OT- political...only for republicans

"--riverman" wrote in message
...
We may not be the most edumacated country on earth, but we certainly
are the most entertained.

--riverman

sort of my point, and it's one I have raised in political talks to various
groups for years now. The whole principle of governance laid out for this
nation, and elaborated upon frequently by Jefferson was this: A
representative republic depends on the involvement of an informed populace
with some level of education. We now live in a nation where vastly more of
the eligible electorate can identify the American Idol finalists than the
Justices of the Supreme Court. Where most folks know who Paris Hilton is,
but not who their US Representative is. A nation where an astounding 20%
think the sitting President is a practicing Muslim and 10% think he isn't
even a legal citizen. Is it any wonder that we have the political
representation we do?
All in all, I shudder when I give thought to the path this country is headed
down. It seems clear that we are heading to the oblivion of a fallen empire,
and pretty damned quickly. Can it turn around? Who knows? But, the issue
Jeff cites in the original post in this thread, as stated by Krugman, should
have an obvious response. No, no one is going to step forward, because so
few will care or take notice that it isn't worth the bother to try.
Tom

On Aug 31, 4:23*am, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
wrote in message

...

Where, in all of this, are the responsible adults, the Bill Bradleys, Bob
Doles,
Pat Moynihans and Bill Buckleys...

...or Thomas Jefferson and John Adams...

HTH,
R

essentially beat me to the point. We've cultivated a nation of fools,

well, fools and lickspittles.

g.

On 2010-08-31 21:32:13 -0400, Giles said:

On Aug 31, 4:23*am, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
wrote in message

...

Where, in all of this, are the responsible adults, the Bill Bradleys, B
ob
Doles,
Pat Moynihans and Bill Buckleys...

...or Thomas Jefferson and John Adams...

HTH,
R

essentially beat me to the point. We've cultivated a nation of fools,

well, fools and lickspittles.

g.

snort/snicker/chortle

On Aug 31, 8:46*pm, D. LaCourse wrote:
On 2010-08-31 21:32:13 -0400, Giles said:





On Aug 31, 4:23*am, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
wrote in message

. ..

Where, in all of this, are the responsible adults, the Bill Bradleys, B
ob
Doles,
Pat Moynihans and Bill Buckleys...

...or Thomas Jefferson and John Adams...

HTH,
R

essentially beat me to the point. We've cultivated a nation of fools,

well, fools and lickspittles.

g.

snort/snicker/chortle- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Idiot.

g.

On 8/31/2010 12:56 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 18:04:53 -0400, wrote:

"And where, in all of this, are the responsible Republicans, leaders who
will stand up and say that some partisans are going too far? Nowhere to
be found."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/30/op...e&ref=homepage

Oh, OK...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...wpisrc=nl_most

Where, in all of this, are the responsible adults, the Bill Bradleys, Bob Doles,
Pat Moynihans and Bill Buckleys...

...or Thomas Jefferson and John Adams...

HTH,
R

ck's op/ed column is a regular in my eastern nc papers, so i've read
that one. he's an oddity to me. a brilliant guy, once hard to peg, but
now, like many, too predictable. he generally makes a reasoned argument,
though always from the "conservative", sometimes neo, point of view that
never allows anything other than an adversarial argument against
anything and all things obama. in contrast, if read to its end,
krugman's piece is critical of obama...as have been other of his writings.

still, i think ck and many others are usually off the mark about obama,
but strategically and for election and/or partisan purposes use him as
the easy focus for their larger debate or proselytizing.

this ck piece isn't about the idiots like beck and the foxwits who
foment their particular lunacy to our fahrenheit 451 population, and it
doesn't answer the question posed, does it? but then, you didn't intend
it to serve that purpose did you?

since the ck piece doesn't answer my question...nor does your question,
though i get the point. again...

"And where, in all of this, are the **responsible Republicans**,
**leaders** who will stand up and say that **some partisans** are going
too far?"

jeff

On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:43:04 -0400, jeff wrote:

On 8/31/2010 12:56 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 18:04:53 -0400, wrote:

"And where, in all of this, are the responsible Republicans, leaders who
will stand up and say that some partisans are going too far? Nowhere to
be found."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/30/op...e&ref=homepage

Oh, OK...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...wpisrc=nl_most

Where, in all of this, are the responsible adults, the Bill Bradleys, Bob Doles,
Pat Moynihans and Bill Buckleys...

...or Thomas Jefferson and John Adams...

HTH,
R

ck's op/ed column is a regular in my eastern nc papers, so i've read
that one. he's an oddity to me. a brilliant guy, once hard to peg, but
now, like many, too predictable. he generally makes a reasoned argument,
though always from the "conservative", sometimes neo, point of view that
never allows anything other than an adversarial argument against
anything and all things obama. in contrast, if read to its end,
krugman's piece is critical of obama...as have been other of his writings.

still, i think ck and many others are usually off the mark about obama,
but strategically and for election and/or partisan purposes use him as
the easy focus for their larger debate or proselytizing.

this ck piece isn't about the idiots like beck and the foxwits who
foment their particular lunacy to our fahrenheit 451 population, and it
doesn't answer the question posed, does it? but then, you didn't intend
it to serve that purpose did you?

since the ck piece doesn't answer my question...nor does your question,
though i get the point. again...

"And where, in all of this, are the **responsible Republicans**,
**leaders** who will stand up and say that **some partisans** are going
too far?"

Name these "partisans" and define "too far." I'm not saying I agree with
whoever all you and Krugman have in mind, nor do I say that I disagree with
them, but since Krugman only mentions, specifically, Limbaugh, the Kochs, and
Steve Schwarzman (but fails to mention Soros, etc. on "the Left"), and then,
only a single phrase uttered by Limbaugh and a paraphrasing of a single phrase
by Schwarzman, it's kinda hard to pinpoint just who you and he want these,
"**leaders**" (again, unnamed, save for Bush) to chastise (or muzzle). I did
notice in both pieces that Krugman and Krauthammer extensively use all-inclusive
and ill-defined plurals (the good ol' "we" and "they") in their accusations.

The problem, as I see it, is that neither "liberalism" or "conservatism" have
failed, but rather, the "labels" have been appropriated by many who don't have a
clue (and worse, a care) of what _any_ of it actually means. And this includes
those who claim to be "liberals" using "conservative" as a slur and vice-versa.

Both classical liberalism and "modern" liberalism have some good ideas as well
as some great _ideals_, that, unfortunately, simply won't work in current
society, and the same is true of conservatism. Unfortunately, it appears that
the vast majority of the squeakiest wheels claiming title to one and
condescendingly slurring with the other have no clue or care about such.

These folks have simply used, ahem, "talking points" that they don't truly
understand, about issues they don't really care, to further their own _personal_
desires for what they perceive as "power," "fame," personal "wealth," reelection
for reelection's sake, etc. The US has created a society in which a large
portion of the population, on all levels, presumes itself somehow entitled, from
the multi-generational welfare "clients" to the Paris Hiltons and Lindsay Lohans
who presume themselves entitled to act in any fashion to the Obamas, Limbaughs,
Axelrods, Becks, etc., who presume that they are somehow, for some unexplained
reason, _entitled_ to be not only _correct_ in their opinions at all times, but
have the right to dictate what's correct for others.

One need look no further than the housing market - the idea that _everyone_ is
_entitled_ to _owning_ a home is ridiculous, and the idea that _anyone_ is
_entitled_ to granite counters, high-end cabinets, 3 1/2 bathrooms, and a 2-car
garage (much less 2 cars) is totally preposterous. Hell, in many cities in the
US, buying and "fixing up" what were originally "starter homes" is/was a popular
fad among relatively affluent, generally younger, people. Many millionaires
live in (comparatively) small urban apartments. Yet, somehow, many of those
with $30-40K yearly incomes have come to believe they are _entitled_ to
3,000-plus SF (and larger) homes with all sorts of "upgrades."

Until the wholesale "entitlement" problem (and no, I do not mean things like
milk for kids or food and shelter for those who legitimately cannot provide, all
or in part, for themselves) is addressed, throwing more and more money into the
pit will not ever fill it up because it too many folks are shoveling just as
fast as they ****ing can.

TC,
R

jeff

On Aug 31, 8:02*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:43:04 -0400, jeff wrote:
On 8/31/2010 12:56 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 18:04:53 -0400, *wrote:

"And where, in all of this, are the responsible Republicans, leaders who
will stand up and say that some partisans are going too far? Nowhere to
be found."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/30/op...l?_r=1&src=me&...

Oh, OK...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...10/08/26/AR201....

Where, in all of this, are the responsible adults, the Bill Bradleys, Bob Doles,
Pat Moynihans and Bill Buckleys...

...or Thomas Jefferson and John Adams...

HTH,
R

ck's op/ed column is a regular in my eastern nc papers, so i've read
that one. he's an oddity to me. a brilliant guy, once hard to peg, but
now, like many, too predictable. he generally makes a reasoned argument,
though always from the "conservative", sometimes neo, point of view that
never allows anything other than an adversarial argument against
anything and all things obama. in contrast, if read to its end,
krugman's piece is critical of obama...as have been other of his writings.

still, i think ck and many others are usually off the mark about obama,
but strategically and for election and/or partisan purposes use him as
the easy focus for their larger debate or proselytizing.

this ck piece isn't about the idiots like beck and the foxwits who
foment their particular lunacy to our fahrenheit 451 population, and it
doesn't answer the question posed, does it? *but then, you didn't intend
it to serve that purpose did you?

since the ck piece doesn't answer my question...nor does your question,
though i get the point. *again...

"And where, in all of this, are the **responsible Republicans**,
**leaders** who will stand up and say that **some partisans** are going
too far?"

Name these "partisans" and define "too far." *I'm not saying I agree with
whoever all you and Krugman have in mind, nor do I say that I disagree with
them, but since Krugman only mentions, specifically, Limbaugh, the Kochs, and
Steve Schwarzman (but fails to mention Soros, etc. on "the Left"), and then,
only a single phrase uttered by Limbaugh and a paraphrasing of a single phrase
by Schwarzman, it's kinda hard to pinpoint just who you and he want these,
"**leaders**" (again, unnamed, save for Bush) to chastise (or muzzle). *I did
notice in both pieces that Krugman and Krauthammer extensively use all-inclusive
and ill-defined plurals (the good ol' "we" and "they") in their accusations.

The problem, as I see it, is that neither "liberalism" or "conservatism" have
failed, but rather, the "labels" have been appropriated by many who don't have a
clue (and worse, a care) of what _any_ of it actually means. *And this includes
those who claim to be "liberals" using "conservative" as a slur and vice-versa.

Both classical liberalism and "modern" liberalism have some good ideas as well
as some great _ideals_, that, unfortunately, simply won't work in current
society, and the same is true of conservatism. *Unfortunately, it appears that
the vast majority of the squeakiest wheels claiming title to one and
condescendingly slurring with the other have no clue or care about such.

These folks have simply used, ahem, "talking points" that they don't truly
understand, about issues they don't really care, to further their own _personal_
desires for what they perceive as "power," "fame," personal "wealth," reelection
for reelection's sake, etc. *The US has created a society in which a large
portion of the population, on all levels, presumes itself somehow entitled, from
the multi-generational welfare "clients" to the Paris Hiltons and Lindsay Lohans
who presume themselves entitled to act in any fashion to the Obamas, Limbaughs,
Axelrods, Becks, etc., who presume that they are somehow, for some unexplained
reason, _entitled_ to be not only _correct_ in their opinions at all times, but
have the right to dictate what's correct for others.

One need look no further than the housing market - the idea that _everyone_ is
_entitled_ to _owning_ a home is ridiculous, and the idea that _anyone_ is
_entitled_ to granite counters, high-end cabinets, 3 1/2 bathrooms, and a 2-car
garage (much less 2 cars) is totally preposterous. *Hell, in many cities in the
US, buying and "fixing up" what were originally "starter homes" is/was a popular
fad among relatively affluent, generally younger, people. *Many millionaires
live in (comparatively) small urban apartments. *Yet, somehow, many of those
with $30-40K yearly incomes have come to believe they are _entitled_ to
3,000-plus SF (and larger) homes with all sorts of "upgrades." *

Until the wholesale "entitlement" problem (and no, I do not mean things like
milk for kids or food and shelter for those who legitimately cannot provide, all
or in part, for themselves) is addressed, throwing more and more money into the
pit will not ever fill it up because it too many folks are shoveling just as
fast as they ****ing can.

TC,
R


Horse****.

Idiot.

g.

On 8/31/2010 9:02 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:43:04 -0400, wrote:

On 8/31/2010 12:56 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 18:04:53 -0400, wrote:

"And where, in all of this, are the responsible Republicans, leaders who
will stand up and say that some partisans are going too far? Nowhere to
be found."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/30/op...e&ref=homepage

Oh, OK...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...wpisrc=nl_most

Where, in all of this, are the responsible adults, the Bill Bradleys, Bob Doles,
Pat Moynihans and Bill Buckleys...

...or Thomas Jefferson and John Adams...

HTH,
R

ck's op/ed column is a regular in my eastern nc papers, so i've read
that one. he's an oddity to me. a brilliant guy, once hard to peg, but
now, like many, too predictable. he generally makes a reasoned argument,
though always from the "conservative", sometimes neo, point of view that
never allows anything other than an adversarial argument against
anything and all things obama. in contrast, if read to its end,
krugman's piece is critical of obama...as have been other of his writings.

still, i think ck and many others are usually off the mark about obama,
but strategically and for election and/or partisan purposes use him as
the easy focus for their larger debate or proselytizing.

this ck piece isn't about the idiots like beck and the foxwits who
foment their particular lunacy to our fahrenheit 451 population, and it
doesn't answer the question posed, does it? but then, you didn't intend
it to serve that purpose did you?

since the ck piece doesn't answer my question...nor does your question,
though i get the point. again...

"And where, in all of this, are the **responsible Republicans**,
**leaders** who will stand up and say that **some partisans** are going
too far?"

Name these "partisans" and define "too far." I'm not saying I agree with
whoever all you and Krugman have in mind, nor do I say that I disagree with
them, but since Krugman only mentions, specifically, Limbaugh, the Kochs, and
Steve Schwarzman (but fails to mention Soros, etc. on "the Left"), and then,
only a single phrase uttered by Limbaugh and a paraphrasing of a single phrase
by Schwarzman, it's kinda hard to pinpoint just who you and he want these,
"**leaders**" (again, unnamed, save for Bush) to chastise (or muzzle). I did
notice in both pieces that Krugman and Krauthammer extensively use all-inclusive
and ill-defined plurals (the good ol' "we" and "they") in their accusations.

The problem, as I see it, is that neither "liberalism" or "conservatism" have
failed, but rather, the "labels" have been appropriated by many who don't have a
clue (and worse, a care) of what _any_ of it actually means. And this includes
those who claim to be "liberals" using "conservative" as a slur and vice-versa.

Both classical liberalism and "modern" liberalism have some good ideas as well
as some great _ideals_, that, unfortunately, simply won't work in current
society, and the same is true of conservatism. Unfortunately, it appears that
the vast majority of the squeakiest wheels claiming title to one and
condescendingly slurring with the other have no clue or care about such.

These folks have simply used, ahem, "talking points" that they don't truly
understand, about issues they don't really care, to further their own _personal_
desires for what they perceive as "power," "fame," personal "wealth," reelection
for reelection's sake, etc. The US has created a society in which a large
portion of the population, on all levels, presumes itself somehow entitled, from
the multi-generational welfare "clients" to the Paris Hiltons and Lindsay Lohans
who presume themselves entitled to act in any fashion to the Obamas, Limbaughs,
Axelrods, Becks, etc., who presume that they are somehow, for some unexplained
reason, _entitled_ to be not only _correct_ in their opinions at all times, but
have the right to dictate what's correct for others.

One need look no further than the housing market - the idea that _everyone_ is
_entitled_ to _owning_ a home is ridiculous, and the idea that _anyone_ is
_entitled_ to granite counters, high-end cabinets, 3 1/2 bathrooms, and a 2-car
garage (much less 2 cars) is totally preposterous. Hell, in many cities in the
US, buying and "fixing up" what were originally "starter homes" is/was a popular
fad among relatively affluent, generally younger, people. Many millionaires
live in (comparatively) small urban apartments. Yet, somehow, many of those
with $30-40K yearly incomes have come to believe they are _entitled_ to
3,000-plus SF (and larger) homes with all sorts of "upgrades."

Until the wholesale "entitlement" problem (and no, I do not mean things like
milk for kids or food and shelter for those who legitimately cannot provide, all
or in part, for themselves) is addressed, throwing more and more money into the
pit will not ever fill it up because it too many folks are shoveling just as
fast as they ****ing can.

TC,
R


my inquiry was relatively straightforward, but i reckon it could be seen
as another request for the definition of "is". g

after watching numerous elected republican "politicians" avoid giving a
direct response to the simple question of whether obama is a muslim or
born in america, or refuse to state that they disagree with many of the
absurd statements of Limbaugh, beck, etc, simply because so many of
their constituent "partisans" believe the myth, i understand the "some
partisans" statement to be broader than beck, limbaugh, and the
murdoch-lemminghead$ on fox. (beck is simply jim/tammy baker all over
again imo) they shape and incite and provide "talking points" for the
partisans, who elect the republican politicians (also partisans), who
ooze about with the flow of partisan opinion (stimulated by beck-ites)
to get elected. (...and, i know the broader argument and criticism has
no party or politician barriers, but i was asking republicans about
matters that seemed fairly basic to me.)

thinking we had a number of more resolute, thinking republicans here, i
thought perhaps a few would chime in and expressly disavow the patent
lunacy of "some partisans" in their party. of course, wolfgang was way
ahead of me with regard to the response.

....and, i agree with much of what you say.

jeff

On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 07:55:26 -0400, jeff wrote:

On 8/31/2010 9:02 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:43:04 -0400, wrote:

On 8/31/2010 12:56 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 18:04:53 -0400, wrote:

"And where, in all of this, are the responsible Republicans, leaders who
will stand up and say that some partisans are going too far? Nowhere to
be found."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/30/op...e&ref=homepage

Oh, OK...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...wpisrc=nl_most

Where, in all of this, are the responsible adults, the Bill Bradleys, Bob Doles,
Pat Moynihans and Bill Buckleys...

...or Thomas Jefferson and John Adams...

HTH,
R

ck's op/ed column is a regular in my eastern nc papers, so i've read
that one. he's an oddity to me. a brilliant guy, once hard to peg, but
now, like many, too predictable. he generally makes a reasoned argument,
though always from the "conservative", sometimes neo, point of view that
never allows anything other than an adversarial argument against
anything and all things obama. in contrast, if read to its end,
krugman's piece is critical of obama...as have been other of his writings.

still, i think ck and many others are usually off the mark about obama,
but strategically and for election and/or partisan purposes use him as
the easy focus for their larger debate or proselytizing.

this ck piece isn't about the idiots like beck and the foxwits who
foment their particular lunacy to our fahrenheit 451 population, and it
doesn't answer the question posed, does it? but then, you didn't intend
it to serve that purpose did you?

since the ck piece doesn't answer my question...nor does your question,
though i get the point. again...

"And where, in all of this, are the **responsible Republicans**,
**leaders** who will stand up and say that **some partisans** are going
too far?"

Name these "partisans" and define "too far." I'm not saying I agree with
whoever all you and Krugman have in mind, nor do I say that I disagree with
them, but since Krugman only mentions, specifically, Limbaugh, the Kochs, and
Steve Schwarzman (but fails to mention Soros, etc. on "the Left"), and then,
only a single phrase uttered by Limbaugh and a paraphrasing of a single phrase
by Schwarzman, it's kinda hard to pinpoint just who you and he want these,
"**leaders**" (again, unnamed, save for Bush) to chastise (or muzzle). I did
notice in both pieces that Krugman and Krauthammer extensively use all-inclusive
and ill-defined plurals (the good ol' "we" and "they") in their accusations.

The problem, as I see it, is that neither "liberalism" or "conservatism" have
failed, but rather, the "labels" have been appropriated by many who don't have a
clue (and worse, a care) of what _any_ of it actually means. And this includes
those who claim to be "liberals" using "conservative" as a slur and vice-versa.

Both classical liberalism and "modern" liberalism have some good ideas as well
as some great _ideals_, that, unfortunately, simply won't work in current
society, and the same is true of conservatism. Unfortunately, it appears that
the vast majority of the squeakiest wheels claiming title to one and
condescendingly slurring with the other have no clue or care about such.

These folks have simply used, ahem, "talking points" that they don't truly
understand, about issues they don't really care, to further their own _personal_
desires for what they perceive as "power," "fame," personal "wealth," reelection
for reelection's sake, etc. The US has created a society in which a large
portion of the population, on all levels, presumes itself somehow entitled, from
the multi-generational welfare "clients" to the Paris Hiltons and Lindsay Lohans
who presume themselves entitled to act in any fashion to the Obamas, Limbaughs,
Axelrods, Becks, etc., who presume that they are somehow, for some unexplained
reason, _entitled_ to be not only _correct_ in their opinions at all times, but
have the right to dictate what's correct for others.

One need look no further than the housing market - the idea that _everyone_ is
_entitled_ to _owning_ a home is ridiculous, and the idea that _anyone_ is
_entitled_ to granite counters, high-end cabinets, 3 1/2 bathrooms, and a 2-car
garage (much less 2 cars) is totally preposterous. Hell, in many cities in the
US, buying and "fixing up" what were originally "starter homes" is/was a popular
fad among relatively affluent, generally younger, people. Many millionaires
live in (comparatively) small urban apartments. Yet, somehow, many of those
with $30-40K yearly incomes have come to believe they are _entitled_ to
3,000-plus SF (and larger) homes with all sorts of "upgrades."

Until the wholesale "entitlement" problem (and no, I do not mean things like
milk for kids or food and shelter for those who legitimately cannot provide, all
or in part, for themselves) is addressed, throwing more and more money into the
pit will not ever fill it up because it too many folks are shoveling just as
fast as they ****ing can.

TC,
R


my inquiry was relatively straightforward, but i reckon it could be seen
as another request for the definition of "is". g

after watching numerous elected republican "politicians" avoid giving a
direct response to the simple question of whether obama is a muslim or
born in america, or refuse to state that they disagree with many of the
absurd statements of Limbaugh, beck, etc, simply because so many of
their constituent "partisans" believe the myth, i understand the "some
partisans" statement to be broader than beck, limbaugh, and the
murdoch-lemminghead$ on fox. (beck is simply jim/tammy baker all over
again imo) they shape and incite and provide "talking points" for the
partisans, who elect the republican politicians (also partisans), who
ooze about with the flow of partisan opinion (stimulated by beck-ites)
to get elected. (...and, i know the broader argument and criticism has
no party or politician barriers, but i was asking republicans about
matters that seemed fairly basic to me.)

thinking we had a number of more resolute, thinking republicans here, i
thought perhaps a few would chime in and expressly disavow the patent
lunacy of "some partisans" in their party. of course, wolfgang was way
ahead of me with regard to the response.

Sorry, but I cannot comment, positively or negatively, on the vast majority of
what Limbaugh, Beck, Matthews, Olberman, etc., etc., etc. say because I do not
listen to or watch any of them. IME, they are little more than entertainers and
none of them are in the least bit entertaining for me. If someone/some other
source doesn't tell me about a particular statement, I'd never know it had been
made. And frankly, I don't give any of them enough thought to have a strong
opinion beyond the fact that I'm not terribly interested in whatever their
latest shtick might be. But that said, I don't think any of them should be
censored or otherwise interfered with, as long as whatever they say is protected
speech.

As to the specifics of Limbaugh making whatever comments about Obama's being a
Muslim and his place of birth, here are my positions:

1) I don't give a flying **** if Obama (or any other pol) is a Muslim, a Jew, a
Christian or an atheist - it's his business. It appears to me that the man has
tried very hard to keep it his business, too. I guess if I had to offer a
_preference_, it'd be that he (or any other pol, US or otherwise) would be a
decent man of personal faith rather than religion, and by a happy coincidence,
that is exactly what he appears to be.

2) Where he was born - from all the reasonable evidence offered thus far, it
seems pretty clear he was born in Hawaii, but if not, it is a non-issue. Under
the intent of Constitution, he is eligible to be POTUS. Bury that issue and
then bury the shovel.

...and, i agree with much of what you say.

TC,
R

jeff

On Sep 1, 6:55*am, jeff wrote:


thinking we had a number of more resolute, thinking republicans here, i
thought perhaps a few would chime in and expressly disavow the patent
lunacy of "some partisans" in their party.

Hope springs eternal, they say.

of course, wolfgang was way
ahead of me with regard to the response.

Cheap trick.

You see a hole? You bet a shiny new nickel that the next thing that
pops up out of it is a ****-weasel.

You win vastly more often than you lose.

...and, i agree with much of what you say.

The road to drink.

giles