Trail(er) trash
06-01-2006, 11:41 PM
#141
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trail(er) trash and Nature *****
Oh yes, that's one of the reasons I'm filing it away, should come in
useful around election time in a couple of years.
Jeff DeWitt
billy ray wrote:
> Look at Hitler's quote carefully and see if its words remind you of the
> actions of any current day politicians....
>
>
> "Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:r1Ofg.32614$Lg.29490@tornado.southeast.rr.com ...
>
>>Thanks Billy, that's a great quote, I'm saving it to use later!
>>
>>Jeff DeWitt
>>
>>billy ray wrote:
>>
>>>Everybody now knows how evil **** eugenics were: How all sorts of people
>>>were exterminated not because of anything they had done but simply
>>>because of the way they had been born. And we have all heard how
>>>disastrous were the **** efforts to build up the "master race" through
>>>selective breeding of SS men with the best of German women -- the
>>>"Lebensborn" project. Good leftists today recoil in horror from all that
>>>of course and use their "Hitler was a conservative" mantra to load those
>>>evils onto conservatives. But Hitler was a socialist. As he himself said:
>>>
>>>"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic
>>>system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair
>>>salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to
>>>wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are
>>>all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." (Speech of
>>>May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Mary Malmros" <malmrosnospam@nospamverizon.net> wrote in message
>>>news:Xns97D5D80CA6BA6malmros@130.81.64.196...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jeff DeWitt <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in news:0kKfg.11712$Qg.4920
>>>>@tornado.southeast.rr.com:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The ****'s were the "National Socialist German Workers Party", which is
>>>>>hardly far right!
>>>>
>>>>Right is as right does, Jeff; learn your history. The ***** were not in
>>>>the least socialist, no matter what their name says; in fact, socialists
>>>>and other leftists were very much a persecuted group under the ****
>>>>regime.
>>>
>>>
>
useful around election time in a couple of years.
Jeff DeWitt
billy ray wrote:
> Look at Hitler's quote carefully and see if its words remind you of the
> actions of any current day politicians....
>
>
> "Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:r1Ofg.32614$Lg.29490@tornado.southeast.rr.com ...
>
>>Thanks Billy, that's a great quote, I'm saving it to use later!
>>
>>Jeff DeWitt
>>
>>billy ray wrote:
>>
>>>Everybody now knows how evil **** eugenics were: How all sorts of people
>>>were exterminated not because of anything they had done but simply
>>>because of the way they had been born. And we have all heard how
>>>disastrous were the **** efforts to build up the "master race" through
>>>selective breeding of SS men with the best of German women -- the
>>>"Lebensborn" project. Good leftists today recoil in horror from all that
>>>of course and use their "Hitler was a conservative" mantra to load those
>>>evils onto conservatives. But Hitler was a socialist. As he himself said:
>>>
>>>"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic
>>>system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair
>>>salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to
>>>wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are
>>>all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." (Speech of
>>>May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Mary Malmros" <malmrosnospam@nospamverizon.net> wrote in message
>>>news:Xns97D5D80CA6BA6malmros@130.81.64.196...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jeff DeWitt <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in news:0kKfg.11712$Qg.4920
>>>>@tornado.southeast.rr.com:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The ****'s were the "National Socialist German Workers Party", which is
>>>>>hardly far right!
>>>>
>>>>Right is as right does, Jeff; learn your history. The ***** were not in
>>>>the least socialist, no matter what their name says; in fact, socialists
>>>>and other leftists were very much a persecuted group under the ****
>>>>regime.
>>>
>>>
>
06-01-2006, 11:41 PM
#142
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trail(er) trash and Nature *****
Oh yes, that's one of the reasons I'm filing it away, should come in
useful around election time in a couple of years.
Jeff DeWitt
billy ray wrote:
> Look at Hitler's quote carefully and see if its words remind you of the
> actions of any current day politicians....
>
>
> "Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:r1Ofg.32614$Lg.29490@tornado.southeast.rr.com ...
>
>>Thanks Billy, that's a great quote, I'm saving it to use later!
>>
>>Jeff DeWitt
>>
>>billy ray wrote:
>>
>>>Everybody now knows how evil **** eugenics were: How all sorts of people
>>>were exterminated not because of anything they had done but simply
>>>because of the way they had been born. And we have all heard how
>>>disastrous were the **** efforts to build up the "master race" through
>>>selective breeding of SS men with the best of German women -- the
>>>"Lebensborn" project. Good leftists today recoil in horror from all that
>>>of course and use their "Hitler was a conservative" mantra to load those
>>>evils onto conservatives. But Hitler was a socialist. As he himself said:
>>>
>>>"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic
>>>system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair
>>>salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to
>>>wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are
>>>all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." (Speech of
>>>May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Mary Malmros" <malmrosnospam@nospamverizon.net> wrote in message
>>>news:Xns97D5D80CA6BA6malmros@130.81.64.196...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jeff DeWitt <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in news:0kKfg.11712$Qg.4920
>>>>@tornado.southeast.rr.com:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The ****'s were the "National Socialist German Workers Party", which is
>>>>>hardly far right!
>>>>
>>>>Right is as right does, Jeff; learn your history. The ***** were not in
>>>>the least socialist, no matter what their name says; in fact, socialists
>>>>and other leftists were very much a persecuted group under the ****
>>>>regime.
>>>
>>>
>
useful around election time in a couple of years.
Jeff DeWitt
billy ray wrote:
> Look at Hitler's quote carefully and see if its words remind you of the
> actions of any current day politicians....
>
>
> "Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:r1Ofg.32614$Lg.29490@tornado.southeast.rr.com ...
>
>>Thanks Billy, that's a great quote, I'm saving it to use later!
>>
>>Jeff DeWitt
>>
>>billy ray wrote:
>>
>>>Everybody now knows how evil **** eugenics were: How all sorts of people
>>>were exterminated not because of anything they had done but simply
>>>because of the way they had been born. And we have all heard how
>>>disastrous were the **** efforts to build up the "master race" through
>>>selective breeding of SS men with the best of German women -- the
>>>"Lebensborn" project. Good leftists today recoil in horror from all that
>>>of course and use their "Hitler was a conservative" mantra to load those
>>>evils onto conservatives. But Hitler was a socialist. As he himself said:
>>>
>>>"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic
>>>system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair
>>>salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to
>>>wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are
>>>all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." (Speech of
>>>May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Mary Malmros" <malmrosnospam@nospamverizon.net> wrote in message
>>>news:Xns97D5D80CA6BA6malmros@130.81.64.196...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jeff DeWitt <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in news:0kKfg.11712$Qg.4920
>>>>@tornado.southeast.rr.com:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The ****'s were the "National Socialist German Workers Party", which is
>>>>>hardly far right!
>>>>
>>>>Right is as right does, Jeff; learn your history. The ***** were not in
>>>>the least socialist, no matter what their name says; in fact, socialists
>>>>and other leftists were very much a persecuted group under the ****
>>>>regime.
>>>
>>>
>
06-02-2006, 12:04 AM
#143
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trail(er) trash and Nature *****
Jeff DeWitt <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in
news:3sOfg.11919$Qg.8563@tornado.southeast.rr.com:
> Oh yes, that's one of the reasons I'm filing it away, should come in
> useful around election time in a couple of years.
No need, son; George W. Bush has had his two terms and can't run for a
third.
news:3sOfg.11919$Qg.8563@tornado.southeast.rr.com:
> Oh yes, that's one of the reasons I'm filing it away, should come in
> useful around election time in a couple of years.
No need, son; George W. Bush has had his two terms and can't run for a
third.
06-02-2006, 12:04 AM
#144
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trail(er) trash and Nature *****
Jeff DeWitt <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in
news:3sOfg.11919$Qg.8563@tornado.southeast.rr.com:
> Oh yes, that's one of the reasons I'm filing it away, should come in
> useful around election time in a couple of years.
No need, son; George W. Bush has had his two terms and can't run for a
third.
news:3sOfg.11919$Qg.8563@tornado.southeast.rr.com:
> Oh yes, that's one of the reasons I'm filing it away, should come in
> useful around election time in a couple of years.
No need, son; George W. Bush has had his two terms and can't run for a
third.
06-02-2006, 12:04 AM
#145
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trail(er) trash and Nature *****
Jeff DeWitt <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in
news:3sOfg.11919$Qg.8563@tornado.southeast.rr.com:
> Oh yes, that's one of the reasons I'm filing it away, should come in
> useful around election time in a couple of years.
No need, son; George W. Bush has had his two terms and can't run for a
third.
news:3sOfg.11919$Qg.8563@tornado.southeast.rr.com:
> Oh yes, that's one of the reasons I'm filing it away, should come in
> useful around election time in a couple of years.
No need, son; George W. Bush has had his two terms and can't run for a
third.
06-02-2006, 12:54 AM
#146
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trail(er) trash and Nature *****
Mary Malmros wrote:
> Jeff DeWitt <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in
> news:H2Nfg.18873$JW5.10044@southeast.rr.com:
>
>
>>Oh boy are we getting way off topic however...
>>
>>I don't claim to be an expert on the *****, but among other unsavory
>>things they were they WERE socialists.
>>
>>A few points, ****'s promoted the limiting of profits, abolishment of
>>rent and increasing social benefits, all socialist ideas.
>>
>>There is an excellent essay from Nobel Prize winner Friedrich A. Hayek
>>titled "The Socialist Roots of Nazism"
>>
>>http://lamar.colostate.edu/~grjan/hayeknaziism.html
>>
>>I suspect that the reason that it's commonly accepted that Nazism
>>isn't really socialism is because the Socialists are (correctly)
>>terrified to be connected with Nazism in any way and react very
>>strongly to any suggestion that Nazism was socialist.
>
>
> I don't suppose the large number of socialists who were killed by *****
> could possibly have anything to do with it...no, no way...
No, they weren't the right sort of socialists... to use the modern term
they weren't politically correct by the ****'s standards. Stalin had a
lot of "good" Communists purged too, not because they weren't
Communists, but because he saw them as a threat to his power. (I put
"good" in quotes because "good Communist" is an oxymoron).
>
>
>>In other words it's not politically correct to link the two... but
>>then I'm not politically correct!
>
>
> Yes, another bold independent thinker proudly proclaiming himself to be
> "politically incorrect". Question: is thinking still truly independent if
> it's also intellectually dishonest? Characterizing distortion of history
> as "political incorrectness" is like calling propaganda truth.
What's intellectually dishonest about disagreeing with what seems to be
the accepted thought, that the ****'s weren't socialists? Show me where
I'm wrong instead of just attacking me... or even more to the point show
were Dr. Hayek, who WAS an expert, is wrong.
Jeff DeWitt
> Jeff DeWitt <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in
> news:H2Nfg.18873$JW5.10044@southeast.rr.com:
>
>
>>Oh boy are we getting way off topic however...
>>
>>I don't claim to be an expert on the *****, but among other unsavory
>>things they were they WERE socialists.
>>
>>A few points, ****'s promoted the limiting of profits, abolishment of
>>rent and increasing social benefits, all socialist ideas.
>>
>>There is an excellent essay from Nobel Prize winner Friedrich A. Hayek
>>titled "The Socialist Roots of Nazism"
>>
>>http://lamar.colostate.edu/~grjan/hayeknaziism.html
>>
>>I suspect that the reason that it's commonly accepted that Nazism
>>isn't really socialism is because the Socialists are (correctly)
>>terrified to be connected with Nazism in any way and react very
>>strongly to any suggestion that Nazism was socialist.
>
>
> I don't suppose the large number of socialists who were killed by *****
> could possibly have anything to do with it...no, no way...
No, they weren't the right sort of socialists... to use the modern term
they weren't politically correct by the ****'s standards. Stalin had a
lot of "good" Communists purged too, not because they weren't
Communists, but because he saw them as a threat to his power. (I put
"good" in quotes because "good Communist" is an oxymoron).
>
>
>>In other words it's not politically correct to link the two... but
>>then I'm not politically correct!
>
>
> Yes, another bold independent thinker proudly proclaiming himself to be
> "politically incorrect". Question: is thinking still truly independent if
> it's also intellectually dishonest? Characterizing distortion of history
> as "political incorrectness" is like calling propaganda truth.
What's intellectually dishonest about disagreeing with what seems to be
the accepted thought, that the ****'s weren't socialists? Show me where
I'm wrong instead of just attacking me... or even more to the point show
were Dr. Hayek, who WAS an expert, is wrong.
Jeff DeWitt
06-02-2006, 12:54 AM
#147
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trail(er) trash and Nature *****
Mary Malmros wrote:
> Jeff DeWitt <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in
> news:H2Nfg.18873$JW5.10044@southeast.rr.com:
>
>
>>Oh boy are we getting way off topic however...
>>
>>I don't claim to be an expert on the *****, but among other unsavory
>>things they were they WERE socialists.
>>
>>A few points, ****'s promoted the limiting of profits, abolishment of
>>rent and increasing social benefits, all socialist ideas.
>>
>>There is an excellent essay from Nobel Prize winner Friedrich A. Hayek
>>titled "The Socialist Roots of Nazism"
>>
>>http://lamar.colostate.edu/~grjan/hayeknaziism.html
>>
>>I suspect that the reason that it's commonly accepted that Nazism
>>isn't really socialism is because the Socialists are (correctly)
>>terrified to be connected with Nazism in any way and react very
>>strongly to any suggestion that Nazism was socialist.
>
>
> I don't suppose the large number of socialists who were killed by *****
> could possibly have anything to do with it...no, no way...
No, they weren't the right sort of socialists... to use the modern term
they weren't politically correct by the ****'s standards. Stalin had a
lot of "good" Communists purged too, not because they weren't
Communists, but because he saw them as a threat to his power. (I put
"good" in quotes because "good Communist" is an oxymoron).
>
>
>>In other words it's not politically correct to link the two... but
>>then I'm not politically correct!
>
>
> Yes, another bold independent thinker proudly proclaiming himself to be
> "politically incorrect". Question: is thinking still truly independent if
> it's also intellectually dishonest? Characterizing distortion of history
> as "political incorrectness" is like calling propaganda truth.
What's intellectually dishonest about disagreeing with what seems to be
the accepted thought, that the ****'s weren't socialists? Show me where
I'm wrong instead of just attacking me... or even more to the point show
were Dr. Hayek, who WAS an expert, is wrong.
Jeff DeWitt
> Jeff DeWitt <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in
> news:H2Nfg.18873$JW5.10044@southeast.rr.com:
>
>
>>Oh boy are we getting way off topic however...
>>
>>I don't claim to be an expert on the *****, but among other unsavory
>>things they were they WERE socialists.
>>
>>A few points, ****'s promoted the limiting of profits, abolishment of
>>rent and increasing social benefits, all socialist ideas.
>>
>>There is an excellent essay from Nobel Prize winner Friedrich A. Hayek
>>titled "The Socialist Roots of Nazism"
>>
>>http://lamar.colostate.edu/~grjan/hayeknaziism.html
>>
>>I suspect that the reason that it's commonly accepted that Nazism
>>isn't really socialism is because the Socialists are (correctly)
>>terrified to be connected with Nazism in any way and react very
>>strongly to any suggestion that Nazism was socialist.
>
>
> I don't suppose the large number of socialists who were killed by *****
> could possibly have anything to do with it...no, no way...
No, they weren't the right sort of socialists... to use the modern term
they weren't politically correct by the ****'s standards. Stalin had a
lot of "good" Communists purged too, not because they weren't
Communists, but because he saw them as a threat to his power. (I put
"good" in quotes because "good Communist" is an oxymoron).
>
>
>>In other words it's not politically correct to link the two... but
>>then I'm not politically correct!
>
>
> Yes, another bold independent thinker proudly proclaiming himself to be
> "politically incorrect". Question: is thinking still truly independent if
> it's also intellectually dishonest? Characterizing distortion of history
> as "political incorrectness" is like calling propaganda truth.
What's intellectually dishonest about disagreeing with what seems to be
the accepted thought, that the ****'s weren't socialists? Show me where
I'm wrong instead of just attacking me... or even more to the point show
were Dr. Hayek, who WAS an expert, is wrong.
Jeff DeWitt
06-02-2006, 12:54 AM
#148
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trail(er) trash and Nature *****
Mary Malmros wrote:
> Jeff DeWitt <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in
> news:H2Nfg.18873$JW5.10044@southeast.rr.com:
>
>
>>Oh boy are we getting way off topic however...
>>
>>I don't claim to be an expert on the *****, but among other unsavory
>>things they were they WERE socialists.
>>
>>A few points, ****'s promoted the limiting of profits, abolishment of
>>rent and increasing social benefits, all socialist ideas.
>>
>>There is an excellent essay from Nobel Prize winner Friedrich A. Hayek
>>titled "The Socialist Roots of Nazism"
>>
>>http://lamar.colostate.edu/~grjan/hayeknaziism.html
>>
>>I suspect that the reason that it's commonly accepted that Nazism
>>isn't really socialism is because the Socialists are (correctly)
>>terrified to be connected with Nazism in any way and react very
>>strongly to any suggestion that Nazism was socialist.
>
>
> I don't suppose the large number of socialists who were killed by *****
> could possibly have anything to do with it...no, no way...
No, they weren't the right sort of socialists... to use the modern term
they weren't politically correct by the ****'s standards. Stalin had a
lot of "good" Communists purged too, not because they weren't
Communists, but because he saw them as a threat to his power. (I put
"good" in quotes because "good Communist" is an oxymoron).
>
>
>>In other words it's not politically correct to link the two... but
>>then I'm not politically correct!
>
>
> Yes, another bold independent thinker proudly proclaiming himself to be
> "politically incorrect". Question: is thinking still truly independent if
> it's also intellectually dishonest? Characterizing distortion of history
> as "political incorrectness" is like calling propaganda truth.
What's intellectually dishonest about disagreeing with what seems to be
the accepted thought, that the ****'s weren't socialists? Show me where
I'm wrong instead of just attacking me... or even more to the point show
were Dr. Hayek, who WAS an expert, is wrong.
Jeff DeWitt
> Jeff DeWitt <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in
> news:H2Nfg.18873$JW5.10044@southeast.rr.com:
>
>
>>Oh boy are we getting way off topic however...
>>
>>I don't claim to be an expert on the *****, but among other unsavory
>>things they were they WERE socialists.
>>
>>A few points, ****'s promoted the limiting of profits, abolishment of
>>rent and increasing social benefits, all socialist ideas.
>>
>>There is an excellent essay from Nobel Prize winner Friedrich A. Hayek
>>titled "The Socialist Roots of Nazism"
>>
>>http://lamar.colostate.edu/~grjan/hayeknaziism.html
>>
>>I suspect that the reason that it's commonly accepted that Nazism
>>isn't really socialism is because the Socialists are (correctly)
>>terrified to be connected with Nazism in any way and react very
>>strongly to any suggestion that Nazism was socialist.
>
>
> I don't suppose the large number of socialists who were killed by *****
> could possibly have anything to do with it...no, no way...
No, they weren't the right sort of socialists... to use the modern term
they weren't politically correct by the ****'s standards. Stalin had a
lot of "good" Communists purged too, not because they weren't
Communists, but because he saw them as a threat to his power. (I put
"good" in quotes because "good Communist" is an oxymoron).
>
>
>>In other words it's not politically correct to link the two... but
>>then I'm not politically correct!
>
>
> Yes, another bold independent thinker proudly proclaiming himself to be
> "politically incorrect". Question: is thinking still truly independent if
> it's also intellectually dishonest? Characterizing distortion of history
> as "political incorrectness" is like calling propaganda truth.
What's intellectually dishonest about disagreeing with what seems to be
the accepted thought, that the ****'s weren't socialists? Show me where
I'm wrong instead of just attacking me... or even more to the point show
were Dr. Hayek, who WAS an expert, is wrong.
Jeff DeWitt
06-02-2006, 12:56 AM
#149
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trail(er) trash and Nature *****
Oh there will be plenty of need, 2008 is coming and no doubt the
Democrats will come up with another nutcase lefty to run, someone I can
use that quote against. I just hope to God the Republicans come up with
someone good to run against him (or her).
Jeff DeWitt
Mary Malmros wrote:
> Jeff DeWitt <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in
> news:3sOfg.11919$Qg.8563@tornado.southeast.rr.com:
>
>
>>Oh yes, that's one of the reasons I'm filing it away, should come in
>>useful around election time in a couple of years.
>
>
> No need, son; George W. Bush has had his two terms and can't run for a
> third.
Democrats will come up with another nutcase lefty to run, someone I can
use that quote against. I just hope to God the Republicans come up with
someone good to run against him (or her).
Jeff DeWitt
Mary Malmros wrote:
> Jeff DeWitt <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in
> news:3sOfg.11919$Qg.8563@tornado.southeast.rr.com:
>
>
>>Oh yes, that's one of the reasons I'm filing it away, should come in
>>useful around election time in a couple of years.
>
>
> No need, son; George W. Bush has had his two terms and can't run for a
> third.
06-02-2006, 12:56 AM
#150
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trail(er) trash and Nature *****
Oh there will be plenty of need, 2008 is coming and no doubt the
Democrats will come up with another nutcase lefty to run, someone I can
use that quote against. I just hope to God the Republicans come up with
someone good to run against him (or her).
Jeff DeWitt
Mary Malmros wrote:
> Jeff DeWitt <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in
> news:3sOfg.11919$Qg.8563@tornado.southeast.rr.com:
>
>
>>Oh yes, that's one of the reasons I'm filing it away, should come in
>>useful around election time in a couple of years.
>
>
> No need, son; George W. Bush has had his two terms and can't run for a
> third.
Democrats will come up with another nutcase lefty to run, someone I can
use that quote against. I just hope to God the Republicans come up with
someone good to run against him (or her).
Jeff DeWitt
Mary Malmros wrote:
> Jeff DeWitt <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in
> news:3sOfg.11919$Qg.8563@tornado.southeast.rr.com:
>
>
>>Oh yes, that's one of the reasons I'm filing it away, should come in
>>useful around election time in a couple of years.
>
>
> No need, son; George W. Bush has had his two terms and can't run for a
> third.
