Where Everybody Knows You're Numb

BoxDog · Guru

RE: "STONEWALL IT!"

web · Member

BoxDog wrote:

web wrote:

BoxDog wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Psych Lit wrote: =-

its interesting to me that the old boy washington pro, biden, is the only one saying things that seem to feel truthful. both mccain and obama said they did not want a negative campaign and yet both are guilty of doing it. i think we will see biden continue to lead with issues while the two main events continue to lead with confusion and nonsense. <Psych

I think you're absolutely right about that. :)

----------------------------------
and hes a sharp contrast to sarah p who isnt exactly refreshingly...err... clear.
Well, I hear she's learning foreign policy today, so maybe that will be different tomorrow.

Oh, all RIGHT! I'm SORRY! I'm SORRY! ROFL! But come ON! Isn't that the "message" we're SUPPOSED to be getting????

Okay, you two have your laugh;). Just as soon as she visits all fifty-seven states, she may be better versed in national security. Maybe BO can point her in the direction of the other seven he's yet to explain. Wait, my bad, he did explain it. He was sleeeeeeppppy when he said that.

P.S. It's 6:35 est here.

-- Edited by BoxDog at 16:36, 2008-09-23
Now wait a damn minute there, BD. Obama took a 143 day crash course entitled "I Want To Be The Next Decider", and he completely skipped middle management. You should have a little faith there, "sugar".
I believe BO said "I wanna be the next decider...ok, oprah?" Well, one thing led to another and the whole little flock of party leaders went and built them this? This is what they spent four years building us? The President of the 57 United States of America? blech. Just blech. Is this the year that we just skip the debating too? Can this election get any more frightening? I'm VERY uncomfortable with early voting and NO debates. Well Biden and Palin are scheduled for one Oct. 2. Whoopee. I strongly disagree with early voting, I think the public is entitled to hear every last ounce of idiotic, damaging, rhetoric this buffet of buffoons has to offer.

Isn't that the truth. lol

milo · Veteran Member

BoxDog wrote: buffet of buffoons

Dayum, sounds like a menu item from the roadkill cafe! wink

web · Member

milo wrote:

LOL

I would rather have a VP in training than a President in training.

Thank you. Thank you vereh much.

I hate to be a spoil sport BUT I would rather have neither in pampers when the security of the whole nation could be at stake.
Obama, when in danger, when in doubt, run in circles scream and shout
Palin, don't blink
McCain, 100 years
Biden,,,,, (so far I haven't made up a joke about him, other than) I didn't mean to say that, it just slipped out
We are screwed if we ever need a commander in chief to answer that damned red phone.

-- Edited by milo at 17:49, 2008-09-23

I know. I shouldn't laugh. LOL biggrin

BoxDog · Guru

web wrote:

BoxDog wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Psych Lit wrote: =-

its interesting to me that the old boy washington pro, biden, is the only one saying things that seem to feel truthful. both mccain and obama said they did not want a negative campaign and yet both are guilty of doing it. i think we will see biden continue to lead with issues while the two main events continue to lead with confusion and nonsense. <Psych

I think you're absolutely right about that. :)

----------------------------------
and hes a sharp contrast to sarah p who isnt exactly refreshingly...err... clear.
Well, I hear she's learning foreign policy today, so maybe that will be different tomorrow.

Oh, all RIGHT! I'm SORRY! I'm SORRY! ROFL! But come ON! Isn't that the "message" we're SUPPOSED to be getting????

Okay, you two have your laugh;). Just as soon as she visits all fifty-seven states, she may be better versed in national security. Maybe BO can point her in the direction of the other seven he's yet to explain. Wait, my bad, he did explain it. He was sleeeeeeppppy when he said that.

P.S. It's 6:35 est here.

-- Edited by BoxDog at 16:36, 2008-09-23
Now wait a damn minute there, BD. Obama took a 143 day crash course entitled "I Want To Be The Next Decider", and he completely skipped middle management. You should have a little faith there, "sugar".

I believe BO said "I wanna be the next decider...ok, oprah?" Well, one thing led to another and the whole little flock of party leaders went and built them this? This is what they spent four years building us? The President of the 57 United States of America? blech. Just blech. Is this the year that we just skip the debating too? Can this election get any more frightening? I'm VERY uncomfortable with early voting and NO debates. Well Biden and Palin are scheduled for one Oct. 2. Whoopee. I strongly disagree with early voting, I think the public is entitled to hear every last ounce of idiotic, damaging, rhetoric this buffet of buffoons has to offer.

milo · Veteran Member

LOL

I would rather have a VP in training than a President in training.

Thank you. Thank you vereh much.

I hate to be a spoil sport BUT I would rather have neither in pampers when the security of the whole nation could be at stake.
Obama, when in danger, when in doubt, run in circles scream and shout
Palin, don't blink
McCain, 100 years
Biden,,,,, (so far I haven't made up a joke about him, other than) I didn't mean to say that, it just slipped out
We are screwed if we ever need a commander in chief to answer that damned red phone.

-- Edited by milo at 17:49, 2008-09-23

web · Member

BoxDog wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Psych Lit wrote: =-

its interesting to me that the old boy washington pro, biden, is the only one saying things that seem to feel truthful. both mccain and obama said they did not want a negative campaign and yet both are guilty of doing it. i think we will see biden continue to lead with issues while the two main events continue to lead with confusion and nonsense. <Psych

I think you're absolutely right about that. :)

----------------------------------
and hes a sharp contrast to sarah p who isnt exactly refreshingly...err... clear.
Well, I hear she's learning foreign policy today, so maybe that will be different tomorrow.

Oh, all RIGHT! I'm SORRY! I'm SORRY! ROFL! But come ON! Isn't that the "message" we're SUPPOSED to be getting????

Okay, you two have your laugh;). Just as soon as she visits all fifty-seven states, she may be better versed in national security. Maybe BO can point her in the direction of the other seven he's yet to explain. Wait, my bad, he did explain it. He was sleeeeeeppppy when he said that.

P.S. It's 6:35 est here.

-- Edited by BoxDog at 16:36, 2008-09-23

Now wait a damn minute there, BD. Obama took a 143 day crash course entitled "I Want To Be The Next Decider", and he completely skipped middle management. You should have a little faith there, "sugar". smile

web · Member

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Psych Lit wrote: =-

its interesting to me that the old boy washington pro, biden, is the only one saying things that seem to feel truthful. both mccain and obama said they did not want a negative campaign and yet both are guilty of doing it. i think we will see biden continue to lead with issues while the two main events continue to lead with confusion and nonsense. <Psych

I think you're absolutely right about that. :)

----------------------------------
and hes a sharp contrast to sarah p who isnt exactly refreshingly...err... clear.
Well, I hear she's learning foreign policy today, so maybe that will be different tomorrow.

Oh, all RIGHT! I'm SORRY! I'm SORRY! ROFL! But come ON! Isn't that the "message" we're SUPPOSED to be getting????

LOL

I would rather have a VP in training than a President in training.

Thank you. Thank you vereh much. confused

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

BoxDog wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Psych Lit wrote: =-

its interesting to me that the old boy washington pro, biden, is the only one saying things that seem to feel truthful. both mccain and obama said they did not want a negative campaign and yet both are guilty of doing it. i think we will see biden continue to lead with issues while the two main events continue to lead with confusion and nonsense. <Psych

I think you're absolutely right about that. :)

----------------------------------
and hes a sharp contrast to sarah p who isnt exactly refreshingly...err... clear.
Well, I hear she's learning foreign policy today, so maybe that will be different tomorrow.

Oh, all RIGHT! I'm SORRY! I'm SORRY! ROFL! But come ON! Isn't that the "message" we're SUPPOSED to be getting????

Okay, you two have your laugh;). Just as soon as she visits all fifty-seven states, she may be better versed in national security. Maybe BO can point her in the direction of the other seven he's yet to explain. Wait, my bad, he did explain it. He was sleeeeeeppppy when he said that.

P.S. It's 6:35 est here.

-- Edited by BoxDog at 16:36, 2008-09-23

Aw, now, you know I wouldn't ask Sarah to vist all 57!
After "four years at the 'master's' feet, when she's "ready," either 5 or 7 would do nicely. wink

BoxDog · Guru

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Psych Lit wrote: =-

its interesting to me that the old boy washington pro, biden, is the only one saying things that seem to feel truthful. both mccain and obama said they did not want a negative campaign and yet both are guilty of doing it. i think we will see biden continue to lead with issues while the two main events continue to lead with confusion and nonsense. <Psych

I think you're absolutely right about that. :)

----------------------------------
and hes a sharp contrast to sarah p who isnt exactly refreshingly...err... clear.
Well, I hear she's learning foreign policy today, so maybe that will be different tomorrow.

Oh, all RIGHT! I'm SORRY! I'm SORRY! ROFL! But come ON! Isn't that the "message" we're SUPPOSED to be getting????

Okay, you two have your laugh;). Just as soon as she visits all fifty-seven states, she may be better versed in national security. Maybe BO can point her in the direction of the other seven he's yet to explain. Wait, my bad, he did explain it. He was sleeeeeeppppy when he said that.

P.S. It's 6:35 est here.

-- Edited by BoxDog at 16:36, 2008-09-23

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

Psych Lit wrote: =-

its interesting to me that the old boy washington pro, biden, is the only one saying things that seem to feel truthful. both mccain and obama said they did not want a negative campaign and yet both are guilty of doing it. i think we will see biden continue to lead with issues while the two main events continue to lead with confusion and nonsense. <Psych

I think you're absolutely right about that. :)

----------------------------------
and hes a sharp contrast to sarah p who isnt exactly refreshingly...err... clear.

Well, I hear she's learning foreign policy today, so maybe that will be different tomorrow.

biggrin

Oh, all RIGHT! I'm SORRY! I'm SORRY! ROFL! But come ON! Isn't that the "message" we're SUPPOSED to be getting????

Psych Lit · Guru

BoxDog wrote:

I think she probably just heard Bidens opinion of the most recent anti-McCain ad released. Biden does tell it like he see's it, and like they say, never interrupt your enemy while they're making a mistake. He said that ad NEVER would have been approved if HE knew of it. Never. Ultimately it will Biden, like him or not, that does the Obama campaign in.

he does have a loose tongue but so far i think hes doing ok. his comment about clinton being perhaps a better choice for VP brought up something that everyone was thinking anyway and in his self deprecating way works to his advantage. this comment too, works to his advantage. thus far the maverick and the man who promised no old washington same old same old are both pandering away trying to get whatever votes they think the pandering will bring and both losing more credibility each day. its interesting to me that the old boy washington pro, biden, is the only one saying things that seem to feel truthful. both mccain and obama said they did not want a negative campaign and yet both are guilty of doing it. i think we will see biden continue to lead with issues while the two main events continue to lead with confusion and nonsense. and hes a sharp contrast to sarah p who isnt exactly refreshingly...err... clear.

BoxDog · Guru

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

BoxDog wrote:
Hey-- I just heard on the news Palin will (now) cooperate with the investigation.
I find that enouraging, on several levels. Maybe there's still hope for the power of the people and a free press after all!

I think she probably just heard Bidens opinion of the most recent anti-McCain ad released. Biden does tell it like he see's it, and like they say, never interrupt your enemy while they're making a mistake. He said that ad NEVER would have been approved if HE knew of it. Never. Ultimately it will Biden, like him or not, that does the Obama campaign in. <BD

Really? You think so? You think Biden's saying his personal disapproval of the ad was a mistake? I watched that interview, and didn't have that feeling at all.

-----------------------------

Move.on, move over, two dollar donations and out of work social workers can't help this democrat ticket. You can't argue against "old school" career politicians when your running mate IS one. <BD

How is saying what he did, "Old school?" Seems just the opposite, to me. Wouldn't "old school" be a cover-up, or a stubborn assertion that it was "right" to run that ad, no matter what it said, because you were "afraid" of letting down your "We are always right" guard, and being vulnerable enough to acknowledge what you perceive to be an error in judgment?

Is decency a "partisan" thing? Is the "right" way to handle things to insist instead that "God" is on your side, and the end justifies the means?

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 10:47, 2008-09-23

No, I think it was absolutely the right thing to say. Sadly, he was put in his place, by the DNC, nearly immediately. So that's why I think it will be blamed on Biden, in the end. Just to be clear I am specifically referring to the McCain is wearing polyester suits, with great big glasses in the Senate while admittedly unable to carry on an email "discussion". The ad that claims he's just too out of touch. Well, techno speaking that may be accurate it will NOT sit well with alot of 70 year olds that are fiddle fit and sharp as tacks. That's what I'm saying. It continues to return to the party leaders and campaign advisers "in-fighting". And as long as that continues to be a pattern ALL the GOP needs to do is shut up.

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

BoxDog wrote:
Hey-- I just heard on the news Palin will (now) cooperate with the investigation.
I find that enouraging, on several levels. Maybe there's still hope for the power of the people and a free press after all!

I think she probably just heard Bidens opinion of the most recent anti-McCain ad released. Biden does tell it like he see's it, and like they say, never interrupt your enemy while they're making a mistake. He said that ad NEVER would have been approved if HE knew of it. Never. Ultimately it will Biden, like him or not, that does the Obama campaign in. <BD

Really? You think so? You think Biden's saying his personal disapproval of the ad was a mistake? I watched that interview, and didn't have that feeling at all.

-----------------------------

Move.on, move over, two dollar donations and out of work social workers can't help this democrat ticket. You can't argue against "old school" career politicians when your running mate IS one. <BD

How is saying what he did, "Old school?" Seems just the opposite, to me. Wouldn't "old school" be a cover-up, or a stubborn assertion that it was "right" to run that ad, no matter what it said, because you were "afraid" of letting down your "We are always right" guard, and being vulnerable enough to acknowledge what you perceive to be an error in judgment?

Is decency a "partisan" thing? Is the "right" way to handle things to insist instead that "God" is on your side, and the end justifies the means?

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 10:47, 2008-09-23

BoxDog · Guru

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Psych Lit wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

I am astounded by how nonplussed most voters and commentators seem to feel about "Troopergate," its importance. Astounded it appears to be "no biggie."

"We'll deal with it after the election."

"Oh. OK, then."

Excuse me??

So the question is whose responsibility is it to ask those questions to put the proper amount of weight on these issues? Back in the watergate days we had a different kind of press and we had a different kind of democratic party. these days the truth may be out there but its blogged in opinion form rather than journalistic inquiry.
after the past nearly 8 years, impeachment is still off the table. I still dont understand why.

after nearly 8 years of eroding civil liberties no legislative body or individual (save dennis kucinich) has come forth to try and sound the alarm. and if they did would they be ignored? (like dennis k)

like everything else we humans do to organize, the result is dependent upon our actions. we get the government we deserve.

It may be a bit of a "chicken or the egg" conundrum. Seems to me like first, we have to care, and then apply public pressure any way we know how, to get the media to care, since they don't seem to be exactly leading the charge on this.

Here's one article from an Alaskan paper, though, which is enocouraging. Maybe we should start bombarding the print media with outrage, but then again, how many actually read newspapers any more? Anyway, editorials like this couldn't hurt....

Hey-- I just heard on the news Palin will (now) cooperate with the investigation.
I find that enouraging, on several levels. Maybe there's still hope for the power of the people and a free press after all!

I think she probably just heard Bidens opinion of the most recent anti-McCain ad released. Biden does tell it like he see's it, and like they say, never interrupt your enemy while they're making a mistake. He said that ad NEVER would have been approved if HE knew of it. Never. Ultimately it will Biden, like him or not, that does the Obama campaign in. Move.on, move over, two dollar donations and out of work social workers can't help this democrat ticket. You can't argue against "old school" career politicians when your running mate IS one. Jesus, and is there EVER going to be a candidate debate? Does anyone think it might be a wise idea to air some before the early voting begins?

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Psych Lit wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

I am astounded by how nonplussed most voters and commentators seem to feel about "Troopergate," its importance. Astounded it appears to be "no biggie."

"We'll deal with it after the election."

"Oh. OK, then."

Excuse me??

So the question is whose responsibility is it to ask those questions to put the proper amount of weight on these issues? Back in the watergate days we had a different kind of press and we had a different kind of democratic party. these days the truth may be out there but its blogged in opinion form rather than journalistic inquiry.
after the past nearly 8 years, impeachment is still off the table. I still dont understand why.

after nearly 8 years of eroding civil liberties no legislative body or individual (save dennis kucinich) has come forth to try and sound the alarm. and if they did would they be ignored? (like dennis k)

like everything else we humans do to organize, the result is dependent upon our actions. we get the government we deserve.

It may be a bit of a "chicken or the egg" conundrum. Seems to me like first, we have to care, and then apply public pressure any way we know how, to get the media to care, since they don't seem to be exactly leading the charge on this.

Here's one article from an Alaskan paper, though, which is enocouraging. Maybe we should start bombarding the print media with outrage, but then again, how many actually read newspapers any more? Anyway, editorials like this couldn't hurt....

Hey-- I just heard on the news Palin will (now) cooperate with the investigation.
I find that enouraging, on several levels. Maybe there's still hope for the power of the people and a free press after all! smile

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

MyCat8it wrote:

milo wrote:

I don't really care much about the abusive power in troopergate.
I do care that this woman brings with her an idea that she can apply her religion to my life.
I remember reading,,,,, the Spanish army had a friar read a prayer to the Indios telling them to accept God and the church, if they didn't the Spanish army slaughtered them with the blessing of the church. I read that in several historical accounts of American history, must be some truth to it.
So you see troopergate is such a small thing to me when I am looking at a woman who would "rule" a country with a bible in her hand.

I think the Troopergate thing is important. It shows that she got herself into power and abused it. I don't care much about the trooper or why he was fired, but I sure as hell don't want her doing the same thing in Washington.

If she really set that guy up, who will she hang next? Bush had left so many people out to dry during his tenure in the White House. What makes us think she would be any different, if she's already done it?

And for the record, I don't agree with anyone ruling with a Bible, Quran, or
Buddha. But, that's just me.

I think they're both important, actually.

Let me explain first, before you condemn me...
I read an interesting article a few days ago which helped me put my vague aversion to Chirstocrats in a more sharp perspective, and be a bit more at ease with those feelings.

The "ka CHING" moment for me, when I read the article, was when it mentioned how when one is a religious extremist, and views the world from that point of view, then ... well here, let me quote the Salon article:

"...Bess (NOTE: Bess is a former Southern Baptist minister) is unnerved by the prospect of Palin -- a woman whose mind is given to dogmatic certitude -- standing one step away from the Oval Office. "It's truly frightening that someone like Sarah has risen to the national level," Bess said. "Like all religious fundamentalists -- Christian, Jewish, Muslim -- she is a dualist. They view life as an ongoing struggle to the finish between good and evil. Their mind-set is that you do not do business with evil -- you destroy it. Talking with the enemy is not part of their plan. That puts someone like Obama on the side of evil.

-- end of excerpt from "The Pastor Who Clashed with Palin" by David Talbot)

It does harken back to GBW droning on endlessly about "evil-doers" doesn't it?

What frightens me about Palin is the same thing that frightend me about GWB: that "the end justifies the means" philosophy. Geneva convention? Pfft! We're dealing with evil-doers. Waterboarding? Necessary to get information out of evil-doers. Domestic spying on the citizenry? There might be evil-doers out there we don't know about.

When God has given you a task, you must not flinch.... or, as Sarah Palin would say, blink.

As for TrooperGate... correct me if my vague memory has failed me, but didn't she already rebuff this investigation once, and then assign the investigory task to a group of people she hired, already favorable to her, and that is the panel she's now stonewalling? She may be right, when she asserts the process is corrupt, just not for the reasons she identifies.

MyCat8it · Senior Member

milo wrote:

I don't really care much about the abusive power in troopergate.
I do care that this woman brings with her an idea that she can apply her religion to my life.
I remember reading,,,,, the Spanish army had a friar read a prayer to the Indios telling them to accept God and the church, if they didn't the Spanish army slaughtered them with the blessing of the church. I read that in several historical accounts of American history, must be some truth to it.
So you see troopergate is such a small thing to me when I am looking at a woman who would "rule" a country with a bible in her hand.

I think the Troopergate thing is important. It shows that she got herself into power and abused it. I don't care much about the trooper or why he was fired, but I sure as hell don't want her doing the same thing in Washington.

If she really set that guy up, who will she hang next? Bush had left so many people out to dry during his tenure in the White House. What makes us think she would be any different, if she's already done it?

And for the record, I don't agree with anyone ruling with a Bible, Quran, or

Buddha. But, that's just me.

milo · Veteran Member

I don't really care much about the abusive power in troopergate.
I do care that this woman brings with her an idea that she can apply her religion to my life.
I remember reading,,,,, the Spanish army had a friar read a prayer to the Indios telling them to accept God and the church, if they didn't the Spanish army slaughtered them with the blessing of the church. I read that in several historical accounts of American history, must be some truth to it.
So you see troopergate is such a small thing to me when I am looking at a woman who would "rule" a country with a bible in her hand.

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

Psych Lit wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

I am astounded by how nonplussed most voters and commentators seem to feel about "Troopergate," its importance. Astounded it appears to be "no biggie."

"We'll deal with it after the election."

"Oh. OK, then."

Excuse me??

So the question is whose responsibility is it to ask those questions to put the proper amount of weight on these issues? Back in the watergate days we had a different kind of press and we had a different kind of democratic party. these days the truth may be out there but its blogged in opinion form rather than journalistic inquiry.
after the past nearly 8 years, impeachment is still off the table. I still dont understand why.

after nearly 8 years of eroding civil liberties no legislative body or individual (save dennis kucinich) has come forth to try and sound the alarm. and if they did would they be ignored? (like dennis k)

like everything else we humans do to organize, the result is dependent upon our actions. we get the government we deserve.

It may be a bit of a "chicken or the egg" conundrum. Seems to me like first, we have to care, and then apply public pressure any way we know how, to get the media to care, since they don't seem to be exactly leading the charge on this.

Here's one article from an Alaskan paper, though, which is enocouraging. Maybe we should start bombarding the print media with outrage, but then again, how many actually read newspapers any more? Anyway, editorials like this couldn't hurt....

Anchorage Daily News
Palin's stall

Governor is stonewalling the Troopergate investigation

Published: September 5th, 2008 12:11 AM
Last Modified: September 5th, 2008 03:03 AM

Gov. Sarah Palin is taking the wrong approach to Troopergate. She should be practicing the open and transparent, ethical and accountable government she promised when running for governor and boasts about now that she's on the national stage.

Instead, Gov. Palin has begun stonewalling the Legislature's attempt to get the bottom of allegations that she, her family or staff violated ethical or state personnel rules.

As a result, the Troopergate allegations hang over Palin's future and cloud her candidacy for vice president.

(rest of article at:
Palin's stall: Opinion | adn.com )

Psych Lit · Guru

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

I am astounded by how nonplussed most voters and commentators seem to feel about "Troopergate," its importance. Astounded it appears to be "no biggie."

"We'll deal with it after the election."

"Oh. OK, then."

Excuse me??

So the question is whose responsibility is it to ask those questions to put the proper amount of weight on these issues? Back in the watergate days we had a different kind of press and we had a different kind of democratic party. these days the truth may be out there but its blogged in opinion form rather than journalistic inquiry.
after the past nearly 8 years, impeachment is still off the table. I still dont understand why.

after nearly 8 years of eroding civil liberties no legislative body or individual (save dennis kucinich) has come forth to try and sound the alarm. and if they did would they be ignored? (like dennis k)

like everything else we humans do to organize, the result is dependent upon our actions. we get the government we deserve.

And we are now what? A month and a half out from the election?

I used to have a button that said: "Remember The Watergate." I wore it during the '72 election, but don't know where it is, at the moment, so instead, I'll just share an image from that time: two of Nixon's henchmen, appointed by him to his staff, back in '69.

Whatever happened to those scurrilous thugs, anyway?

Oh yeah. Now, I remember...

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 00:10, 2008-09-23

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

That's what R.M. Nixon ordered his nefarious cohorts to do, when it came to the Watergate break in.

And the election came and went, and Richard Nixon was returned to the White House.

You know, it seems _______gate has become a term so overused, it's all but lost its meaning, but there is meaning to it, and meaning important for us to remember, along with the lessons history is willing to share with us, if only we're willing to reach out and take them.

I am astounded by how nonplussed most voters and commentators seem to feel about "Troopergate," its importance. Astounded it appears to be "no biggie."

"We'll deal with it after the election."

"Oh. OK, then."

Excuse me??

Is it that we've just become so numbed by the endless onslaught of corruption from the GW Bush administration, that this is truly "no biggie?"

How can we, as an electorate be even remotely "OK" with this unvetted (Biden has given, last Sunday, according NBC's Brian Williams, 84 interviews since being named to fill the second slot on the ticket. Saraha Palin? Two. TWO!) nominee's pending law suit being "put off" until after the last chad has been hung?

My first thought was that she'd want to get it out of the way as soon as possible, but that was before I realized that there's no need ... few seem to care, or even bat an eye.

That's OK Sarah -- you just "stonewall it" and get on with the campaigning. Nobody cares, not really.

And we are now what? A month and a half out from the election?

I used to have a button that said: "Remember The Watergate." I wore it during the '72 election, but don't know where it is, at the moment, so instead, I'll just share an image from that time: two of Nixon's henchmen, appointed by him to his staff, back in '69.

Deputy Assistant Cheney and Presidential Assistant Rumsfeld with reporters at the Whitehouse in 1975 (286 height x 500 width x 28530 bytes)

Whatever happened to those scurrilous thugs, anyway?

Oh yeah. Now, I remember...

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 00:31, 2008-09-23