Cancer victims should be angry at Elizabeth Edwards for using her disease to help her husband run for president!

Elizabeth Edwards surprised at the criticism? They rode it in 2004
and now again in 2008!

Yes, the Edwards' rode it in 2004, and now again trying to ride it in
2008. John Edwards said he would quit the presidential race in 2008
if his wife's condition got worse. But he didn't, so that makes him a
liar, and not to be trusted. Sure, Elizabeth is saying that she
talked him into it because "the country needs his leadership so bad",
but that unfortunately is a lie also.

John Edwards abdicated his Senate voting as the 2004 election
approached, doing the people of North Carolina a big disservice. And
that is why the voters of North Carolina sent up another Republican
for their US Senator. At least that person votes, albeit just a
rubber stamp to whatever "the policy du jour" is for the Evil Bush
regime.

But it is heartening to see that the American people are not buying
the same ol' Edwards song and dance. He is running 3rd in most polls,
4th in others. They know that John Edwards is a liar and NOT to be
trusted because of 1) using this same old "cancer" thing in a yet
another election and 2) because of his abdication of his Senate voting
just in the sake of self-aggrandizement. It ain't gonna work in 2008
eitha!

Elizabeth Edwards doth protest wayyyyy too much. 2 weeks ago or so,
she complained that she was tiring of being cannon fodder in magazines
and on the TV. Yet she continues to beat the campaign trail with
John, getting in ANY photo op or interview she possibly can. People
ain't buyin' it eitha.....they are quite sure she is not quite as sick
as she portrays herself to be.

It's a cancer being perpetrated on the American people!

Just so her "little Johnny" might be president, and she, first lady!
BARF!

Well, Johnny Edwards will not be able to help deliver NC to the
Democrats in 2008 - even if he DOES make the ticket!

On Apr 11, 12:19�pm, i_tell_it_like_it_i...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Elizabeth Edwards surprised at the criticism? *They rode it in 2004
> and now again in 2008!
>
> Yes, the Edwards' rode it in 2004, and now again trying to ride it in
> 2008. *John Edwards said he would quit the presidential race in 2008
> if his wife's condition got worse. *But he didn't, so that makes him a
> liar, and not to be trusted. *Sure, Elizabeth is saying that she
> talked him into it because "the country needs his leadership so bad",
> but that unfortunately is a lie also.
>
> John Edwards abdicated his Senate voting as the 2004 election
> approached, doing the people of North Carolina a big disservice. *And
> that is why the voters of North Carolina sent up another Republican
> for their US Senator. *At least that person votes, albeit just a
> rubber stamp to whatever "the policy du jour" is for the Evil Bush
> regime.
>
> But it is heartening to see that the American people are not buying
> the same ol' Edwards song and dance. *He is running 3rd in most polls,
> 4th in others. *They know that John Edwards is a liar and NOT to be
> trusted because of 1) using this same old "cancer" thing in a yet
> another election and 2) because of his abdication of his Senate voting
> just in the sake of self-aggrandizement. *It ain't gonna work in 2008
> eitha!
>
> Elizabeth Edwards doth protest wayyyyy too much. *2 weeks ago or so,
> she complained that she was tiring of being cannon fodder in magazines
> and on the TV. *Yet she continues to beat the campaign trail with
> John, getting in ANY photo op or interview she possibly can. *People
> ain't buyin' it eitha.....they are quite sure she is not quite as sick
> as she portrays herself to be.
>
> It's a cancer being perpetrated on the American people!
>
> Just so her "little Johnny" might be president, and she, first lady!
> BARF!
>
> Well, Johnny Edwards will not be able to help deliver NC to the
> Democrats in 2008 - even if he DOES make the ticket!

And this post has exactly what to do with quitting smoking. Get lost,
troll.

Joyce

i_tell_it_like_it_is_2@yahoo.com wrote:

>
> It's a cancer being perpetrated on the American people!

Hello folks,
Those of you using Outlook Express, when you see posts, in this thread,
Hold the CTRL key and press T.
That will make this whole thread (topic) disappear.

If you're using Win and Netscape, right mouse click and select Ignore
Thread.
And the rest of you (newsreaders) probably know your instructions, to
ignore, plonk, delete a topic.
If not, they are listed here.
<http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/killfilefaqhtm.htm>

Don't reply to the posts, please.
If it persists, there's other ways of dealing with these types.
J

well, isn't this a fine howdydo?

since i consider this inflamatory bilge - whatever political path one
follows - it should, and can be, reported as an abuse.

>here is this posters stated purpose from a diff. grouop:
>Here is my strategy when I MULTIPOST. First of all, I com e up with a prolific/cogent/insightful >writing (all of mine ARE, of course!) and then I form a picture of what groups should be aware of my
>educational/edifying/enlightening words. THEN, and only THEN, do I google thru by date to see what >other groups have discussed the event or person I am writing about. That person or event has been fair >game in those groups in the PAST, and that makes them fair game for moi NOW!

the addy [i_tell_it_like_it_is_2@yahoo.com] is for the purpose of trying
to hide, but turns out it's posted from

198.85.228.129

[and since all posts for a year come from this ip, it'll leave a trail
on the other end]

North Carolina Research and Education Network
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: NCNOC.NCREN.NET

it can be reported to:
RTechEmail: hostmaster@ncren.net
(919) 248-1111

i_tell_it_like_it_is_2@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Elizabeth Edwards surprised at the criticism? They rode it in 2004
> and now again in 2008!
>
> Yes, the Edwards' rode it in 2004, and now again trying to ride it in
> 2008. John Edwards said he would quit the presidential race in 2008
> if his wife's condition got worse. But he didn't, so that makes him a
> liar, and not to be trusted. Sure, Elizabeth is saying that she
> talked him into it because "the country needs his leadership so bad",
> but that unfortunately is a lie also.
>
> John Edwards abdicated his Senate voting as the 2004 election
> approached, doing the people of North Carolina a big disservice. And
> that is why the voters of North Carolina sent up another Republican
> for their US Senator. At least that person votes, albeit just a
> rubber stamp to whatever "the policy du jour" is for the Evil Bush
> regime.
>
> But it is heartening to see that the American people are not buying
> the same ol' Edwards song and dance. He is running 3rd in most polls,
> 4th in others. They know that John Edwards is a liar and NOT to be
> trusted because of 1) using this same old "cancer" thing in a yet
> another election and 2) because of his abdication of his Senate voting
> just in the sake of self-aggrandizement. It ain't gonna work in 2008
> eitha!
>
> Elizabeth Edwards doth protest wayyyyy too much. 2 weeks ago or so,
> she complained that she was tiring of being cannon fodder in magazines
> and on the TV. Yet she continues to beat the campaign trail with
> John, getting in ANY photo op or interview she possibly can. People
> ain't buyin' it eitha.....they are quite sure she is not quite as sick
> as she portrays herself to be.
>
> It's a cancer being perpetrated on the American people!
>
> Just so her "little Johnny" might be president, and she, first lady!
> BARF!
>
> Well, Johnny Edwards will not be able to help deliver NC to the
> Democrats in 2008 - even if he DOES make the ticket!

> Well, Johnny Edwards will not be able to help deliver NC to the
> Democrats in 2008 - even if he DOES make the ticket!


Your accusation that the Edwards family is using Elizabeth's disease to
springboard John's campaign is sickening, and an out-and-out lie. As an
American first, and a Republican second, I offer my sincere condolences and
good wishes to the Edwards family, and ask that they forgive fools like the
one who posted this nonsense.

Steven Vaughan wrote:

> Your accusation that the Edwards family is using Elizabeth's disease to
> springboard John's campaign is sickening, and an out-and-out lie. As an
> American first, and a Republican second, I offer my sincere condolences and
> good wishes to the Edwards family, and ask that they forgive fools like the
> one who posted this nonsense.
>
>
This is the type of thing that Carl Rove does to discredit others.
It is the same kind of slander campaign that he used against McCain.

--
***************************************
* This is the Spammish Inquisition *
* Not Lumber Cartel Unit 75 [TINLC] *
* I am not SPEWS.ORG *
***************************************

DLU wrote:

> This is the type of thing that Carl Rove does to discredit others.
> It is the same kind of slander campaign that he used against McCain.

Take your political crossposts somewhere else, David.
Pour pas encouragez les autres.
J

J wrote:

> DLU wrote:
>
>
>>This is the type of thing that Carl Rove does to discredit others.
>>It is the same kind of slander campaign that he used against McCain.
>
>
> Take your political crossposts somewhere else, David.
> Pour pas encouragez les autres.
> J
>
Only responding to the idiot that posted this in the first place.
Not my political post. All my posts to date have had to do with one
particular NG.
I do not normally crosspost but this one deserved to shot down for what
it is.
--
***************************************
* This is the Spammish Inquisition *
* Not Lumber Cartel Unit 75 [TINLC] *
* I am not SPEWS.ORG *
***************************************

DLU wrote:

> J wrote:
>
> > DLU wrote:
> >
> <snip political>
>
> > Take your political crossposts somewhere else, David.
> > Pour pas encouragez les autres.
> > J
> >
> Only responding to the idiot that posted this in the first place.
> Not my political post. All my posts to date have had to do with one
> particular NG.
> I do not normally crosspost but this one deserved to shot down for what
> it is.

The topic was political.
other countries are having elections this year.
If you, a regular, decides it's okay to wade in to political issues, here,
then anyone or everyone will do the same and this is not a newsgroup about
politics.
It's about support for people with cancer or their loved ones.
Thank you, David for please not crossposting again.
re :snip (people search the archives for names or phrases, then decide
where they'd like to troll.
J

J wrote:

> DLU wrote:
>
>
>>J wrote:
>>
>>
>>>DLU wrote:
>>>
>>
>><snip political>
>>
>>>Take your political crossposts somewhere else, David.
>>>Pour pas encouragez les autres.

The original poster made this political trying to appeal to certain
prejudices.

In many cases cancer treatment and has a political component.
For instance, stem cell research. Does it have the potential to cure
certain kinds o cancer? So do the posters of this group engage in some
political discourse to try and shape the future of cancer research, or
is that unacceptable.
We have seen several threads on the politics of smoking legislation. Is
that political?

Now we have someone criticizing a political candidate due to his wife's
cancer, and that is political, but it is also reprehensible and needs to
be stopped, and its source needs to be stopped. Remember the first
nationally known person to make this viewpoint was Rush Limbaugh.
Do you intend to let this kind of criticism continue?

--
***************************************
* This is the Spammish Inquisition *
* Not Lumber Cartel Unit 75 [TINLC] *
* I am not SPEWS.ORG *
***************************************

DLU wrote:

> J wrote:
> > DLU wrote:
> >>J wrote:
> >>>DLU wrote:
> >><snip political>
> >>
> >>>Take your political crossposts somewhere else, David.
> >>>Pour pas encouragez les autres.
>
> The original poster made this political trying to appeal to certain
> prejudices.
>
> In many cases cancer treatment and has a political component.
> For instance, stem cell research. Does it have the potential to cure
> certain kinds o cancer? So do the posters of this group engage in some
> political discourse to try and shape the future of cancer research, or
> is that unacceptable.
> We have seen several threads on the politics of smoking legislation. Is
> that political?
>
> Now we have someone criticizing a political candidate due to his wife's
> cancer, and that is political, but it is also reprehensible and needs to
> <snip>
> Do you intend to let this kind of criticism continue?

Yes. Use your filters or take it elsewhere.

This newsgroup is about the people (who belong) here, cancer patients, loved
ones, carers.
Casual or accidental mention of political leaders sometimes happens.
Debates (about them) no.
Stem cell is not debated here. It's experimental and political. "If it's
more about medicine, then post to sci.med.diseases.cancer". Experimental
should be posted to sci.med.diseases.cancer (unless a patient, or loved one,
is seriously considering such and asks about one).
If a political leader were to show up here for support and/or information
(which is highly unlikely), he/she would be told to leave his/her political
hat at the door. And would be treated like everyone else here (no more
attention than the "regular" person). If an ex-patient showed up (who has
since joined politics) and wanted to start a political debate or political
call to arms, he or she would be told to announce (from time to time) the
newsgroup where he/she could be found to discuss it, ie take the discussion
elsewhere. (and not crosspost)
This newsgroup is not about activism nor research. Activists have been
discouraged from posting about such here.
One person persistently posts about a smoking /political issue. The answer
is to not reply and/or plonk him. That's been a "working fromula".
The other person you may be referring to is, by far, more of a supporter
(posts) than the no smoking issue. As long as it stays that way, her
occasional post about (continuing) the patient's efforts, will be
over-looked.
If it's in someone's signature, delete the signature and address the
cancer/support issue.
If too many people start putting politics in their signatures, they'll be
told to go somewhere else or stop their siggies.
I don't recall, in recent years, political calls to arms (but one, Canadian,
who was told to stop) from other countries here.
So the answer is, if a political name shows up on a post, plonk it or go
somewhere else (announce the newsgroup (here, not crossposted), if others
here want to go there as well) to debate the issue(s).
If you have more questions, please ask.
J

J wrote:

> DLU wrote:
>
> > Do you intend to let this kind of criticism continue?
>
> Yes. Use your filters or take it elsewhere.

To be clear(er)
Will criticisms (and/or posts), about political leaders or their wives, be
tolerated or encouraged here - No. The posters will be told to take it elsewhere
and/or readers, here, instructed to ignore.

Just as a PS, I've seen, over the years, many "news" items about other
politicians (or their loved ones) who have cancer .. various countries. I avoid
posting those.
J

On Apr 11, 3:34 pm, "Paul T. Holland" <pholl...@bellatlantic.net>
wrote:
> well, isn't this a fine howdydo?
>
> since i consider this inflamatory bilge - whatever political path one
> follows - it should, and can be, reported as an abuse.
>
> >here is this posters stated purpose from a diff. grouop:
> >Here is my strategy when I MULTIPOST. First of all, I com e up with a prolific/cogent/insightful >writing (all of mine ARE, of course!) and then I form a picture of what groups should be aware of my
> >educational/edifying/enlightening words. THEN, and only THEN, do I google thru by date to see what >other groups have discussed the event or person I am writing about. That person or event has been fair >game in those groups in the PAST, and that makes them fair game for moi NOW!
>
> the addy [i_tell_it_like_it_i...@yahoo.com] is for the purpose of trying
> to hide, but turns out it's posted from
>
> 198.85.228.129
>
> [and since all posts for a year come from this ip, it'll leave a trail
> on the other end]
>
> North Carolina Research and Education Network
> NetType: Direct Allocation
> NameServer: NCNOC.NCREN.NET
>
> it can be reported to:
> RTechEmail: hostmas...@ncren.net
> (919) 248-1111

As president of 'THE Consortium' I can tell you that some people have
complained about the education/edification/enlightment our group has
provided and it all has been for naught. For what you are trying to
do, you little netcop, is illegal. It is what is called is
(attempted) 'violation of the first amendment- freedom of speech'. I
talked to the other members of the consortium and they are all in
agreement that we have infringed on no one's RIGHTS. And one of our
members is an attorney for the ACLU! So there!

You must be one of those nasty Republicans who try to stomp out
people's rights! You sorry uberconservative!

Burn!

>
>
>
> i_tell_it_like_it_i...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Elizabeth Edwards surprised at the criticism? They rode it in 2004
> > and now again in 2008!
>
> > Yes, the Edwards' rode it in 2004, and now again trying to ride it in
> > 2008. John Edwards said he would quit the presidential race in 2008
> > if his wife's condition got worse. But he didn't, so that makes him a
> > liar, and not to be trusted. Sure, Elizabeth is saying that she
> > talked him into it because "the country needs his leadership so bad",
> > but that unfortunately is a lie also.
>
> > John Edwards abdicated his Senate voting as the 2004 election
> > approached, doing the people of North Carolina a big disservice. And
> > that is why the voters of North Carolina sent up another Republican
> > for their US Senator. At least that person votes, albeit just a
> > rubber stamp to whatever "the policy du jour" is for the Evil Bush
> > regime.
>
> > But it is heartening to see that the American people are not buying
> > the same ol' Edwards song and dance. He is running 3rd in most polls,
> > 4th in others. They know that John Edwards is a liar and NOT to be
> > trusted because of 1) using this same old "cancer" thing in a yet
> > another election and 2) because of his abdication of his Senate voting
> > just in the sake of self-aggrandizement. It ain't gonna work in 2008
> > eitha!
>
> > Elizabeth Edwards doth protest wayyyyy too much. 2 weeks ago or so,
> > she complained that she was tiring of being cannon fodder in magazines
> > and on the TV. Yet she continues to beat the campaign trail with
> > John, getting in ANY photo op or interview she possibly can. People
> > ain't buyin' it eitha.....they are quite sure she is not quite as sick
> > as she portrays herself to be.
>
> > It's a cancer being perpetrated on the American people!
>
> > Just so her "little Johnny" might be president, and she, first lady!
> > BARF!
>
> > Well, Johnny Edwards will not be able to help deliver NC to the
> > Democrats in 2008 - even if he DOES make the ticket!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Apr 12, 2:02 am, "Steven Vaughan" <s...@doubletrouble.com> wrote:
> > Well, Johnny Edwards will not be able to help deliver NC to the
> > Democrats in 2008 - even if he DOES make the ticket!
>
> Your accusation that the Edwards family is using Elizabeth's disease to
> springboard John's campaign is sickening, and an out-and-out lie. As an
> American first, and a Republican second, I offer my sincere condolences and
> good wishes to the Edwards family, and ask that they forgive fools like the
> one who posted this nonsense.

No, it is very true, even though you are blinded by your admiration
for Elizabeth Edwards in her "plight" with the worsening of her
"condition". And now, about 1 month later, she is all of a sudden
"better"? Well, Charlie, you and I BOTH know enough about cancer
that it don't work that way. And Pope John Paul the II, who is on the
fast-track for "sainthood" (if there could EVER be such a thing in the
evil Catholic Church), died back a ways, and from I have heard, he
didn't perform a laying on of hands on Elizabeth before he gave up the
ghost.

Yeah, I will reinterate it so even YOU can understand it! The
Edwardses tried to use this in 2004 for cannon fodder on the campaign
and here they are again, bellying up to the bar. Well, it didn't work
in 2004, and it won't work in 2008 either. If John Edwards is on the
Democratic party ticket - either as president OR vice president, the
democrats are doomed for failure. For everyone knows of the sins and
other indiscretions that John Edwards committed when he was a US
Senator for North Carolina.

I plan on voting for the Democratic party in the 2008 election. But
SHALL NOT if John Edwards is on the ticket. He is without merit -
totally vacuous!

Understand now, cupcake?

On Apr 12, 7:00 pm, DLU <d...@justthe.net> wrote:
> Steven Vaughan wrote:
> > Your accusation that the Edwards family is using Elizabeth's disease to
> > springboard John's campaign is sickening, and an out-and-out lie. As an
> > American first, and a Republican second, I offer my sincere condolences and
> > good wishes to the Edwards family, and ask that they forgive fools like the
> > one who posted this nonsense.
>
> This is the type of thing that Carl Rove does to discredit others.
> It is the same kind of slander campaign that he used against McCain.
>
> --
> ***************************************
> * This is the Spammish Inquisition *
> * Not Lumber Cartel Unit 75 [TINLC] *
> * I am not SPEWS.ORG *
> ***************************************

mumble, mumble, mumble. you cannot fight the truth though. John
Edwards and his wife are vacuous for using her "illness" for political
gain. It didn't work in 2004, and it sure won't work in 2008!

On Apr 12, 8:10 pm, J <nexsw@nvalid,anon> wrote:
> DLU wrote:
> > This is the type of thing that Carl Rove does to discredit others.
> > It is the same kind of slander campaign that he used against McCain.
>
> Take your political crossposts somewhere else, David.
> Pour pas encouragez les autres.
> J

You tell him! What I originally talked about was not a political
issue. But rather a moral issue - and the accusation stands! The
Edwardses used Elizabeth's "illness" for cannon fodder in 2004, and
now they are back at the bar again for 2008!

It is morally wrong!

On Apr 13, 9:04 pm, DLU <d...@justthe.net> wrote:
> J wrote:
> > DLU wrote:
>
> >>J wrote:
>
> >>>DLU wrote:
>
> >><snip political>
>
> >>>Take your political crossposts somewhere else, David.
> >>>Pour pas encouragez les autres.
>
> The original poster made this political trying to appeal to certain
> prejudices.
>
> In many cases cancer treatment and has a political component.
> For instance, stem cell research. Does it have the potential to cure
> certain kinds o cancer? So do the posters of this group engage in some
> political discourse to try and shape the future of cancer research, or
> is that unacceptable.
> We have seen several threads on the politics of smoking legislation. Is
> that political?
>
> Now we have someone criticizing a political candidate due to his wife's
> cancer, and that is political, but it is also reprehensible and needs to
> be stopped, and its source needs to be stopped. Remember the first
> nationally known person to make this viewpoint was Rush Limbaugh.
> Do you intend to let this kind of criticism continue?
>
> --
> ***************************************
> * This is the Spammish Inquisition *
> * Not Lumber Cartel Unit 75 [TINLC] *
> * I am not SPEWS.ORG *
> ***************************************

Although you are trying (without success, David) a "political" issue,
it is a moral issue. The Edwardses used Elizabeth's "illness" in 2004
as a campaign issue, and now here they are again for 2008. Listen,
Elizabeth Edwards complained just 2 weeks ago about how she was soooo
tired of seeing her name and face on tv, radio, magazines and the
newspaper. But she continues on the campaign trail? Sounds like she
doth protesteth wayyyy too much.

and another thing. They came out with this announcement 1 month ago
or so that her disease had progressed. And John Edwards had said
before that that if it got ANY worse he would not run. Oh, and
"luckily" Elizabeth "convinced" him to continue to run? Sounds all
too convenient to me! All so she can be first lady? Well, I am glad
she has all of you snowed by the "commonality"! It don't wash, just
does not wash!

I am a democrat, and plan on voting for the Democratic Party in 2008.
But ONLY if John Edwards is NOT on the ticket. He did a TERRIBLE job
for us here in NC as our US Senator - abandoning the office and his
votes on critical matters just so he could run as VP. And, as fine of
a man as John Kerry is, John Kerry could not win with the albatross
that the vacuous John Edwards is!

Hope you understand now 'schooly'.

> I plan on voting for the Democratic party in the 2008 election. But
> SHALL NOT if John Edwards is on the ticket. He is without merit -
> totally vacuous!
>
> Understand now, cupcake?



I understand that you are yet another over-educated under-achieving
know-it-all blowhard Liberal who is whining because things didn't go his
way, so he is going to cry and piss and throw a fit until it does... and you
are going to trample the feelings of cancer sufferers everywhere, including
the Edwards family, in order to do so. Your intellect belies your ignorance,
but you can't fool everyone.

On Apr 15, 6:37 pm, "Steven Vaughan" <s...@doubletrouble.com> wrote:

> > I plan on voting for the Democratic party in the 2008 election. But SHALL NOT if John Edwards is on the ticket. He is without merit -
> > totally vacuous!
>
> > Understand now, cupcake?

John and Elizabeth Edwards are living their lives to the fullest
potential in spite of the odds. I'd say that was a great example for
their family.
>
> I understand that you are yet another over-educated under-achieving know-it-all blowhard Liberal who is whining because things didn't go his way, so he is going to cry and piss and throw a fit until it does... and you
> are going to trample the feelings of cancer sufferers everywhere, including
> the Edwards family, in order to do so. Your intellect belies your ignorance,
> but you can't fool everyone.

The Edwards family certainly seems a better example in the face of
family crisis than the Newt Gingrich family. Hmmmmm. On that count,
I'm not sure the party really matters, but rather, the individual.

"Hyerdahl" <Hyerdahl3@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1176689783.617770.256240@n76g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
> On Apr 15, 6:37 pm, "Steven Vaughan" <s...@doubletrouble.com> wrote:
>
>> > I plan on voting for the Democratic party in the 2008 election. But
>> > SHALL NOT if John Edwards is on the ticket. He is without merit -
>> > totally vacuous!
>>
>> > Understand now, cupcake?
>
> John and Elizabeth Edwards are living their lives to the fullest
> potential in spite of the odds. I'd say that was a great example for
> their family.
>>
>> I understand that you are yet another over-educated under-achieving
>> know-it-all blowhard Liberal who is whining because things didn't go his
>> way, so he is going to cry and piss and throw a fit until it does... and
>> you
>> are going to trample the feelings of cancer sufferers everywhere,
>> including
>> the Edwards family, in order to do so. Your intellect belies your
>> ignorance,
>> but you can't fool everyone.
>
> The Edwards family certainly seems a better example in the face of
> family crisis than the Newt Gingrich family. Hmmmmm. On that count,
> I'm not sure the party really matters, but rather, the individual.
>


Agreed. In matters of faith, sickness, etc, we are simply human beings
trying to get through life. Politics cease to be a factor. That's what I had
hoped to impress upon our troll friend here, but alas...

On Apr 15, 10:16 pm, "Hyerdahl" <Hyerda...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Apr 15, 6:37 pm, "Steven Vaughan" <s...@doubletrouble.com> wrote:
>
> > > I plan on voting for the Democratic party in the 2008 election. But SHALL NOT if John Edwards is on the ticket. He is without merit -
> > > totally vacuous!
>
> > > Understand now, cupcake?
>
> John and Elizabeth Edwards are living their lives to the fullest
> potential in spite of the odds. I'd say that was a great example for
> their family.

What? The odds of not being discovered in their folly?

>
>
>
> > I understand that you are yet another over-educated under-achieving know-it-all blowhard Liberal who is whining because things didn't go his way, so he is going to cry and piss and throw a fit until it does... and you
> > are going to trample the feelings of cancer sufferers everywhere, including
> > the Edwards family, in order to do so. Your intellect belies your ignorance,
> > but you can't fool everyone.
>
> The Edwards family certainly seems a better example in the face of
> family crisis than the Newt Gingrich family. Hmmmmm. On that count,
> I'm not sure the party really matters, but rather, the individual.

On Apr 15, 10:37 pm, "Steven Vaughan" <s...@doubletrouble.com> wrote:
> "Hyerdahl" <Hyerda...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176689783.617770.256240@n76g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 15, 6:37 pm, "Steven Vaughan" <s...@doubletrouble.com> wrote:
>
> >> > I plan on voting for the Democratic party in the 2008 election. But
> >> > SHALL NOT if John Edwards is on the ticket. He is without merit -
> >> > totally vacuous!
>
> >> > Understand now, cupcake?
>
> > John and Elizabeth Edwards are living their lives to the fullest
> > potential in spite of the odds. I'd say that was a great example for
> > their family.
>
> >> I understand that you are yet another over-educated under-achieving
> >> know-it-all blowhard Liberal who is whining because things didn't go his
> >> way, so he is going to cry and piss and throw a fit until it does... and
> >> you
> >> are going to trample the feelings of cancer sufferers everywhere,
> >> including
> >> the Edwards family, in order to do so. Your intellect belies your
> >> ignorance,
> >> but you can't fool everyone.
>
> > The Edwards family certainly seems a better example in the face of
> > family crisis than the Newt Gingrich family. Hmmmmm. On that count,
> > I'm not sure the party really matters, but rather, the individual.
>
> Agreed. In matters of faith, sickness, etc, we are simply human beings
> trying to get through life. Politics cease to be a factor. That's what I had
> hoped to impress upon our troll friend here, but alas...


Yeah, but with the John Edwardses, lying never goes out of style!

On Apr 16, 3:08 pm, sauteedshr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Apr 15, 10:37 pm, "Steven Vaughan" <s...@doubletrouble.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Hyerdahl" <Hyerda...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1176689783.617770.256240@n76g2000hsh.googleg roups.com...
>
> > > On Apr 15, 6:37 pm, "Steven Vaughan" <s...@doubletrouble.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > I plan on voting for the Democratic party in the 2008 election. But
> > >> > SHALL NOT if John Edwards is on the ticket. He is without merit -
> > >> > totally vacuous!
>
> > >> > Understand now, cupcake?
>
> > > John and Elizabeth Edwards are living their lives to the fullest
> > > potential in spite of the odds. I'd say that was a great example for
> > > their family.
>
> > >> I understand that you are yet another over-educated under-achieving
> > >> know-it-all blowhard Liberal who is whining because things didn't go his
> > >> way, so he is going to cry and piss and throw a fit until it does... and
> > >> you
> > >> are going to trample the feelings of cancer sufferers everywhere,
> > >> including
> > >> the Edwards family, in order to do so. Your intellect belies your
> > >> ignorance,
> > >> but you can't fool everyone.
>
> > > The Edwards family certainly seems a better example in the face of
> > > family crisis than the Newt Gingrich family. Hmmmmm. On that count, > I'm not sure the party really matters, but rather, the individual.
>
> Agreed. In matters of faith, sickness, etc, we are simply human beings
> trying to get through life. Politics cease to be a factor. That's what I had
> > hoped to impress upon our troll friend here, but alas...
>
> Yeah, but with the John Edwardses, lying never goes out of style!- Hide quoted text -

Whatever you vainly imagine they lied about cannot possibly meet the
level of the mountain of lies perpetrated by the Bush-Cheney machine.
They should be tarred, and feathered, and then hung for treason.

From shaking down tobacco companies. He made millions while the alleged
"victims" got peanuts.He's just another sleazy shyster like Kerry.



>>
>> > > I plan on voting for the Democratic party in the 2008 election. But
>> > > SHALL NOT if John Edwards is on the ticket. He is without merit -
>> > > totally vacuous!
>>
>> > > Understand now, cupcake?
>>
>> John and Elizabeth Edwards are living their lives to the fullest
>> potential in spite of the odds. I'd say that was a great example for
>> their family.
>
> What? The odds of not being discovered in their folly?
>
>>
>>
>>
>> > I understand that you are yet another over-educated under-achieving
>> > know-it-all blowhard Liberal

You're right about the blowhard but over educated? hahahah maybe for a
delivery boy lol




who is whining because things didn't go his way, so he is going to cry and
piss and throw a fit until it does... and you
>> > are going to trample the feelings of cancer sufferers everywhere,
>> > including
>> > the Edwards family, in order to do so. Your intellect belies your
>> > ignorance,>> > but you can't fool everyone.
>>
>> The Edwards family certainly seems a better example in the face of
>> family crisis than the Newt Gingrich family. Hmmmmm. On that count,
>> I'm not sure the party really matters, but rather, the individual.
>
>

Avenger wrote:

> >>
> >> > > Understand now, cupcake?
> >> <snip off topic>

Hello people of alt.support.cancer and possibly alt.support.stop-smoking
You've been very good at ignoring this off-topic thread.

Here's the instructions on how to block, delete, ignore this thread.

<http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/killfilefaqhtm.htm>
The above instructions may be the long way or not cover all newsreader
software.
Important: when viewing the message.

To ignore a message thread using Mozilla software:
1. Select a message in the thread.
2. Open the Message menu, and choose Ignore Thread. Mozilla Mail &
Newsgroups marks all messages in the thread as read, and new replies posted
to the thread will appear as read."

To ignore a message thread using Netscape reader:
Right-mouse click, then select "ignore Thread" K

To ignore a message thread using Outlook Express
When you're viewing one of the messages, hold the CTRL key and press T will
mark the thread as "read"
(or CTRL and press Q, will delete the post)

Thunderbird:
clicking on the offending post, go to "message" then to "create rule from
message"
Set on "match any of the following", then it has one rule already set.
Once you are viewing a message in the thread you want to killfile, select
the Message menu and look at the bottom options[Kill Thread] [Ignore Thread]
and [Watch
Thread]-- note the K and I and W shortcuts. You have to be viewing the message

for this to work. So CTRL and K may "kill" the topic, on your newsgroup.

<Ctrl-K> or <Ctrl-I> may be useful when using Forte Agent

If I haven't covered your newsreader, look at the web page (above) or F1-help
in your software, under "Newsgroups" probably has shortcuts and/or
instructions.
J

J. wrote :

"To ignore a message thread using Outlook Express

When you're viewing one of the messages, hold the CTRL key and press T will
mark the thread as "read"

(or CTRL and press Q, will delete the post)"

Ctrl-T will mark the message as "read" : whether or not that read message
then remains visible or not will depend on the settings in the View /
Current View menus that control hiding or showing read messages.

In Outlook Express Ctrl-K is used in triggering the "Check Names" function
when you are addressing an e-mail message with your insertion curosr in the
"To" box.

Ctrl-D ... or the Delete key ... will delete the selected post, but will,
unfortunately, always put up a confirmation dialog box that asks you if you
really want to delete.

Fortunately, you can select a bunch of files at one time using the usual
windows short-cuts, and do Ctrl-D once : you'll still get the confirmation
dialog box.

If there's a whole thread I want to delete, I usually just select a post in
the thread, click on the Subject heading in the topic list view, then do the
usual : select the top post, hold the shift key down, and select the bottom
post.

Blocking e-mails : In addition to selecting 'Block Sender' from the Message
menu, you can simply right-click on the From field of an open message and
choose 'Block Sender' from the pop-up menu.

A good source of current information on Outlook Express keyboard short-cuts
:

http://www.stevenchalmers.com/Tips/Outlook.shtml

Outlook Express is really "long-in-the-tooth" but I am, like many people,
just too lazy to switch to something else.

regards, Uncle Sally

On Apr 11, 1:19 pm, i_tell_it_like_it_i...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Elizabeth Edwards surprised at the criticism? They rode it in 2004
> and now again in 2008!
>
> Yes, the Edwards' rode it in 2004, and now again trying to ride it in
> 2008. John Edwards said he would quit the presidential race in 2008
> if his wife's condition got worse. But he didn't, so that makes him a
> liar, and not to be trusted. Sure, Elizabeth is saying that she
> talked him into it because "the country needs his leadership so bad",
> but that unfortunately is a lie also.
>
> John Edwards abdicated his Senate voting as the 2004 election
> approached, doing the people of North Carolina a big disservice. And
> that is why the voters of North Carolina sent up another Republican
> for their US Senator. At least that person votes, albeit just a
> rubber stamp to whatever "the policy du jour" is for the Evil Bush
> regime.
>
> But it is heartening to see that the American people are not buying
> the same ol' Edwards song and dance. He is running 3rd in most polls,
> 4th in others. They know that John Edwards is a liar and NOT to be
> trusted because of 1) using this same old "cancer" thing in a yet
> another election and 2) because of his abdication of his Senate voting
> just in the sake of self-aggrandizement. It ain't gonna work in 2008
> eitha!
>
> Elizabeth Edwards doth protest wayyyyy too much. 2 weeks ago or so,
> she complained that she was tiring of being cannon fodder in magazines
> and on the TV. Yet she continues to beat the campaign trail with
> John, getting in ANY photo op or interview she possibly can. People
> ain't buyin' it eitha.....they are quite sure she is not quite as sick
> as she portrays herself to be.
>
> It's a cancer being perpetrated on the American people!
>
> Just so her "little Johnny" might be president, and she, first lady!
> BARF!
>
> Well, Johnny Edwards will not be able to help deliver NC to the
> Democrats in 2008 - even if he DOES make the ticket!

Yes, they both should.

keep the dream...and the thread alive!

On Apr 11, 1:19 pm, i_tell_it_like_it_i...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Elizabeth Edwards surprised at the criticism? They rode it in 2004
> and now again in 2008!
>
> Yes, the Edwards' rode it in 2004, and now again trying to ride it in
> 2008. John Edwards said he would quit the presidential race in 2008
> if his wife's condition got worse. But he didn't, so that makes him a
> liar, and not to be trusted. Sure, Elizabeth is saying that she
> talked him into it because "the country needs his leadership so bad",
> but that unfortunately is a lie also.
>
> John Edwards abdicated his Senate voting as the 2004 election
> approached, doing the people of North Carolina a big disservice. And
> that is why the voters of North Carolina sent up another Republican
> for their US Senator. At least that person votes, albeit just a
> rubber stamp to whatever "the policy du jour" is for the Evil Bush
> regime.
>
> But it is heartening to see that the American people are not buying
> the same ol' Edwards song and dance. He is running 3rd in most polls,
> 4th in others. They know that John Edwards is a liar and NOT to be
> trusted because of 1) using this same old "cancer" thing in a yet
> another election and 2) because of his abdication of his Senate voting
> just in the sake of self-aggrandizement. It ain't gonna work in 2008
> eitha!
>
> Elizabeth Edwards doth protest wayyyyy too much. 2 weeks ago or so,
> she complained that she was tiring of being cannon fodder in magazines
> and on the TV. Yet she continues to beat the campaign trail with
> John, getting in ANY photo op or interview she possibly can. People
> ain't buyin' it eitha.....they are quite sure she is not quite as sick
> as she portrays herself to be.
>
> It's a cancer being perpetrated on the American people!
>
> Just so her "little Johnny" might be president, and she, first lady!
> BARF!
>
> Well, Johnny Edwards will not be able to help deliver NC to the
> Democrats in 2008 - even if he DOES make the ticket!

Let's keep the dream (the ruination of the John Edwards) and this
thread (again, the ruination of the John Edwards) alive!

They are very sinful people, those John Edwardses, for using
Elizabeth's "illness" for political gain.

And they are teaching their kids bad habits by doing so.....

"It's ok to cheat kids, long as you win......"

Um, how many times are you going to post this? We GET it already. I
don't agree with you and I never will, and I think your spamlike post
has no place here, but I GET it. You can stop now.