a Repub Congress which
reined him in.
[...]

Bush will be remembered as an unimpressive President who
pointlessly invaded Iraq and debased the economy.

Bush will be remembered as the president who took on the Islamic terrorists
and began their destruction. No one can debase the economy like free
spending Dems. No comparison at all.
[...]

Bush got acceptable grades while at Yale. You and I would most likely
flunk
out.

I graduated from Harvard. With departmental honors. I've
seen Bush's transcript. Singularly unimpressive, even for
a legacy at a school populated by Harvard rejects.

Bush got gentlemanly C's. That is good enough for anyone. Most scholars are
a pain in the ass. Wilson was an intellectual and one of our worst
presidents.
[...]

You bet I'm a Republican. Fiscal conservative, pro-
business, anti-socialism, the whole enchilada. Just
not stupid.

You've got to win elections. That is the main thing. I am everything you say
you are, but I make allowances for the general welfare. Not every one can
succeed in a dog eat dog kind of society. The welfare state is coming to
this country whether you like it or not. Too many people are not getting a
slice of the pie.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

On 2010-01-07, Edward Dolan wrote:

"Wolf Leverich" wrote in message
...
On 2010-01-07, Edward Dolan wrote:

"Wolf Leverich" wrote in message
...
[...]
The original Baathist regime was a secular Stalinist
organization. The last thing on Earth they would support
was Islamic fundamentalism.

But they were supporting it. But other than that, there were many other
reasons to take out that regime.

Cites?

It was believed universally at the time that Iraq had weapons of mass
destruction. That was more than reason enough to change the regime.

"Universally?" In the intelligence community? I don't think so.
Show some cites.

There was confusion among the public and even Congresscritters,
because the administration was absorbing all the uncertainty.
(Which is intelligence-community-talk that translates roughly
to "lying" in English.)

###

And as far as reasons to take out that regime, those
same reasons would lead us to take out dozens of other
regimes, including regimes we ourselves installed in
places like Chile.

Chile does not sit on top of the world resources of oil. I think the US
should be the world's cop, but I recognize that most Americans will not
support that position.
[...]

Chile just has copper ...


We've disarmed the Sunnis. A majority of the country is
Shiite. They have explicit support from across the
Iranian border.

The Iraqi Shiites are nationalists more than they are Shiites.

Cites?

###

The fact that Iraqi Shiites are prolly not interested in
becoming Iranian pawns does not mean that they're gonna
be a force for modern secularism. Sharia isn't peculiar
to Tehran.

But the Shiites in Iraq are stuck with the Sunnis and the Kurds. That will
prevent any extremism.

Eh? Like it currently prevents bombings?

###

And "very little cost"? Tell that to 4373 dead soldiers,
and to some tens of thousands with serious physical or
psychological problems. You're not just an idiot, you
obviously think our troops are ****.

Nope, like I said, very little cost. Read your history of WWI and WWII to
get an idea of what true wars cost. The Iraq War was over in a matter of
a
few weeks. The insurgency was more a police operation than a war.

Idiot.

4373 dead is 4373 dead. For a negative result.

God Damn it all the way to Hell and back! Quit ****ing around and look up
the casualties of the main battles of WWI and WWII. 4000 dead is next to
nothing in a nation of 300 million. I think 40,000 people die in this
country every year of motor vehicle accidents. There has got to be something
wrong with the way your brain functions!
[...]

And so, by your argument, the deaths in 9/11 were next to nothing.

So remind me why we launched this war?

###

And the economic mess was caused by deregulated, too-large-to-
fail banks making bad Las Vegas bets. There's a reason why,
even in the midst of the worst recession since the Great
Depression, personal bankrupcies are being filed by well under
1% of consumers but 100% of the banks are on life support in
the form of dozens of explicit and implicit Federal subsidies.

Even so, do not the folks who were getting those loans not have any
responsibility? Let's face it, it was a bubble in the economy brought on
by
generalized greed.

Idiot.

The bad loans themselves were a (relatively) trivial part
of the problem. Estimates for end-of-the-day losses on
subprimes are around $400 billion, which in real terms in
not a whole lot scarier than the savings-and-loan crisis
from 20ish years ago.

The actual cause of the banking crisis were CDOs and their
friends, where you had third parties making literal casino
bets on whether loans held by other people would go bad or
not. Unwinding the casino bets, along with uncertainty
about how big or how bad the bets actually were, is what
provoked the credit crisis.

Nope, the crisis was initiated by all the bad loans (mortgages), especially
those by the two government backed loan agencies. Bush tired to correct the
situation on several occasions, but a liberal Congress prevented any
reforms. They wanted the poor to own their own houses.

Cites?

If you look at what happened, you're dealing with elephant-rabbit
stew. The losses due to subprime mortgages are going to be, after
the dust settles, about $400 billion. That's the rabbit. The
elephant is a bunch of bad Las Vegas bets, where there's an issue
even sorting out quite how bad or where the bets are. You don't
have the Federal government injectiong $13-17T of liquidity into
a system that just has an easily-understood $400B problem.

###

And, based on history since 1960, your remark about Obama is
correct but pretty much misses the point. When does the
deficit *really* grow? Under Republicans. Look at the
historical time series.

It grows even more under Dems. Clinton was stuck with a Repub Congress which
reined him in.
[...]

Cites?

You're a moron. If you check the historical time series,
you will observe that the debt has been growing faster under
Republicans than Democrats for the last 50 years or so.

This is, btw, a highly lamentable bit of reality. Maybe
Nixon should be given a pass because he was stuck with
LBJ's war and new social programs, but there's just no
excuse for Reagan or GWB.

###

Bush will be remembered as an unimpressive President who
pointlessly invaded Iraq and debased the economy.

Bush will be remembered as the president who took on the Islamic terrorists
and began their destruction. No one can debase the economy like free
spending Dems. No comparison at all.
[...]

"Free spending Dems"? That is, in fact, oxymoronic since LBJ.
"Free spending Republicans" is the practical reality since 1968.

Look at the time series for deficit growth, dummy.

###

Bush got acceptable grades while at Yale. You and I would most likely
flunk
out.

I graduated from Harvard. With departmental honors. I've
seen Bush's transcript. Singularly unimpressive, even for
a legacy at a school populated by Harvard rejects.

Bush got gentlemanly C's. That is good enough for anyone. Most scholars are
a pain in the ass. Wilson was an intellectual and one of our worst
presidents.
[...]

"Gentlemanly Cs" went away before Bush was there -- grade
inflation, dude. I know with certainty, because I was at
Harvard not so long after GWB was at Yale. "Cs" in graduate
school were literally failing grades then, and "Cs" in an
undergraduate class were prolly the lowest grade a faculty
member would give anyone who was vaguely present.

And yeah, some scholars can be pains in the asses. People
who understand what's going on tend to be intolerant of
opinionated idiots who don't.

###

You bet I'm a Republican. Fiscal conservative, pro-
business, anti-socialism, the whole enchilada. Just
not stupid.

You've got to win elections. That is the main thing. I am everything you say
you are, but I make allowances for the general welfare. Not every one can
succeed in a dog eat dog kind of society. The welfare state is coming to
this country whether you like it or not. Too many people are not getting a
slice of the pie.

Eh?

We'll see.


Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Love, Wolf.

"Wolf Leverich" wrote in message
...
On 2010-01-07, Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
It was believed universally at the time that Iraq had weapons of mass
destruction. That was more than reason enough to change the regime.

"Universally?" In the intelligence community? I don't think so.
Show some cites.

I hope you are not going to tell me that only you knew otherwise.
[...]

The Iraqi Shiites are nationalists more than they are Shiites.

Cites?

Why have they not already welcomed Iran into their territory?
[...]

God Damn it all the way to Hell and back! Quit ****ing around and look up
the casualties of the main battles of WWI and WWII. 4000 dead is next to
nothing in a nation of 300 million. I think 40,000 people die in this
country every year of motor vehicle accidents. There has got to be
something
wrong with the way your brain functions!
[...]

And so, by your argument, the deaths in 9/11 were next to nothing.

Almost next to nothing, just like Pearl Harbor was next to nothing in terms
of individual deaths. It is what it portends that matters.

So remind me why we launched this war?

We, along with the entire world, thought Saddam had weapons of mass
destruction. And he was stupid enough to want us to think exactly that.
[...]

You're a moron. If you check the historical time series,
you will observe that the debt has been growing faster under
Republicans than Democrats for the last 50 years or so.

Did not Johnson vastly expand the government and the spending that went
along with it.

This is, btw, a highly lamentable bit of reality. Maybe
Nixon should be given a pass because he was stuck with
LBJ's war and new social programs, but there's just no
excuse for Reagan or GWB.

I will admit you have a point. But deficit spending is not the be all and
end all of either of those two administrations. Reagan won the Cold War and
Bush kicked Islamic ass. That counts for more with me than anything else.
[...]

Bush got gentlemanly C's. That is good enough for anyone. Most scholars
are
a pain in the ass. Wilson was an intellectual and one of our worst
presidents.
[...]

"Gentlemanly Cs" went away before Bush was there -- grade
inflation, dude. I know with certainty, because I was at
Harvard not so long after GWB was at Yale. "Cs" in graduate
school were literally failing grades then, and "Cs" in an
undergraduate class were prolly the lowest grade a faculty
member would give anyone who was vaguely present.

Like I said, gentlemanly C's are good enough for anyone except scholars.

And yeah, some scholars can be pains in the asses. People
who understand what's going on tend to be intolerant of
opinionated idiots who don't.

So very many scholars do not know how to come to a conclusion. They get lost
in trivia. Politicians know what matters and that is why they rule for
better or worse.
[...]

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

On 06 Jan 2010, "Wolf Leverich" posted some
:

On 2010-01-06, Edward Dolan wrote:

By the way, Einstein was an idiot on any subject except physics.

Eh? Don't know anything about historical figures?


Common sense only comes with age and a bit of experience if you are
lucky enough to have had a parent who had some. All liberals, without
any exceptions whatever, are devoid of common sense. They have read
themselves into a kind of idiocy. I give you Tom Sherman as an
example of the species. He is smart, but he absolutely has no common
sense. I have not made up my mind about you yet.

Ah, all of the sudden I understand. *You* are an idiot.

I literally do not know a single person today of normal or
better intelligence who self-describes as conservative.
Everybody of moderate or better intelligence is in hiding
waiting for the idiots to go back to NASCAR and burning
crosses on the lawns of their unfortunate Black neighbors.

Speaking of common sense, amazing about all those weapons
of mass destruction. And that banking deregulation thing
sure turned out well, didn't it?

Idiots. All idiots.


Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Love, Wolf.


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great
deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others,
Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of
a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will
threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction
and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is
in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a
real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have
always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity.
This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al
Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam
Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and
chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
.... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is
real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003