Comments by airedale1950
Posted on September 24 at 7:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Woody baby...about taking all 'that' money...
we know that all politicians take "donations" ...does that mean that all the folk you intend on voting for in this election, who are by definition politicians, would be unprincipled as well?
Doesn't that also make you unprincipled too?
Unless of course you just have an opinion and are not planing on voting.
Posted on September 24 at 5:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The way I understand our rule of law, we elect an individual who is the most representative of our personal beliefs and values overall. He is not our clone, he is not our personal man slave bound to our individual ideology, he is not our personal emissary in the state house doing our personal bidding, he is the candidate endorsed by a party to generally follow the party's philosophy.
He is in no way pledged or bound to be the mirror of each constituent's thinking, which is physically impossible in itself,but to be be representative to the whole. We elect him because he better represents my preferences better than the other guy is expected to represent them.
He is a free man just like those who cast votes for him...and he should vote in a manner that he believes, as our charge, is in the best interests of our (and his!) community as a whole.
The man saw what he believed to be an injustice and took steps to correct it, something others here and in Washington should somehow find the guts to do too. Be a human being, not a lemming.
Posted on September 21 at 10:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
...As a consequence of the brain damage, vaccines cause you to seek out advice from some half baked physician from the internet....and we all know everything you read on the internet is gospel truth!
....oh sorry, he could not respond in a timely manner,because he is alternately getting plenty of exercise digging up Garlic, getting lots of sleep, and running through town terrified trying to avoid sugar while staying informed.
Posted on September 21 at 6:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why wouldn't you?
Unless of course you have a DOCTOR advised medical reason not to...or you really really enjoy infecting and possibly endangering the well being of those around you.
Oh, and guess what, if your religion or some crazy other belief forbids you, check the small print in the "religion or similar belief" handbook and see if crazy zealotry prevents dying.
No? I didn't think so either.
Posted on September 19 at 8:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
justapto, perhaps you might take your own advice....
"Sit down and keep your mouth shut!"
Posted on September 18 at 8:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If the parents of reproductive age adolescents don't meet minimum earning limits set by a governing body, thus deeming them incapable of raising children in a fiscally responsible manner, then they and their children should be rendered temporarily sterile.
Can't afford to raise your kid's kids?...We will do the parenting for you. Not only will we render your child and potential suitors impotent, but you too, just in case you have another moment of careless and irresponsible passion.
I'll leave the details up to the rest of you fools.
Posted on September 11 at 6:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In today's environment of 400 TV channels, computers and other free time gobbling electronics, it is an absolute must. Every opportunity to introduce children and interest children to outdoor activities...at any age...should be pursued, encouraged and made as accessible and attractive as possible.
People of all ages need to get off their butts and keep moving, starting them as young as possible only encourages lifelong participation.
Posted on September 10 at 8:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Fritzdawg...how was the Kool-aid?
Aren't you the guy I just quoted in my previous post?
Quite frankly...simply speaking the way you do...'simply'...you are proving my point.
Just continue the mantra and a continue to blame our woes on a real President, and a real American, just as your handlers command.
Good boy!! wanna a cookie?
Posted on September 9 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why didn't Clinton deliver the same speech about Obama that he did when his pseudo wife Hillary was running? (Look it up, it makes for interesting , insightful comparative reading)
Seems his opinion of our resident president changed DRAMATICALLY after Hillary baby lost the nomination....
I guess it speaks to the credibility of our nation's leadership...and the intellectual shortcomings of our sound-byte, poorly educated electorate.
"Why did you vote for Obama sir?"..."err...my daddy was a deemokrat, so I vote deemokrat all the time, and my union rep told me to, or else the other guy will take away my overtime pay, and my first born female child. BTW, is he still vice president?"
Posted on September 8 at 7:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Bill Clinton stole the spotlight the night before, proved to be the consummate politician, the better liar.
Obama tried mightily, but as every American knows all too well through personal experience, the President proved his inadequacy as a politician and leader once again.