Leffler wrote a column?

Scott Leffler · Guru

Leffler wrote a column?

mike of the mountain · Senior Member

both of you need to do your homework a c- for each .

Scott Leffler · Guru

Thanks for such a kind grade, Professor Mountain. Maybe a little more than a quick pissing-on would explain the C-.

I'm sorry I didn't go into the part that the concept of the Department of Homeland Security was actually developed by the Democrats and fought againt by the Bushies and then W flip-flopped on the issue when he realized that the people wanted the department.

I also could have mentioned that the Bushies tied a union vs. non-union issue to the department to make sure some Democrats (like Max Cleland) would vote against it so they could later demonize those Democrats and compare them to Osama Bin Laden ... who I didn't realize was president of the Terrorists local 194.

Would mentioning those two tidbits have gotten me at least a C+? Or would the tone have to be COMPLETELY different. I'd probably have to put on a skirt and lead a cheer for W, huh?

Give me a D.

Give me an O.

Give me an H.

What's that spell?

DOH!!!

shughes · Senior Member

That cheer should earn you some extra credit points.

"I also could have mentioned that the Bushies tied a union vs. non-union issue to the department to make sure some Democrats (like Max Cleland) would vote against it so they could later demonize those Democrats and compare them to Osama Bin Laden ... who I didn't realize was president of the Terrorists local 194."

Wow you didn't know this, I though everyone did. I'll see if I can get you added to the list serve.

Date: Sun Jun 19 11:03 AM, 2005

This is for a site called "Young Buffalo?"

Congratulations on showing young Buffalonians that when you disagree with someone or an authority figure you should resort to smug disrespect and name-calling. President "Bushie!" Scott, you don't help us Democrats using that tactic in a column apparently leveled at young adults.

If the other writer had called President Clinton, "Skinflute" or "Billary" in a column for young people it would be just as inappropriate. Why not just make some solid points without playing to the joys of youthful "dissing?" Why not help kids to see the strengths of an intellectual arguement instead of becoming snide, wise mouths?

A Fellow Dem

Scott Leffler · Guru

The term "Bushie" is WIDELY used to refer to those who blindly follow the 43rd president off whatever cliff he's currently jumping.

And Clinton hating is still a popular sport in most red states ... and parts of Buffalo, too.

Sorry to have disappointed you, fellow Dem, but being apologetic for the last four and half years hasn't worked. I prefer to call a spade a spade.

Nitrogen_Widget · Senior Member

Political Party's are an antiquated idea as far as i'm concerned.
I believe parties no longer nominate the best candidate.
They nominate the guy they think will get the most votes.
There is a difference between the two.
This may seem an obvious remark, but it can't be that obvious when people are still blindly voteing along their registered parties lines.

On a side note, If the ravine off those political cliffs isn't deep enough, eventually they will fill up quick & will be able to just walk accross.

Date: Sun Jun 19 4:01 PM, 2005

Scott Leffler wrote:

The term "Bushie" is WIDELY used to refer to those who blindly follow the 43rd president off whatever cliff he's currently jumping.

And Clinton hating is still a popular sport in most red states ... and parts of Buffalo, too.

Sorry to have disappointed you, fellow Dem, but being apologetic for the last four and half years hasn't worked. I prefer to call a spade a spade.

Wow... You think that whatever certainties you manifest about people, the country and the world are all that matters - and that in turn gives you every reason to throw around divisive barbs. Teach the children hate-filled rhetoric so that we as a party can become every bit as intolerant as what we see the right as being. Such arrogance of thought and purpose. You will never reach an audience outside the choir that hold your exact ideas, because in our party's abuse of Nazi and gulag symbolism to prop up our moral position, we will leave behind any opportunity for real dialog, the exchange of real ideas or any commonality of direction.

If our party keeps working this low road, we will eventually deserve the tin foil hat persona that the extreme right elements make us out to be.

A Dem... but not a partner

Date: Sun Jun 19 6:12 PM, 2005

Hey anonymous. You leave a message like that for the host. Shows, you don't know Jack about decorum or civility to him and only wish to show your own pomposity.

Just bad upbringing. Oh, and sour grapes. You never finished finishing school?

Thank you for letting me write this Mr. Radio Guy.

shughes · Senior Member

Anonymous wrote:

Scott Leffler wrote: The term "Bushie" is WIDELY used to refer to those who blindly follow the 43rd president off whatever cliff he's currently jumping. And Clinton hating is still a popular sport in most red states ... and parts of Buffalo, too. Sorry to have disappointed you, fellow Dem, but being apologetic for the last four and half years hasn't worked. I prefer to call a spade a spade. Wow... You think that whatever certainties you manifest about people, the country and the world are all that matters - and that in turn gives you every reason to throw around divisive barbs. Teach the children hate-filled rhetoric so that we as a party can become every bit as intolerant as what we see the right as being. Such arrogance of thought and purpose. You will never reach an audience outside the choir that hold your exact ideas, because in our party's abuse of Nazi and gulag symbolism to prop up our moral position, we will leave behind any opportunity for real dialog, the exchange of real ideas or any commonality of direction. If our party keeps working this low road, we will eventually deserve the tin foil hat persona that the extreme right elements make us out to be. A Dem... but not a partner

Hey is that you not-DEC?

Scott Leffler · Guru

Anonymous wrote:

Hey anonymous. You leave a message like that for the host. Shows, you don't know Jack about decorum or civility to him and only wish to show your own pomposity. Just bad upbringing. Oh, and sour grapes. You never finished finishing school? Thank you for letting me write this Mr. Radio Guy.

You're welcome, Anon 2. And thanks for having my back. Anon 1 has good points. (S)he just has a different strategy than myself. There is a contingent in the (Democratic) party that believes that if we just keep being nice, we'll win people over. Another contingent believes that this strategy has failed. Al Gore was nice. John Kerry was nice. Max Cleland was nice. You might see where I'm going here. I wouldn't stoop to lying, but I'm not going to hold the door open for people who will subsequently slam it in my face, either. Truth is, I'm probably nicer to people than I should be. But I'm trying to work on that.

jspeer · Guru

-- Edited by jspeer at 01:07, 2005-06-20

Scott Leffler · Guru

jspeer wrote:

-- Edited by jspeer at 01:07, 2005-06-20

Makes ya wonder if jspeer thought his post wasn't "nice."

Date: Mon Jun 20 7:06 AM, 2005

Before being asked to join this forum,I would have agreed with you all the way on your article."Lets get this straight from the get go,I was given L'S # ,AND CONTACTED HIM FIRST."With saying that I had all the right things,went to the right school,drank the right water,had the right family members die from cancer ,and they lived in the right places.

Then I started to ask questions or post things I found,and had some fun playing the rddle game.That was not a good thing for me ,for free speech has been forgotton.After many e-mails with threats and other things...june 5th a map to my house was posted on 2 different threads."to the store would have been better"I was threated that if I did not stop posting that was 1% off what would be done to me.Then propaganda started to get e mailed to my relitives."Not by scott"

Sounds crazy doesn"t it!"saved the e mails and posts.Essentially it may have been done to silence me durning a prearranged event?Huummmmmm.....How is this any different,just smaller scale.I am a wife a mom,nothing more......You three played this the rep. way.

One more thing how do you know what my family maybe dealing with now? dovey.

Paper Tigress · Veteran Member

Wow, nice column! Hey Scott, while yours was certainly superior, I thought this excerpt from Shaws' makes a great point.

"The colorized risk assessments range from Green (low risk) to Red (severe risk). As I am writing this piece, we are at Yellow (elevated risk). But what would have happened if a condition Red were declared on September 11, 2001? Would no one have boarded an airplane? Would anyone who worked in Lower Manhattan or the Pentagon have stayed home? Other than the most generic suggestions ("Exercise caution when traveling, pay attention to travel advisories"; "Expect traffic delays and restrictions"; "Ensure disaster supply kit is stocked and ready") there really is no meaningful advice for citizens." Michael D. Shaw

Still waiting for a concise, logical reason we have colored alerts... OR a DHS for that matter...

mike of the mountain · Senior Member

You're welcome, Anon 2. And thanks for having my back. Anon 1 has good points. (S)he just has a different strategy than myself. There is a contingent in the (Democratic) party that believes that if we just keep being nice, we'll win people over. Another contingent believes that this strategy has failed. Al Gore was nice. John Kerry was nice. Max Cleland was nice. You might see where I'm going here. I wouldn't stoop to lying, but I'm not going to hold the door open for people who will subsequently slam it in my face, either. Truth is, I'm probably nicer to people than I should be. But I'm trying to work on that.

__________________
there was no piss , just vinegar in my reply the losers [fact no piss] above lost not because they were not nice [which they were not] but because they ran on a platform that rotated around "Bush is bad" not around how great they were or what they would do better than anyone else . they never had a "plan" or a solution , just hateful rhetoric .

President Bush did not want to create another buracracy to shuffle papers and spend money , he wanted to expand existing law enforcement ,it would have accomplishied the goal in less time with less money spent , he should have stood his ground , but he had another election looming .

General George Patton once said "a good plan implemented right now is better than a great plan implemented next month" that is what President Bush is attempting to do ; then fine tuning as needed as things get rolling .... except the demoncrats are screaming "Bush is bad" and attempting to stop all forward motion , yet they have no solutions them selves ....

no door slamming here - tell us wise one , what is your solution ?

-- Edited by mike of the mountain at 01:05, 2005-06-21

Scott Leffler · Guru

mike of the mountain wrote:

no door slamming here - tell us wise one , what is your solution ?

Mike,

I thought I made my solution apparent in my column ... which you poo-pooed (or piss pissed)

I asked you what was wrong with my assertion. That you have not answered.

Homeland security would make more sense to me if we were actually trying to secure the homeland. Clinton's COPS program is rolling back. Bush is cutting pay and benefits for the military. And the military we DO have is being forced to go camping in the desert instead of here to protect the homeland. Our borders are pathetic. Tighten them up. We're closing military bases in "a time of war." Mike, tell me how this makes sense to you.

And you're wrong, by the way. Talk radio might have made it appear that Kerry spent all his time on the attack, but in fact, he didn't spend enough of it that way. He thought the people wouuld see through GWB. He though Bush would beat Bush, so he didn't campaign enough. Personally, I'm glad Kerry didn't win ... just not at the expense of having to deal with another four years of Bush. And Gore's mistakes: Well, first of all, Gore had to spend most of his time defending accurate statements he made to the media while Bush could just lie and not answer questions. And Gore's second mistake was believing that Democracy "happens." In Florida, it doesn't. You have to claw you way to it while threatening your opposition and shouting them down. And I'm trying to see exactly what it is that Cleland did wrong. Oh, he voted against Bush's plan to bust the law enforcement union that became Homeland Security. Am I wrong on any of these accounts, Mike?

jspeer · Guru

Scott Leffler wrote:

jspeer wrote:
-- Edited by jspeer at 01:07, 2005-06-20

Makes ya wonder if jspeer thought his post wasn't "nice."

You know me! LOL! Kelly made me remove it.

Date: Tue Jun 21 6:16 PM, 2005

Am I wrong on any of these accounts, Mike?

yes- more to follow . motm

mike of the mountain · Senior Member

a; what is wrong with the many "assertions"

you claim there will be no battle if we dont bring it to them , clearly that is blarney as they brought the 9-11 thing to us when we had no military in battle over there .

the battle now in iraq and affagastan draws our enemies to those locations , i have provided some documentation to prove that in the thread about recruiters on this forum . the enemy that travels to those locations are not traveling here to kill American s here . claiming that this is not true does not change the fact that it is in fact true .

our own military has strict guidelines about operating within the confines of our borders unless involved in a situation with a foreign military. i dont believe that you want our borders operated as the berlin wall was operated , you would be whining about that for sure , be careful what you wish for.

the bases here in country that are to be closed are just not needed anymore , that is not how war is anymore , our military is very mobile , they dont need to occupy ground and hold it , they just go where needed and complete the mission .... bad guys wake up dead.

we are not creating new enemies , they attacked us , remember ? the twin towers 2x, two embassies the khobar towers the cole an attempt on the life of president bush #1 etc etc , we have the obligation to our own future generations to nuetralise the threat that they are bringing to us .

we have border patrol already , undermanned and underfunded , double their funding , triple it what ever it takes , no one gets across , easy cheap .

our immigration policy ? what ? close the door now. new policy . then from the other side of a closed door evaluate the needs of America , modify the policy to fit . easy,done .

i suppose you think that we should allow iran to develop nuclear weapons ? iran is on the edge of that and without intervention they will have the capability soon , what then ? do we run and hide and wait to be nuked ? or do we use or ability now to crush the problem while it can still be crushed , that is one genie that can not be put back in the bottle . no our military will be defeated if left only as a defencive force , threats must be evaluated and dealt with as the situation demands. first with diplomacy if possible but if not with steel .

no , i dont agree with your assertations . i will not bombard you with links to support my veiw .

i will change your grade to and "a" but only in liberal dogma .