🚀 go-pugleaf

No, Bush sold YOUR soul instead.  And you gave it to him on a silver
platter.  If you seek his monuments, look about you today... be sure
to celebrate his departure with the same cheering fanatical fascism
with which you voted for him.  Bow down before the one you serve.


Bush reflects on his legacy
President wants to be remembered as someone who did not 'sell his
soul'' for political expediency
By KEN HERMAN Cox News Service
Nov. 28, 2008, 9:44PM

WASHINGTON � President George W. Bush, famously disinterested in
public introspection, opened up a bit in a recent interview by a
friendly questioner, his sister, Doro Bush Koch.

"I would like to be a person remembered as a person who, first and
foremost, did not sell his soul in order to accommodate the political
process," Bush told his sister in an interview released Friday by the
White House. "I came to Washington with a set of values, and I'm
leaving with the same set of values."

The interview of Bush and his wife, Laura, was conducted on Nov. 12 as
part of the StoryCorps project of collecting oral histories. A portion
of it was aired Thursday on National Public Radio. Additional excerpts
were released Friday. The full interview will be archived at the
Library of Congress.

The excerpts released Friday began with Koch asking her brother, "How
do you want to be remembered, and what are you most proud of?" The
inquiry produced Bush's answer about not changing his values while in
office.

"And I darn sure wasn't going to sacrifice those values; that I was a
president that had to make tough choices and was willing to make
them," he said. "I surrounded myself with good people. I carefully
considered the advice of smart, capable people and made tough
decisions," he said.

Iraq liberator; AIDS effort
The excerpts were released as the White House prepared to defend
Bush's legacy in the coming weeks.

"I'd like to be a president (known) as somebody who liberated 50
million people and helped achieve peace; that focused on individuals
rather than process; that rallied people to serve their neighbor; that
led an effort to help relieve HIV/AIDS and malaria on places like the
continent of Africa; that helped elderly people get prescription drugs
and Medicare as a part of the basic package; that came to Washington,
D.C., with a set of political statements and worked as hard as I
possibly could to do what I told the American people I would do," Bush
said.

He pinpointed the No Child Left Behind education program as "one of
the significant achievements of my administration because we said loud
and clear to educators, parents, and children that we expect the best
for every child, that we believe every child can learn, and that in
return for Federal money we expect there to be an accountability
system in place to determine whether every child is learning to read,
write, and add and subtract."

Koch also asked Bush to describe the influence of their parents. "I
think that the gift our dad gave to all of us is unconditional love,"
Bush said.

"It is the greatest gift a father can give a child. And it has made
life so much easier in many ways, because if you have the ultimate
gift of love, then the difficulties of life can be easier handled. And
to me that is a great gift."

"And he also taught me, and I think you and Jeb and Neil and Marvin,
that you can go into politics with a set of values and you don't have
to sell your soul once you're in the political system. And you can
come out with the same set of values."

Warning about faith
The excerpts concluded with a cautionary note about faith. Bush said
he found that "faith is comforting, faith is strengthening, faith has
been important."

"I would advise politicians, however, to be careful about faith in the
public arena," Bush said. "In other words, politicians should not be
judgmental people based upon their faith. They should recognize, at
least I have recognized, I am a lowly sinner seeking redemption, and
therefore have been very careful about saying (accept) my faith or
you're bad."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/6137681.html

http://teamscrew.com/pics/best%20quote%20ever.jpg

Dude, let it go.  Your anger is consuming you.

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 04:13:21 -0600, Pops Mear <PopsMear@here.usa>
wrote:

>No, Bush sold YOUR soul instead.  And you gave it to him on a silver
>platter.  If you seek his monuments, look about you today... be sure
>to celebrate his departure with the same cheering fanatical fascism
>with which you voted for him.  Bow down before the one you serve.
>
>
>Bush reflects on his legacy
>President wants to be remembered as someone who did not 'sell his
>soul'' for political expediency
>By KEN HERMAN Cox News Service
>Nov. 28, 2008, 9:44PM
>
>WASHINGTON � President George W. Bush, famously disinterested in
>public introspection, opened up a bit in a recent interview by a
>friendly questioner, his sister, Doro Bush Koch.
>
>"I would like to be a person remembered as a person who, first and
>foremost, did not sell his soul in order to accommodate the political
>process," Bush told his sister in an interview released Friday by the
>White House. "I came to Washington with a set of values, and I'm
>leaving with the same set of values."
>
>The interview of Bush and his wife, Laura, was conducted on Nov. 12 as
>part of the StoryCorps project of collecting oral histories. A portion
>of it was aired Thursday on National Public Radio. Additional excerpts
>were released Friday. The full interview will be archived at the
>Library of Congress.
>
>The excerpts released Friday began with Koch asking her brother, "How
>do you want to be remembered, and what are you most proud of?" The
>inquiry produced Bush's answer about not changing his values while in
>office.
>
>"And I darn sure wasn't going to sacrifice those values; that I was a
>president that had to make tough choices and was willing to make
>them," he said. "I surrounded myself with good people. I carefully
>considered the advice of smart, capable people and made tough
>decisions," he said.
>
>Iraq liberator; AIDS effort
>The excerpts were released as the White House prepared to defend
>Bush's legacy in the coming weeks.
>
>"I'd like to be a president (known) as somebody who liberated 50
>million people and helped achieve peace; that focused on individuals
>rather than process; that rallied people to serve their neighbor; that
>led an effort to help relieve HIV/AIDS and malaria on places like the
>continent of Africa; that helped elderly people get prescription drugs
>and Medicare as a part of the basic package; that came to Washington,
>D.C., with a set of political statements and worked as hard as I
>possibly could to do what I told the American people I would do," Bush
>said.
>
>He pinpointed the No Child Left Behind education program as "one of
>the significant achievements of my administration because we said loud
>and clear to educators, parents, and children that we expect the best
>for every child, that we believe every child can learn, and that in
>return for Federal money we expect there to be an accountability
>system in place to determine whether every child is learning to read,
>write, and add and subtract."
>
>Koch also asked Bush to describe the influence of their parents. "I
>think that the gift our dad gave to all of us is unconditional love,"
>Bush said.
>
>"It is the greatest gift a father can give a child. And it has made
>life so much easier in many ways, because if you have the ultimate
>gift of love, then the difficulties of life can be easier handled. And
>to me that is a great gift."
>
>"And he also taught me, and I think you and Jeb and Neil and Marvin,
>that you can go into politics with a set of values and you don't have
>to sell your soul once you're in the political system. And you can
>come out with the same set of values."
>
>Warning about faith
>The excerpts concluded with a cautionary note about faith. Bush said
>he found that "faith is comforting, faith is strengthening, faith has
>been important."
>
>"I would advise politicians, however, to be careful about faith in the
>public arena," Bush said. "In other words, politicians should not be
>judgmental people based upon their faith. They should recognize, at
>least I have recognized, I am a lowly sinner seeking redemption, and
>therefore have been very careful about saying (accept) my faith or
>you're bad."
>
>http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/6137681.html

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:34:31 -0600, Kenny Blankenship
<Kenny.Blankenship@PainfulElimination.com> wrote:

>Dude, let it go.  Your anger is consuming you.
>
A study showed Conservitives were more happy with life, and Liberals
weren't as happy. 

I'm in the middle, so I guess that make me happy half the time?? 

On Nov 29, 11:33 am, 4...@mydaja.com wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:34:31 -0600, Kenny Blankenship
>
> <Kenny.Blankens...@PainfulElimination.com> wrote:
> >Dude, let it go.  Your anger is consuming you.
>
> A study showed Conservitives were more happy with life, and Liberals
> weren't as happy.
>
>

Was that study done before or after November 4th?

And by the way, wonderful quote from Abraham Lincoln:

Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall
deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so
whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose
- and you allow him to make war at pleasure.

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 08:46:25 -0800 (PST), bushlyed
<bushlyed@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Nov 29, 11:33�am, 4...@mydaja.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:34:31 -0600, Kenny Blankenship
>>
>> <Kenny.Blankens...@PainfulElimination.com> wrote:
>> >Dude, let it go. �Your anger is consuming you.
>>
>> A study showed Conservitives were more happy with life, and Liberals
>> weren't as happy.
>>
>>
>
>Was that study done before or after November 4th?
>
>And by the way, wonderful quote from Abraham Lincoln:
>
>Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall
>deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so
>whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose
>- and you allow him to make war at pleasure.


It was done a couple of years ago. It was on a news fluff piece on the
radio. I don't recall seeing it in print. 

In article 
<24f096ea-a674-4f7a-a916-7ddb91a6674d@j32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
 bushlyed <bushlyed@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Nov 29, 11:33�am, 4...@mydaja.com wrote:
> > On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:34:31 -0600, Kenny Blankenship
> >
> > <Kenny.Blankens...@PainfulElimination.com> wrote:
> > >Dude, let it go. �Your anger is consuming you.
> >
> > A study showed Conservitives were more happy with life, and Liberals
> > weren't as happy.
> >
> >
> 
> Was that study done before or after November 4th?
> 
> And by the way, wonderful quote from Abraham Lincoln:
> 
> Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall
> deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so
> whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose
> - and you allow him to make war at pleasure.

The smart thing to do, a la Clinton, is *don't ask for permission*.

Bush screwed up, fell into a trap. Those clever dems lied for years about 
the "imminent threat", and when Bush fell for it, they happily voted in the 
majority to "allow him to make war at pleasure".

Then at the earliest possible time, thy cleverly decided to take the other 
side, the one they told us was winning handily, while our troops were 
committing atrocities and murdering innocents in cold blood.

"This war is lost"

"Murdering in cold blood"

The previously hawkish democrats borrowed heavily from the language of the 
insurgents, Islamists and the like to attack the president, to try and force 
a surrender.

The democrats stopped just shy of praising Allah, but those who praise Allah 
praised the democrats for their fervent support for their aims, their 
right-thinking ways. Allah akhbar!

Of course, with the New Power and the New Politic - peace is at hand?

Think again. Look at that quote from Lincoln and ask yourself if there's 
*anything* followers would deny this man if the US was provoked.

It would be seen as not only an attack on America, but worse still, an 
attack on Obama.

The dogs of war run wild under democrats, they have no problem with 
violence, especially our emerging progressive fascists.

Their biggest problem these days is figuring out *which side they're on*, 
and they, like tribal islamists, will switch in the middle of a war.

Tribals switch to save their own skin, liberal hawks switch for political 
gain, and they have slavish, unquestioning followers who have convinced 
themselves that history first noticed Saddam around 2002 or so.

Al wrote:
>> In article
>> <24f096ea-a674-4f7a-a916-7ddb91a6674d@j32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>> bushlyed <bushlyed@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 29, 11:33 am, 4...@mydaja.com wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:34:31 -0600, Kenny Blankenship
>>>>
>>>> <Kenny.Blankens...@PainfulElimination.com> wrote:
>>>>> Dude, let it go. Your anger is consuming you.
>>>>
>>>> A study showed Conservitives were more happy with life, and
>>>> Liberals weren't as happy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Was that study done before or after November 4th?
>>>
>>> And by the way, wonderful quote from Abraham Lincoln:
>>>
>>> Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he
>>> shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to
>>> do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such
>>> a purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure.
>>
>> The smart thing to do, a la Clinton, is *don't ask for permission*.
>>
>> Bush screwed up, fell into a trap. Those clever dems lied for years
>> about the "imminent threat", and when Bush fell for it, they happily
>> voted in the majority to "allow him to make war at pleasure".
>>
>> Then at the earliest possible time, thy cleverly decided to take the
>> other side, the one they told us was winning handily, while our
>> troops were committing atrocities and murdering innocents in cold
>> blood.
>>
>> "This war is lost"
>>
>> "Murdering in cold blood"
>>
>> The previously hawkish democrats borrowed heavily from the language
>> of the insurgents, Islamists and the like to attack the president,
>> to try and force a surrender.
>>
>> The democrats stopped just shy of praising Allah, but those who
>> praise Allah praised the democrats for their fervent support for
>> their aims, their right-thinking ways. Allah akhbar!
>>
>> Of course, with the New Power and the New Politic - peace is at hand?
>>
>> Think again. Look at that quote from Lincoln and ask yourself if
>> there's *anything* followers would deny this man if the US was
>> provoked.
>>
>> It would be seen as not only an attack on America, but worse still,
>> an attack on Obama.
>>
>> The dogs of war run wild under democrats, they have no problem with
>> violence, especially our emerging progressive fascists.
>>
>> Their biggest problem these days is figuring out *which side they're
>> on*, and they, like tribal islamists, will switch in the middle of a
>> war.
>>
>> Tribals switch to save their own skin, liberal hawks switch for
>> political gain, and they have slavish, unquestioning followers who
>> have convinced themselves that history first noticed Saddam around
>> 2002 or so.

It doesn't seem to be working out that well for you. 

In article <49318cb5$1@nntp.zianet.com>,
 "Soumay Nonay" <soumaynonay@igginbay.omcay> wrote:

> Al wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <24f096ea-a674-4f7a-a916-7ddb91a6674d@j32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> >> bushlyed <bushlyed@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Nov 29, 11:33 am, 4...@mydaja.com wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:34:31 -0600, Kenny Blankenship
> >>>>
> >>>> <Kenny.Blankens...@PainfulElimination.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Dude, let it go. Your anger is consuming you.
> >>>>
> >>>> A study showed Conservitives were more happy with life, and
> >>>> Liberals weren't as happy.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Was that study done before or after November 4th?
> >>>
> >>> And by the way, wonderful quote from Abraham Lincoln:
> >>>
> >>> Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he
> >>> shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to
> >>> do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such
> >>> a purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure.
> >>
> >> The smart thing to do, a la Clinton, is *don't ask for permission*.
> >>
> >> Bush screwed up, fell into a trap. Those clever dems lied for years
> >> about the "imminent threat", and when Bush fell for it, they happily
> >> voted in the majority to "allow him to make war at pleasure".
> >>
> >> Then at the earliest possible time, thy cleverly decided to take the
> >> other side, the one they told us was winning handily, while our
> >> troops were committing atrocities and murdering innocents in cold
> >> blood.
> >>
> >> "This war is lost"
> >>
> >> "Murdering in cold blood"
> >>
> >> The previously hawkish democrats borrowed heavily from the language
> >> of the insurgents, Islamists and the like to attack the president,
> >> to try and force a surrender.
> >>
> >> The democrats stopped just shy of praising Allah, but those who
> >> praise Allah praised the democrats for their fervent support for
> >> their aims, their right-thinking ways. Allah akhbar!
> >>
> >> Of course, with the New Power and the New Politic - peace is at hand?
> >>
> >> Think again. Look at that quote from Lincoln and ask yourself if
> >> there's *anything* followers would deny this man if the US was
> >> provoked.
> >>
> >> It would be seen as not only an attack on America, but worse still,
> >> an attack on Obama.
> >>
> >> The dogs of war run wild under democrats, they have no problem with
> >> violence, especially our emerging progressive fascists.
> >>
> >> Their biggest problem these days is figuring out *which side they're
> >> on*, and they, like tribal islamists, will switch in the middle of a
> >> war.
> >>
> >> Tribals switch to save their own skin, liberal hawks switch for
> >> political gain, and they have slavish, unquestioning followers who
> >> have convinced themselves that history first noticed Saddam around
> >> 2002 or so.
> 
> It doesn't seem to be working out that well for you. 

No, actually I'm quite well off, thank you.

Al wrote:
>> In article <49318cb5$1@nntp.zianet.com>,
>> "Soumay Nonay" <soumaynonay@igginbay.omcay> wrote:
>>
>>> Al wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <24f096ea-a674-4f7a-a916-7ddb91a6674d@j32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> bushlyed <bushlyed@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 29, 11:33 am, 4...@mydaja.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:34:31 -0600, Kenny Blankenship
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <Kenny.Blankens...@PainfulElimination.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dude, let it go. Your anger is consuming you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A study showed Conservitives were more happy with life, and
>>>>>>> Liberals weren't as happy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Was that study done before or after November 4th?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And by the way, wonderful quote from Abraham Lincoln:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he
>>>>>> shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him
>>>>>> to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for
>>>>>> such a purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure.
>>>>>
>>>>> The smart thing to do, a la Clinton, is *don't ask for
>>>>> permission*.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bush screwed up, fell into a trap. Those clever dems lied for
>>>>> years about the "imminent threat", and when Bush fell for it,
>>>>> they happily voted in the majority to "allow him to make war at
>>>>> pleasure".
>>>>>
>>>>> Then at the earliest possible time, thy cleverly decided to take
>>>>> the other side, the one they told us was winning handily, while
>>>>> our troops were committing atrocities and murdering innocents in
>>>>> cold blood.
>>>>>
>>>>> "This war is lost"
>>>>>
>>>>> "Murdering in cold blood"
>>>>>
>>>>> The previously hawkish democrats borrowed heavily from the
>>>>> language of the insurgents, Islamists and the like to attack the
>>>>> president, to try and force a surrender.
>>>>>
>>>>> The democrats stopped just shy of praising Allah, but those who
>>>>> praise Allah praised the democrats for their fervent support for
>>>>> their aims, their right-thinking ways. Allah akhbar!
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, with the New Power and the New Politic - peace is at
>>>>> hand?
>>>>>
>>>>> Think again. Look at that quote from Lincoln and ask yourself if
>>>>> there's *anything* followers would deny this man if the US was
>>>>> provoked.
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be seen as not only an attack on America, but worse
>>>>> still, an attack on Obama.
>>>>>
>>>>> The dogs of war run wild under democrats, they have no problem
>>>>> with violence, especially our emerging progressive fascists.
>>>>>
>>>>> Their biggest problem these days is figuring out *which side
>>>>> they're on*, and they, like tribal islamists, will switch in the
>>>>> middle of a war.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tribals switch to save their own skin, liberal hawks switch for
>>>>> political gain, and they have slavish, unquestioning followers who
>>>>> have convinced themselves that history first noticed Saddam around
>>>>> 2002 or so.
>>>
>>> It doesn't seem to be working out that well for you.
>>
>> No, actually I'm quite well off, thank you.

Yet, you seem quite upset. 

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 12:07:43 -0700, "Soumay Nonay"
<soumaynonay@igginbay.omcay> wrote:

>Al wrote:
>>> In article <49318cb5$1@nntp.zianet.com>,
>>> "Soumay Nonay" <soumaynonay@igginbay.omcay> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Al wrote:
>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> <24f096ea-a674-4f7a-a916-7ddb91a6674d@j32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>> bushlyed <bushlyed@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Nov 29, 11:33 am, 4...@mydaja.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:34:31 -0600, Kenny Blankenship
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <Kenny.Blankens...@PainfulElimination.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Dude, let it go. Your anger is consuming you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A study showed Conservitives were more happy with life, and
>>>>>>>> Liberals weren't as happy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Was that study done before or after November 4th?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And by the way, wonderful quote from Abraham Lincoln:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he
>>>>>>> shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him
>>>>>>> to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for
>>>>>>> such a purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The smart thing to do, a la Clinton, is *don't ask for
>>>>>> permission*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bush screwed up, fell into a trap. Those clever dems lied for
>>>>>> years about the "imminent threat", and when Bush fell for it,
>>>>>> they happily voted in the majority to "allow him to make war at
>>>>>> pleasure".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then at the earliest possible time, thy cleverly decided to take
>>>>>> the other side, the one they told us was winning handily, while
>>>>>> our troops were committing atrocities and murdering innocents in
>>>>>> cold blood.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "This war is lost"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Murdering in cold blood"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The previously hawkish democrats borrowed heavily from the
>>>>>> language of the insurgents, Islamists and the like to attack the
>>>>>> president, to try and force a surrender.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The democrats stopped just shy of praising Allah, but those who
>>>>>> praise Allah praised the democrats for their fervent support for
>>>>>> their aims, their right-thinking ways. Allah akhbar!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, with the New Power and the New Politic - peace is at
>>>>>> hand?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Think again. Look at that quote from Lincoln and ask yourself if
>>>>>> there's *anything* followers would deny this man if the US was
>>>>>> provoked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would be seen as not only an attack on America, but worse
>>>>>> still, an attack on Obama.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The dogs of war run wild under democrats, they have no problem
>>>>>> with violence, especially our emerging progressive fascists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Their biggest problem these days is figuring out *which side
>>>>>> they're on*, and they, like tribal islamists, will switch in the
>>>>>> middle of a war.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tribals switch to save their own skin, liberal hawks switch for
>>>>>> political gain, and they have slavish, unquestioning followers who
>>>>>> have convinced themselves that history first noticed Saddam around
>>>>>> 2002 or so.
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't seem to be working out that well for you.
>>>
>>> No, actually I'm quite well off, thank you.
>
>Yet, you seem quite upset. 
>


won't be long before the lefty loons will be whimpering about how
Obama isn't doing what he said he was going to do.....

Justice is when you get exactly what you deserve.
--Neal Bortz

In article <49319301$1@nntp.zianet.com>,
 "Soumay Nonay" <soumaynonay@igginbay.omcay> wrote:

> Al wrote:
> >> In article <49318cb5$1@nntp.zianet.com>,
> >> "Soumay Nonay" <soumaynonay@igginbay.omcay> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Al wrote:
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> <24f096ea-a674-4f7a-a916-7ddb91a6674d@j32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>>> bushlyed <bushlyed@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Nov 29, 11:33 am, 4...@mydaja.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:34:31 -0600, Kenny Blankenship
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> <Kenny.Blankens...@PainfulElimination.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Dude, let it go. Your anger is consuming you.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> A study showed Conservitives were more happy with life, and
> >>>>>>> Liberals weren't as happy.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Was that study done before or after November 4th?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And by the way, wonderful quote from Abraham Lincoln:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he
> >>>>>> shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him
> >>>>>> to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for
> >>>>>> such a purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The smart thing to do, a la Clinton, is *don't ask for
> >>>>> permission*.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Bush screwed up, fell into a trap. Those clever dems lied for
> >>>>> years about the "imminent threat", and when Bush fell for it,
> >>>>> they happily voted in the majority to "allow him to make war at
> >>>>> pleasure".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Then at the earliest possible time, thy cleverly decided to take
> >>>>> the other side, the one they told us was winning handily, while
> >>>>> our troops were committing atrocities and murdering innocents in
> >>>>> cold blood.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "This war is lost"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Murdering in cold blood"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The previously hawkish democrats borrowed heavily from the
> >>>>> language of the insurgents, Islamists and the like to attack the
> >>>>> president, to try and force a surrender.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The democrats stopped just shy of praising Allah, but those who
> >>>>> praise Allah praised the democrats for their fervent support for
> >>>>> their aims, their right-thinking ways. Allah akhbar!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Of course, with the New Power and the New Politic - peace is at
> >>>>> hand?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Think again. Look at that quote from Lincoln and ask yourself if
> >>>>> there's *anything* followers would deny this man if the US was
> >>>>> provoked.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It would be seen as not only an attack on America, but worse
> >>>>> still, an attack on Obama.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The dogs of war run wild under democrats, they have no problem
> >>>>> with violence, especially our emerging progressive fascists.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Their biggest problem these days is figuring out *which side
> >>>>> they're on*, and they, like tribal islamists, will switch in the
> >>>>> middle of a war.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Tribals switch to save their own skin, liberal hawks switch for
> >>>>> political gain, and they have slavish, unquestioning followers who
> >>>>> have convinced themselves that history first noticed Saddam around
> >>>>> 2002 or so.
> >>>
> >>> It doesn't seem to be working out that well for you.
> >>
> >> No, actually I'm quite well off, thank you.
> 
> Yet, you seem quite upset. 

Was just posting a little history, but thank you for your concern.

Poll: Americans feel good about Obama, Cabinet choices

By Susan Page, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON � President-elect Barack Obama is riding a wave of good
feeling toward him and his key Cabinet appointments, a USA
TODAY/Gallup Poll finds � positive attitudes that may give him some
breathing room for tough decisions ahead.

Soaring ratings for the way he has handled the presidential transition
so far � more than three of four Americans express approval � contrast
with a downbeat national mood over the economy.

By 69%-25%, those surveyed approve of Obama's choice of former rival
Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of State.

By an even wider margin, 80%-14%, they support his decision to have
President Bush's Defense secretary, Robert Gates, stay on the job.

MORE OBAMA NEWS: President-elect assures governors on economy
POLITICS BLOG: Latest developments

Americans are "projecting their hopes" for the new president, says
Charles Franklin, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin
in Madison who studies polling, but they will expect concrete results
to follow.

"He'll have a season of good will," Franklin says, but over time "it's
going to become increasingly Obama's economy rather than Bush's
economy."

On Tuesday, Obama met with the nation's governors in Philadelphia �
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the GOP's vice presidential nominee in last
month's election, sat in a back row � and asked their help in
designing a recovery plan.

The National Bureau of Economic Research on Monday announced that the
U.S. economy has been in a recession for the past year.

In the poll, Americans by more than 3-1 say they trust Obama more than
Bush to handle the economy. By 58%-33%, they support Obama's promise
of a huge spending package to stimulate the economy.

The survey of 1,010 adults, taken Monday by landline and cellphone,
has a margin of error of +/� 3 percentage points.

There's little concern Obama is relying too much on veterans of
President Clinton's administration. By nearly 4-1, those polled say
the picks will make the new team more effective.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2008-12-02-obama-poll_N.htm

On Nov 29, 11:16 am, Al <albert.finney...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <24f096ea-a674-4f7a-a916-7ddb91a66...@j32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>  bushlyed <bushl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 29, 11:33 am, 4...@mydaja.com wrote:
> > > On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:34:31 -0600, Kenny Blankenship
>
> > > <Kenny.Blankens...@PainfulElimination.com> wrote:
> > > >Dude, let it go.  Your anger is consuming you.
>
> > > A study showed Conservitives were more happy with life, and Liberals
> > > weren't as happy.
>
> > Was that study done before or after November 4th?
>
> > And by the way, wonderful quote from Abraham Lincoln:
>
> > Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall
> > deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so
> > whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose
> > - and you allow him to make war at pleasure.
>
> The smart thing to do, a la Clinton, is *don't ask for permission*.
>
> Bush screwed up, fell into a trap. Those clever dems lied for years about
> the "imminent threat", and when Bush fell for it, they happily voted in the
> majority to "allow him to make war at pleasure".
>
> Then at the earliest possible time, thy cleverly decided to take the other
> side, the one they told us was winning handily, while our troops were
> committing atrocities and murdering innocents in cold blood.
>
> "This war is lost"
>
> "Murdering in cold blood"
>
> The previously hawkish democrats borrowed heavily from the language of the
> insurgents, Islamists and the like to attack the president, to try and force
> a surrender.
>
> The democrats stopped just shy of praising Allah, but those who praise Allah
> praised the democrats for their fervent support for their aims, their
> right-thinking ways. Allah akhbar!
>
> Of course, with the New Power and the New Politic - peace is at hand?
>
> Think again. Look at that quote from Lincoln and ask yourself if there's
> *anything* followers would deny this man if the US was provoked.
>
> It would be seen as not only an attack on America, but worse still, an
> attack on Obama.
>
> The dogs of war run wild under democrats, they have no problem with
> violence, especially our emerging progressive fascists.
>
> Their biggest problem these days is figuring out *which side they're on*,
> and they, like tribal islamists, will switch in the middle of a war.
>
> Tribals switch to save their own skin, liberal hawks switch for political
> gain, and they have slavish, unquestioning followers who have convinced
> themselves that history first noticed Saddam around 2002 or so.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Good post. Well said. You nailed em'.