Kentucky Newspapers Endorse Alison Lundergan Grimes

[The Rabbi]

Two major Kentucky newspapers have endorsed Alison Lundergan Grimes for Senate over incumbent Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R).

The Courier-Journal and the Lexington Herald-Leader both ran editorials Sunday in support of the Democrat, who currently serves as Kentucky's Secretary of State.

In its endorsement, the Courier-Journal's editorial board praised Grimes' stance on issues like the minimum wage and early childhood education, while accusing McConnell of "lacking a vision for Kentucky."

"[McConnell] lost his way to the point where he now is identified largely as the master of obstruction and gridlock in Washington," reads theendorsement. "Kentucky needs a U.S. senator who sees a higher calling than personal ambition and a greater goal than self-aggrandizement."

The endorsement also addressed Grimes' recent interview with the editorial board, during which sherepeatedly refused to say whether or not she voted for President Barack Obama in 2012.

"Ms. Grimes, to her credit, was willing to appear before this newspaper's editorial board," reads the editorial. "She did this fully aware that Mr. McConnell's campaign could — and did — seize on snippets to use in political attacks."

McConnell, the editorial board says, did not accept their invitation for a similar interview.

The Lexington Herald-Leader's endorsement strongly rebukes McConnell, who the editorial board says has "repeatedly hurt the country to advance his political strategy."

"The Senate may never recover from the bitter paralysis McConnell has inflicted through record filibusters that allow his minority to rule by obstruction," reads the editorial. "He poses as a champion of the right to criticize the government, but it's really his rich buddies' right to buy the government that he champions."

"If McConnell had a better record, he would not have to argue for six more years by obsessively linking Grimes to Obama, who will be gone in two years no matter what," the editorial continues.

More: Kentucky Newspapers Endorse Alison Lundergan Grimes

It would be better for Kentucky and the nation if Grimes can defeat McConnell. I wish her good luck.

Take the Lexington phone book... drop it to the ground... wherever it opens, turn it over and lay it on those two open pages and drop a dart on it. Who ever it lands on would be a better choice than Mitch McConnel.

Take that same phone book and try to find a GOP voter. Lexington and Louisville are college towns. Colege towns are packed full of democrat voters. Do you really expect the largest newspaper in each city to endorse any GOP candidate?
Is playing stupid somewhere in the liberal play book?

Why do you think (excuse the expression, why do you believe) higher education students vote for Democrats? Think real hard now.

Because they lack the real world experience that would let them see through the bullshit and false promises of Dems. Some people never progress beyond that stage.

 

[Papageorgio]

Two major Kentucky newspapers have endorsed Alison Lundergan Grimes for Senate over incumbent Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R).

The Courier-Journal and the Lexington Herald-Leader both ran editorials Sunday in support of the Democrat, who currently serves as Kentucky's Secretary of State.

In its endorsement, the Courier-Journal's editorial board praised Grimes' stance on issues like the minimum wage and early childhood education, while accusing McConnell of "lacking a vision for Kentucky."

"[McConnell] lost his way to the point where he now is identified largely as the master of obstruction and gridlock in Washington," reads theendorsement. "Kentucky needs a U.S. senator who sees a higher calling than personal ambition and a greater goal than self-aggrandizement."

The endorsement also addressed Grimes' recent interview with the editorial board, during which sherepeatedly refused to say whether or not she voted for President Barack Obama in 2012.

"Ms. Grimes, to her credit, was willing to appear before this newspaper's editorial board," reads the editorial. "She did this fully aware that Mr. McConnell's campaign could — and did — seize on snippets to use in political attacks."

McConnell, the editorial board says, did not accept their invitation for a similar interview.

The Lexington Herald-Leader's endorsement strongly rebukes McConnell, who the editorial board says has "repeatedly hurt the country to advance his political strategy."

"The Senate may never recover from the bitter paralysis McConnell has inflicted through record filibusters that allow his minority to rule by obstruction," reads the editorial. "He poses as a champion of the right to criticize the government, but it's really his rich buddies' right to buy the government that he champions."

"If McConnell had a better record, he would not have to argue for six more years by obsessively linking Grimes to Obama, who will be gone in two years no matter what," the editorial continues.

More: Kentucky Newspapers Endorse Alison Lundergan Grimes

It would be better for Kentucky and the nation if Grimes can defeat McConnell. I wish her good luck.

Take the Lexington phone book... drop it to the ground... wherever it opens, turn it over and lay it on those two open pages and drop a dart on it. Who ever it lands on would be a better choice than Mitch McConnel.

Take that same phone book and try to find a GOP voter. Lexington and Louisville are college towns. Colege towns are packed full of democrat voters. Do you really expect the largest newspaper in each city to endorse any GOP candidate?
Is playing stupid somewhere in the liberal play book?

Why do you think (excuse the expression, why do you believe) higher education students vote for Democrats? Think real hard now.

Because they are used to handouts from mommy and daddy and believe the world owes them a living and if they can't get a good job, government should pay their tuition.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Not a fan of McConnell, but if I live in a state like Kentucky, where let's face it, it's not a major player as far as states go. Do I want to give up the most powerful position in the Senate ? McConnell loses, he's replaced by a rookie Senator that will have little power in the Senate for quite some time.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Two major Kentucky newspapers have endorsed Alison Lundergan Grimes for Senate over incumbent Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R).

The Courier-Journal and the Lexington Herald-Leader both ran editorials Sunday in support of the Democrat, who currently serves as Kentucky's Secretary of State.

In its endorsement, the Courier-Journal's editorial board praised Grimes' stance on issues like the minimum wage and early childhood education, while accusing McConnell of "lacking a vision for Kentucky."

"[McConnell] lost his way to the point where he now is identified largely as the master of obstruction and gridlock in Washington," reads theendorsement. "Kentucky needs a U.S. senator who sees a higher calling than personal ambition and a greater goal than self-aggrandizement."

The endorsement also addressed Grimes' recent interview with the editorial board, during which sherepeatedly refused to say whether or not she voted for President Barack Obama in 2012.

"Ms. Grimes, to her credit, was willing to appear before this newspaper's editorial board," reads the editorial. "She did this fully aware that Mr. McConnell's campaign could — and did — seize on snippets to use in political attacks."

McConnell, the editorial board says, did not accept their invitation for a similar interview.

The Lexington Herald-Leader's endorsement strongly rebukes McConnell, who the editorial board says has "repeatedly hurt the country to advance his political strategy."

"The Senate may never recover from the bitter paralysis McConnell has inflicted through record filibusters that allow his minority to rule by obstruction," reads the editorial. "He poses as a champion of the right to criticize the government, but it's really his rich buddies' right to buy the government that he champions."

"If McConnell had a better record, he would not have to argue for six more years by obsessively linking Grimes to Obama, who will be gone in two years no matter what," the editorial continues.

More: Kentucky Newspapers Endorse Alison Lundergan Grimes

It would be better for Kentucky and the nation if Grimes can defeat McConnell. I wish her good luck.

Take the Lexington phone book... drop it to the ground... wherever it opens, turn it over and lay it on those two open pages and drop a dart on it. Who ever it lands on would be a better choice than Mitch McConnel.

Take that same phone book and try to find a GOP voter. Lexington and Louisville are college towns. Colege towns are packed full of democrat voters. Do you really expect the largest newspaper in each city to endorse any GOP candidate?
Is playing stupid somewhere in the liberal play book?

Why do you think (excuse the expression, why do you believe) higher education students vote for Democrats? Think real hard now.

Because they are used to handouts from mommy and daddy and believe the world owes them a living and if they can't get a good job, government should pay their tuition.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

If not for Children and Fools... there would BE no Democrat party.

 

[Wry Catcher]

We can make an educated guess that those who responded to my question never attended a university. As for university students lacking any real world experience, that is one more pile of bullshit by a lying POS.

Q. Why do college students, in general, vote for Democrats and liberal causes.

A. College students are curious, smart, educated and see the world as it is, and ask themselves why and why not.

 

[The Rabbi]

We can make an educated guess that those who responded to my question never attended a university. As for university students lacking any real world experience, that is one more pile of bullshit by a lying POS.

Q. Why do college students, in general, vote for Democrats and liberal causes.

A. College students are curious, smart, educated and see the world as it is, and ask themselves why and why not.

I would say it is more likely the only time you went to a university the entire time was spent in a men's room stall. For those of us who did, we recall those years as times of excitement and idealism. Then we entered the real world and grew up. You remained in the stall.

 

[TooTall]

The issue should be is Romney's effort to shelter his income and resources from the voting public something we want in a President of the United States; why is it important for him to shelter a vast (we assume) wealth,where it is invested and how it was earned from the voting public?

I've been accused of hypocrisy, and yet, the candidate for Senate in Kentucky is being attacked by the same sources who attack me on this forum for not telling a reporter how she voted in the last election.

Which matters most? Ones source of wealth and how they use it, or how one voted?

One need not ask Romney who he voted for, since it's clear he is a Plutocrat and supports the party which represents Plutocrats. Since the candidate running for McConnell seat is a Democrat, isn't it obvious to all but partisan hacks; those like Rabbi and Mudwhistle who need to attack someone because their candidate is a horse's ass?

Romney isnt running for anything. THe issue isn't Romney at all. The issue was Harry Reid lying about Romney's return. I realize your ADHD makes it hard for you to pay attention but maybe the VA can give you something for that.

THE ISSUE YOU IDIOT IS THE SENATE ELECTION IN KENTUCKY!!!

It's amazing stuff. Couldn't make it up!

An ambiguous comment, but, given your history I suppose that's not to be unexpected. The thread title is:

Kentucky Newspapers Endorse Alison Lundergan
Grimes

Mehopes this dispells any inference that your post had any substance.

Surprise, surprise as Gomer Pyle says. When was the last time the Louisville Courier and Journal endorsed anyone BUT a Democrat for any elected office.[/QUOTE]

I have no idea. I've only been to Louisville once, c 1973; Wasn't a lot to see but we ended up in "The Cave", a bar near the river which had a killer Blue Grass Band.[/QUOTE]

I lived in La Grange, Kentucky and commuted to my job in Louisville for 8 years. I remember the polls said McConnell was not going to get reelected to the Senate, but they were wrong.

 

[jillian]

She's still going to lose. On the other hand, Democrats might have an outside shot in Georgia now. Nunn seems to have gotten some momentum in the last week, likely due to Perdue's asinine outsourcing remark.

she shouldn't lose though....

purdue told the truth about his history... the fact that anyone even considers voting for people like him and McConnell is beyond me.... unless you are one of the billionaires whose wealth has doubled because of GOP policy.

 

[jillian]

We can make an educated guess that those who responded to my question never attended a university. As for university students lacking any real world experience, that is one more pile of bullshit by a lying POS.

Q. Why do college students, in general, vote for Democrats and liberal causes.

A. College students are curious, smart, educated and see the world as it is, and ask themselves why and why not.

I would say it is more likely the only time you went to a university the entire time was spent in a men's room stall. For those of us who did, we recall those years as times of excitement and idealism. Then we entered the real world and grew up. You remained in the stall.

so much resentment of anyone who is educated. perhaps if you were, you'd be more satisfied with your life.

now go ahead and pretend i'm not a lawyer... that always makes for a good trash-mouthed response from you.

 

[jillian]

We can make an educated guess that those who responded to my question never attended a university. As for university students lacking any real world experience, that is one more pile of bullshit by a lying POS.

Q. Why do college students, in general, vote for Democrats and liberal causes.

A. College students are curious, smart, educated and see the world as it is, and ask themselves why and why not.

I agree with your questions and answers. that said, I also think, often, students can be a bit sheltered. I know my father, growing up poor, was much more street savvy than I ever was. that has benefitted him personally and professionally. but he was also smart enough to put that together with an education and he started college in his 30's.... while working full time and raising a family. (when college didn't cost $60,000 a year).

on the other hand, if being a bit sheltered and more book smart about certain things makes students more compassionate and more decent and more caring about society as a whole, i'd say that's a good thing, as is the exposure to diverse groups of people in school.

 

[TooTall]

We can make an educated guess that those who responded to my question never attended a university. As for university students lacking any real world experience, that is one more pile of bullshit by a lying POS.

Q. Why do college students, in general, vote for Democrats and liberal causes.

A. College students are curious, smart, educated and see the world as it is, and ask themselves why and why not.

Because MOST College professor are left leaning liberals and they feed the Democrat party line to these impressionable young people in the classroom. That is the world as they see it in the mythical world of academia, not as it is in reality.

I think the saying is they switch from being a liberal to a conservative when they buy their first sofa.

I went back to College in Kentucky to get a business degree to go along with my Engineering degree. The difference in the political bias that professors who that taught physics and math at Tech and English and Business Law at U of L was astounding.

 

[TooTall]

We can make an educated guess that those who responded to my question never attended a university. As for university students lacking any real world experience, that is one more pile of bullshit by a lying POS.

Q. Why do college students, in general, vote for Democrats and liberal causes.

A. College students are curious, smart, educated and see the world as it is, and ask themselves why and why not.

I agree with your questions and answers. that said, I also think, often, students can be a bit sheltered. I know my father, growing up poor, was much more street savvy than I ever was. that has benefitted him personally and professionally. but he was also smart enough to put that together with an education and he started college in his 30's.... while working full time and raising a family. (when college didn't cost $60,000 a year).

on the other hand, if being a bit sheltered and more book smart about certain things makes students more compassionate and more decent and more caring about society as a whole, i'd say that's a good thing, as is the exposure to diverse groups of people in school.

IMO, Giving to charity is a major indicator of being more compassionate, more decent and more caring about those in society who are less fortunate.

Here are some excerpts from an article that I have linked. It doesn’t mention college education, but the liberals claim to fame on this board is cons are stupid and libs are smart.

"In an effort to determine how accurate that perception is, American Enterprise Institute president Arthur C. Brooks made a comprehensive study of how charitable giving correlates to political orientation, and he published his findings in the 2006 bookWho Really Cares. All the evidence, says the author, suggests that conservatives are in fact more generous than liberals. There is one important caveat, however: There is a strong correlation between religious faith and charity. The more religious a person is, the more likely it is that he or she will give to charity.

For example, the “redder” a particular state is (i.e., the more its voters support Republican candidates in elections), the likelier its residents are to be charitable. According to Brooks, fully 24 of the 25 most generous states were red ones (only Maryland was a charitably minded blue, or Democrat-supporting, state). Residents of the five states that cast more than 60 percent of their ballots for President Bush in 2004 gave 3.5 percent of their incomes to charity, nearly twice as much per person as residents of the five states (including the District of Columbia) where Democrat John Kerry received 60 percent of the vote or better. This, says Brooks, occurred even though residents of the deep-blue pro-Kerry states earned, on average, 38 percent more per household than their red-state counterparts."

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=725

 

[Wry Catcher]

We can make an educated guess that those who responded to my question never attended a university. As for university students lacking any real world experience, that is one more pile of bullshit by a lying POS.

Q. Why do college students, in general, vote for Democrats and liberal causes.

A. College students are curious, smart, educated and see the world as it is, and ask themselves why and why not.

I agree with your questions and answers. that said, I also think, often, students can be a bit sheltered. I know my father, growing up poor, was much more street savvy than I ever was. that has benefitted him personally and professionally. but he was also smart enough to put that together with an education and he started college in his 30's.... while working full time and raising a family. (when college didn't cost $60,000 a year).

on the other hand, if being a bit sheltered and more book smart about certain things makes students more compassionate and more decent and more caring about society as a whole, i'd say that's a good thing, as is the exposure to diverse groups of people in school.

My first two years were at CAL, my next two were spent on active duty in the Navy, upon separation I returned to CAL for my degree - yes I learned a great deal about the world in the Navy, and education put everything in perspective.

I completed my Masters's at San Francisco St. U., an urban school with a very very diverse population (not that CAL wasn't, or the Navy). Many of the Grad. Students worked FT. As my major was Interdisciplianary, I took courses in a wide variety of fields and classes included a very wide range of ages, careers and experiences.

Rabbi must have been molested as a child, enjoyed the experience and now hates himself. Why else would someone be so obsessed with homosexual sexual activity? Children sexualized early in life generally have life-long problems, too bad he's never (apparently) received counseling. He sure seems to need it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

We can make an educated guess that those who responded to my question never attended a university. As for university students lacking any real world experience, that is one more pile of bullshit by a lying POS.

Q. Why do college students, in general, vote for Democrats and liberal causes.

A. College students are curious, smart, educated and see the world as it is, and ask themselves why and why not.

I agree with your questions and answers. that said, I also think, often, students can be a bit sheltered. I know my father, growing up poor, was much more street savvy than I ever was. that has benefitted him personally and professionally. but he was also smart enough to put that together with an education and he started college in his 30's.... while working full time and raising a family. (when college didn't cost $60,000 a year).

on the other hand, if being a bit sheltered and more book smart about certain things makes students more compassionate and more decent and more caring about society as a whole, i'd say that's a good thing, as is the exposure to diverse groups of people in school.

IMO, Giving to charity is a major indicator of being more compassionate, more decent and more caring about those in society who are less fortunate.

Here are some excerpts from an article that I have linked. It doesn’t mention college education, but the liberals claim to fame on this board is cons are stupid and libs are smart.

"In an effort to determine how accurate that perception is, American Enterprise Institute president Arthur C. Brooks made a comprehensive study of how charitable giving correlates to political orientation, and he published his findings in the 2006 bookWho Really Cares. All the evidence, says the author, suggests that conservatives are in fact more generous than liberals. There is one important caveat, however: There is a strong correlation between religious faith and charity. The more religious a person is, the more likely it is that he or she will give to charity.

For example, the “redder” a particular state is (i.e., the more its voters support Republican candidates in elections), the likelier its residents are to be charitable. According to Brooks, fully 24 of the 25 most generous states were red ones (only Maryland was a charitably minded blue, or Democrat-supporting, state). Residents of the five states that cast more than 60 percent of their ballots for President Bush in 2004 gave 3.5 percent of their incomes to charity, nearly twice as much per person as residents of the five states (including the District of Columbia) where Democrat John Kerry received 60 percent of the vote or better. This, says Brooks, occurred even though residents of the deep-blue pro-Kerry states earned, on average, 38 percent more per household than their red-state counterparts."

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=725

For the most part, most of the cons who post here incessantly are stupid - or do you believe Randall Flagg, Stephanie, CrusaderFrank, Rabbi, Mudwhistle Warrior and the gun lovers, gay haters and crazy christians (lower case 'c' since most are not Christian in their attitudes toward others) are smart?

 

[Meathead]

Please stop with these internet CVs. Sewage seeping through computers and flooding the floors of those unfortunate enough to see them.

 

[jillian]

We can make an educated guess that those who responded to my question never attended a university. As for university students lacking any real world experience, that is one more pile of bullshit by a lying POS.

Q. Why do college students, in general, vote for Democrats and liberal causes.

A. College students are curious, smart, educated and see the world as it is, and ask themselves why and why not.

I agree with your questions and answers. that said, I also think, often, students can be a bit sheltered. I know my father, growing up poor, was much more street savvy than I ever was. that has benefitted him personally and professionally. but he was also smart enough to put that together with an education and he started college in his 30's.... while working full time and raising a family. (when college didn't cost $60,000 a year).

on the other hand, if being a bit sheltered and more book smart about certain things makes students more compassionate and more decent and more caring about society as a whole, i'd say that's a good thing, as is the exposure to diverse groups of people in school.

IMO, Giving to charity is a major indicator of being more compassionate, more decent and more caring about those in society who are less fortunate.

Here are some excerpts from an article that I have linked. It doesn’t mention college education, but the liberals claim to fame on this board is cons are stupid and libs are smart.

"In an effort to determine how accurate that perception is, American Enterprise Institute president Arthur C. Brooks made a comprehensive study of how charitable giving correlates to political orientation, and he published his findings in the 2006 bookWho Really Cares. All the evidence, says the author, suggests that conservatives are in fact more generous than liberals. There is one important caveat, however: There is a strong correlation between religious faith and charity. The more religious a person is, the more likely it is that he or she will give to charity.

For example, the “redder” a particular state is (i.e., the more its voters support Republican candidates in elections), the likelier its residents are to be charitable. According to Brooks, fully 24 of the 25 most generous states were red ones (only Maryland was a charitably minded blue, or Democrat-supporting, state). Residents of the five states that cast more than 60 percent of their ballots for President Bush in 2004 gave 3.5 percent of their incomes to charity, nearly twice as much per person as residents of the five states (including the District of Columbia) where Democrat John Kerry received 60 percent of the vote or better. This, says Brooks, occurred even though residents of the deep-blue pro-Kerry states earned, on average, 38 percent more per household than their red-state counterparts."

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=725

nothing wrong with giving to charity. as you note, most rightwing charitable giving, however, is to churches. I don't think that I've ever suggested that type of giving is a bad thing or shouldn't be encouraged. but it clearly isn't enough, especially during times of economic hardship. and rightwing giving doesn't correlate with actual need, but with whom the religious right approves of.

me? I think planned parenthood is important because i'd rather women had good healthcare than concern myself with the small percentage of their work that is related to abortion. the right thinks nothing of shutting down women's healthcare.

me? I think programs that provide food to hungry children are important. I don't believe in cutting taxes for the top 1% like the right, which then turns around and makes the claim we can't "afford" to feed the hungry and they should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. there isn't the slightest concern about the effects of poverty on a) education; b) health; and c) the ability to obtain work and/or training.

I think there is a difference between intentional ignorance, which IS a mark of the extreme right, and being stupid.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Please stop with these internet CVs. Sewage seeping through computers and flooding the floors of those unfortunate enough to see them.

Please post the above in the two other languages in which you claim you are fluent, hypocrite.

Ain't Google Translator great?

 

[TooTall]

We can make an educated guess that those who responded to my question never attended a university. As for university students lacking any real world experience, that is one more pile of bullshit by a lying POS.

Q. Why do college students, in general, vote for Democrats and liberal causes.

A. College students are curious, smart, educated and see the world as it is, and ask themselves why and why not.

I agree with your questions and answers. that said, I also think, often, students can be a bit sheltered. I know my father, growing up poor, was much more street savvy than I ever was. that has benefitted him personally and professionally. but he was also smart enough to put that together with an education and he started college in his 30's.... while working full time and raising a family. (when college didn't cost $60,000 a year).

on the other hand, if being a bit sheltered and more book smart about certain things makes students more compassionate and more decent and more caring about society as a whole, i'd say that's a good thing, as is the exposure to diverse groups of people in school.

IMO, Giving to charity is a major indicator of being more compassionate, more decent and more caring about those in society who are less fortunate.

Here are some excerpts from an article that I have linked. It doesn’t mention college education, but the liberals claim to fame on this board is cons are stupid and libs are smart.

"In an effort to determine how accurate that perception is, American Enterprise Institute president Arthur C. Brooks made a comprehensive study of how charitable giving correlates to political orientation, and he published his findings in the 2006 bookWho Really Cares. All the evidence, says the author, suggests that conservatives are in fact more generous than liberals. There is one important caveat, however: There is a strong correlation between religious faith and charity. The more religious a person is, the more likely it is that he or she will give to charity.

For example, the “redder” a particular state is (i.e., the more its voters support Republican candidates in elections), the likelier its residents are to be charitable. According to Brooks, fully 24 of the 25 most generous states were red ones (only Maryland was a charitably minded blue, or Democrat-supporting, state). Residents of the five states that cast more than 60 percent of their ballots for President Bush in 2004 gave 3.5 percent of their incomes to charity, nearly twice as much per person as residents of the five states (including the District of Columbia) where Democrat John Kerry received 60 percent of the vote or better. This, says Brooks, occurred even though residents of the deep-blue pro-Kerry states earned, on average, 38 percent more per household than their red-state counterparts."

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=725

For the most part, most of the cons who post here incessantly are stupid - or do you believe Randall Flagg, Stephanie, CrusaderFrank, Rabbi, Mudwhistle Warrior and the gun lovers, gay haters and crazy christians (lower case 'c' since most are not Christian in their attitudes toward others) are smart?

So you are one of the libs who think cons are stupid. Thanks for admitting it. How very christian of you.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Didn't think news outlets were supposed to openly endorse politicians? Invites bias and throws journalistic integrity out the window.

 

[Meathead]

Please stop with these internet CVs. Sewage seeping through computers and flooding the floors of those unfortunate enough to see them.

Please post the above in the two other languages in which you claim you are fluent, hypocrite.

Ain't Google Translator great?

Google most likely would not translate the former. My Greek is much better than my Czech.