Sorry, I know this is a WW cite, but I can't help just throwing this
out there (I'm not the first to defile this cite with political
musings).
I feel really at ease after hearing W. speak last night. He was
intelligent, well informed, and clearly on top of the game. I'm so
proud that we elected Mr. Bush as the leader of the free world. He's
a model for other leaders! I guess I'm a little disappointed that he
was unable to come up with something that he would have done
differently now that he's had a chance to reflect upon 9/11. Let's be
fair here though. He's only had a few years to think about it, and
I'm sure he really didn't expect anyone to ask him anything so out of
left field anyway. It's not like he would have been prepped for
questions about our failings on 9/11. That hasn't been in the news
lately or anything. He got the important stuff right. I say, "4 more
years" Yahoo, go W.!!!!
"Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Shawn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 04:48:58 GMT, Tom Veatch wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:57:13 -0500, "todd" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>The press corps are going to have to come up with the John Kerry
campaign
> > >>commercial on their own. The President isn't going to give them their
nice
> > >>soundbyte where he admits fault for 9/11. When President Clinton
admits his
> > >>larger share of fault for 9/11, that's when I'll start waiting for
President
> > >>Bush's admission.
> > >>
> > >>todd
> > >>
> > >
> > > I have been of the opinion, since the day it happened, that the
"fault" for the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers rested 100%
> on
> > > the shoulders of the men sitting in the pilot's seat of the airplane
at the moment of impact. I have seen or heard nothing since
> > > that date that would influence me to change that opinion.
> > >
> > > Tom Veatch
> > > Wichita, KS USA
> >
> > So if you own a business and have a security guard and he's asleep when
it
> > gets robbed and he had been warned that it could be robbed (just not
given
> > a date or time), is it still just the robber's fault?
> >
>
> Of course not! It is you, the business owner, who is at fault for not
taking any measures to prevent the robbery. Forget the fact
> that you have what you believe to be a qualified, experiences security
guard on your payroll. You SHOULD have known he would fall
> asleep, and should have done more to keep him awake.
ill be over to rob you tonight. it wont be my fault. it will be yours for
failing to prevent it. you were warned....
randy
well its like 20% of the actual population. but after you eliminate all the
blacks who have had their right to vote stripped from them, the people whos
votes didnt get counted or were given an illegible ballot, kids, etc...
its 50% of the 'eligible voting' population <g>
randy
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I was always under the impression that voter turn out was more in the 20%
> range.
>
>
>
Negative. The whole rich thing came out in many a long
OT discussion with him. Took days and days to get
there.
"Andrew Barss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Joseph Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> : WELCOME BACK p_j!!!!!!!!!!!!
> : Hey all of you guys out there reading the OT post I can already tell you
> : where it is headed with p_j. It all the fault of the rich!!! Doesn't
matter
> : what the discussion is, somewhere some place it is going to be the evil
rich
> : for everything!!!
>
>
> Did you download this from Rush's Daily No-Brainer Buzzword site?
>
> Pathetic.
>
>
> Have you read any of the posts in this (long) thread?
>
> -- Andy Barss
"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Didn't anyone notice how paritsan the questions were? Geez, the white
> house
> > press corps isn't even trying to pretend that they are non-partisan any
> > more. Apparently all bets are off. It's a sad situation really. I
> thought
> > reporters and journalists were supposed to report the facts and let the
> > public form their own opinions. It's as if the media nowadays has their
> own
> > agenda.
>
> That could be. I'd also suggest that the White House is very controlling
of
> the media. Many of the press questions are submitted beforehand, as Dumbya
> unwittingly let on. The whole charade is scripted. Reporters aren't given
> much of a chance to ask tough questions. If they do they're barred from
> future press conferences. Look what happened to Helen Thomas.
>
> Some of my favourite hightlights from the press conference:
>
> - Calling Rumsfeld Secretary of State
>
> - "we assumed oceans would protect us"
>
> - "Most of Iraq is relatively stable"
>
> - "This has been tough weeks in that country (sic)"
>
> - "I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I
could
> plan for it."
>
> - "I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this
press
> conference with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but
it
> hadn't [sic] yet,"
>
> - Referring to the Aug 6th memo as containing no "actionable
intelligence",
> even though it lists Washington and the WTC as targets.
i swear all the democrats should do is SHUT UP and let bush hang himself.
bush's little 'accidents' do more to prove the case against him than
anything. but once kerry brings them to light it officially becomes
'rhetoric'. kerry should just state his stance on the issues and leave ole
georgie boy out of the entire campaign.
just let george keep talking and stay the hell out of his way.
randy
You really don't get it,,huh?
Remember the building that was blown up in Oklahoma up by an American? Did
you think that we should have had another civil war because of that. You go
after the governments that pose a threat.
"G.E.R.R.Y." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:150420041052194595%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Leon
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Some one finally has the balls to [do] what needs to be done
>
> If Saudis attack you and you take revenge on Iraqis or anyone other
> than Saudis, it doesn't take balls. The leaders have to be brain dead
> /or/ /have/ /a/ /hidden/ /agenda/.
>
> Gerry
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 16:09:02 -0500, [email protected] (p_j) wrote:
>Bill Everette <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Can we start clubbing liberals?
>
>Ah, yes, anyone who clings to the principles that the country was
>founded on should be clubbed.
>
>Personally, I think it is about time to emulate the French and break out
>the guillotines and start chopping off the heads of traitors like Cheney
>and Scalia. On second thought, perhaps only lesser criminals should be
>treated mercifully. People who commit treason should be hung, drawn and
>quartered and their heads left on stakes on the grounds of the White
>House so the next time the fascists take power, they know there will be
>a price to pay.
yep, GB with all of his autocratic powergrabbing bullshit is acting
more like a king than a president. it's no wonder he's so afraid of
the french that he had to mount a smear campaign against them, the
french know how to deal with assholes in power.
"xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Y2Wfc.156415$JO3.94567@attbi_s04...
>
> "Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 15:10:30 -0700, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >You mean appointed as leader of the free world.
> > >
> > > Selected!
> > >
> > > The People "Selected" Al Gore and the Supereme Court Selected Bush.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > You can sing it from the mountain tops for the rest of your life. It
> > doesn't make it the truth. So let's suppose bush wins in november and
> > serves his second term out. He will then be eligible to run for a third
> > term. don't you realize that the constitution says that a person can
only
> be
> > elected to the presidency twice? if he wasn't elected for the first
term,
> i
> > expect all of you to support a third bush presidency run based on your
own
> > arguement about him not being elected for the first term.
> >
> >
> > Why aren't you people instead focusing your energy on the future and
> > defeating your arch-nemesis bush? Why doesn't any democrat stand up and
> > sing the praises of their nominee for this next election? No matter how
> > evil you guys paint bush, in november there will be a choice to be made,
> > bush or kerry. It is really that simple. I think the fact that the
> whole
> > lot of you have no other game plan than to attack bush on anything you
can
> > come up with is very telling about how much you like your own nominee.
> >
> > good luck to you. you will need it.
> >
> > Frank
>
> i get the impression frank would stare into the sun until he went blind
> rather than admitting he (or bush) could be wrong about anything at all.
>
> what im i doing? ive registered 4 people to vote, that wont be voting for
> bush, and that wouldnt have registered had i not intervened. and thats
the
> only 'something' that matters. talk is cheap. votes count. if you want
to
> get rid of george bush, dont waste your time trying to convince frank,
there
> are plenty of people out there that dont plan to vote but hate bush. they
> are convinced voting doesnt matter. as the last 'election' proved all too
> well, it does. bring them a voter registration card. better yet drive
them
> down to city hall. offer them a free lunch on voting day and a ride to
the
> polls. get their ass in there.
>
> otherwise frank might be right about 4 more years...
>
> randy
We're very familiar with buying votes here in Chicago. You'd better hope
George Soros opens his checkbook wide, because Kerry is going to need all
the help he can get.
todd
todd
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 17:28:03 -0700, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
Did you hear Bush says the scientists are still afraid to talk he still believe
they will find the WMDs?
I am not too smart, can you tell me why our leader Bush did not answer a single
question, but instead he talk about the Iraqi love freedom, democracy blah,
blah....
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 02:42:38 GMT, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>I totally agree.. Some people don't like him..
Why? Bush is a peace loving, God fearing man.
How could you not like the man who is trying to bring peace and democracy to the
Arab World? Let's hope he succeed bring democracy to the Middle East,
converting every Arabs to Christianity.
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 15:15:59 GMT, "Bill Everette" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"G.E.R.R.Y."
>>
>> What *American* freedoms are they protecting by killing Iraqis in Iraq?
By the way when did the Iraqis attack us? (puzzle??)
I always thought we went into Iraq to find WMDs, than change to free the Iraqis
and gave them democracy, and now behold we are protecting our freedom???? so
confuse??? Gosh, I wish I'm as smart as you!!
>>
>
>The same ones we were protecting by fighting Germans in France?
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:42:18 -0400, "G.E.R.R.Y." <[email protected]>
wrote:
>What *American* freedoms are they protecting by killing Iraqis in Iraq?
As usual I'm not too smart, I think what he meant was if you kill all the Iraqis
than there will be none to take revenge on us. Is killing in the name of God is
justify? If we liberate the Iraqis from Saddam and force democracy on them. How
about the hundreds of thousands Palestinians suffering in the West bank and Gaza
Strip, why don't we liberate them? (Puzzle)??
>You appear to have bought the propaganda completely. Remember, the
>first casualty of war is truth. As soon as they announced that they
>were even thinking about invading ANYWHERE, all Americans should have
>avoided believing almost everything from their media. Their media are
>"embedded" alright, but it's with the White House staff who produce the
>press releases they rely on rather than actually having to go out and
>find the truth.
Awe! you mean FOX's "Fair and Balance" reporting is nothing but full of Shits?
>
>Gerry
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:51:30 GMT, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>You may have took me wrong. I am behind Bush. Some one finally has the
>balls to what needs to be done whether it is an inconvenience or not.
Yes, I know I'm also (way) behind Bush. Yes, someone finally did what others
dare not do. He got balls!!
>"George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 02:42:38 GMT, "Leon" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>>
>> >I totally agree.. Some people don't like him..
>>
>> Why? Bush is a peace loving, God fearing man.
>> How could you not like the man who is trying to bring peace and democracy
>to the
>> Arab World? Let's hope he succeed bring democracy to the Middle East,
>> converting every Arabs to Christianity.
>>
>>
>>
>
"Shawn" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 04:48:58 GMT, Tom Veatch wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:57:13 -0500, "todd" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>The press corps are going to have to come up with the John Kerry campaign
> >>commercial on their own. The President isn't going to give them their nice
> >>soundbyte where he admits fault for 9/11. When President Clinton admits his
> >>larger share of fault for 9/11, that's when I'll start waiting for President
> >>Bush's admission.
> >>
> >>todd
> >>
> >
> > I have been of the opinion, since the day it happened, that the "fault" for the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers rested 100%
on
> > the shoulders of the men sitting in the pilot's seat of the airplane at the moment of impact. I have seen or heard nothing since
> > that date that would influence me to change that opinion.
> >
> > Tom Veatch
> > Wichita, KS USA
>
> So if you own a business and have a security guard and he's asleep when it
> gets robbed and he had been warned that it could be robbed (just not given
> a date or time), is it still just the robber's fault?
>
Of course not! It is you, the business owner, who is at fault for not taking any measures to prevent the robbery. Forget the fact
that you have what you believe to be a qualified, experiences security guard on your payroll. You SHOULD have known he would fall
asleep, and should have done more to keep him awake.
> Shawn
> Didn't anyone notice how paritsan the questions were? Geez, the white
house
> press corps isn't even trying to pretend that they are non-partisan any
> more. Apparently all bets are off. It's a sad situation really. I
thought
> reporters and journalists were supposed to report the facts and let the
> public form their own opinions. It's as if the media nowadays has their
own
> agenda.
That could be. I'd also suggest that the White House is very controlling of
the media. Many of the press questions are submitted beforehand, as Dumbya
unwittingly let on. The whole charade is scripted. Reporters aren't given
much of a chance to ask tough questions. If they do they're barred from
future press conferences. Look what happened to Helen Thomas.
Some of my favourite hightlights from the press conference:
- Calling Rumsfeld Secretary of State
- "we assumed oceans would protect us"
- "Most of Iraq is relatively stable"
- "This has been tough weeks in that country (sic)"
- "I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could
plan for it."
- "I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press
conference with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it
hadn't [sic] yet,"
- Referring to the Aug 6th memo as containing no "actionable intelligence",
even though it lists Washington and the WTC as targets.
> When the war on terror took us to a
> country that could actually fight back, it was just odd to see the sudden
> changes in some of our allies. That's all.
If the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution enforcing the use
of force against Iraq, Canada would have been there along with many other
nations. Iraq was a weak target and suggesting it had the ability to fight
back is laughable.
> I guess this is what I don't understand. We have dismantled terrorist
> networks and continue to capture/kill terrorists by our actions in Iraq.
There seems to be a tendency to lump anyone who is fighting the occupation
as a terrorist. Let's do a role reversal here. If Russia or China invaded
the US and you and your friends decided to fight back and defend yourself
against the occupiers, would that make you a terrorist? Insurgent? Evildoer?
Deadender? Bush loyalist?
> Glad you put that question mark there because the answer is obviously
> no, but it does bring up the fact that some US interests and families
> supported Hitler well into the fighting even though it was illegal. What
> do you think of those people? Should their heirs be allowed to keep
> money from that war profiteering?
What about the heirs who are currently President and governor of Florida?
> I feel really at ease after hearing W. speak last night.
You're not the only one. Many people I've spoken to also mention the
"laxative effect" whenever they hear him speak.
> He was
> intelligent, well informed, and clearly on top of the game.
That's not bad for someone who doesn't bother to read his PDB's, but instead
relies on a short verbal summary.
> I'm so
> proud that we elected Mr. Bush as the leader of the free world.
You mean appointed as leader of the free world.
> He's
> a model for other leaders!
You must be referring to the Bush Action Leader GI dolls.
> I guess I'm a little disappointed that he
> was unable to come up with something that he would have done
> differently now that he's had a chance to reflect upon 9/11.
That wasn't a fair question. How's he supposed to know? Cheney or Wolfowitz
haven't yet had a chance to tell him what he would have done differently.
All GW knows is that "it was some bad pilot" that hit the first tower.
> Let's be
> fair here though. He's only had a few years to think about it, and
> I'm sure he really didn't expect anyone to ask him anything so out of
> left field anyway. It's not like he would have been prepped for
> questions about our failings on 9/11.
Again, that was an unfair question. The press has no right to ask unscripted
questions or speak out of turn.
>That hasn't been in the news
> lately or anything. He got the important stuff right. I say, "4 more
> years" Yahoo, go W.!!!!
Two bad about the two term limit. Then again, at the rate things are
progressing, in another four years there may no longer be a constitution
(for those fluent in Bushspeak, that would be constitutipation) to contend
with. Maybe the Supreme Court will then be able to appoint him president for
life.
"p_j" <
> Frank Ketchum
> > Yeah, the patriot act has sure changed my life (this is also sarcasm)
> That is ignorance. It shows a basic lack of understanding of how rights
> and a free society are maintained. Civics 101 is where the concept is
> introduced.
That's odd. I thought it was the Bill of Rights and Constitution.
Oh, you mean to kids with heads full of mush.
> > The majority of Americans don't vote at all (this is not sarcasm). Dubya
> > won the election according to our election laws. Get over it (not sarcasm).
> This is blatantly false. It doesn't take much effort to find the truth
> out, so I have to assume that you don't want to know it. Hundreds of
> election laws were broken by the republicans, the most blatantly by
> Choicepoint and Jeb. They don't even deny it.
Your mom doesn't deny giving birth to a dumbass does she?
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 15:10:30 -0700, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
>You mean appointed as leader of the free world.
Selected!
The People "Selected" Al Gore and the Supereme Court Selected Bush.
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 13:08:06 GMT, "Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>You can sing it from the mountain tops for the rest of your life. It
>doesn't make it the truth. So let's suppose bush wins in november and
>serves his second term out. He will then be eligible to run for a third
>term. don't you realize that the constitution says that a person can only be
>elected to the presidency twice? if he wasn't elected for the first term, i
>expect all of you to support a third bush presidency run based on your own
>arguement about him not being elected for the first term.
As I say often, I am not too smart. If he runs the third terms I will vote for
him again as I did the last time. Others, may not like being screwed, but you
and I do enjoy it. No?
>Why aren't you people instead focusing your energy on the future and
>defeating your arch-nemesis bush? Why doesn't any democrat stand up and
>sing the praises of their nominee for this next election? No matter how
>evil you guys paint bush, in november there will be a choice to be made,
>bush or kerry. It is really that simple. I think the fact that the whole
>lot of you have no other game plan than to attack bush on anything you can
>come up with is very telling about how much you like your own nominee.
It is not attacking anyone here, but just to see how we react. Who cares if
Bush, Cheney, and Rice enrich themselves since the threesome came from the same
oil pool....Oops I mean car pool.
>
>good luck to you. you will need it.
Same to you, we all need it. I hope in his second term he take on Iran and N
Korea (we will give the North Korea and Iran double Shock and Awe) and in his
third terms he eliminates China from the face of this earth, Amen!
>
>Frank
>
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 05:17:59 GMT, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> ... and frankly, seeing how uninformed many of that most of Americans
>who didn't vote are, I am glad that they don't vote. This idea that the
>more people you get to the polls the better, is somewhat distressing.
>One would at least hope those going to the polls have a modicum of
>knowledge before casting a vote.
In another words, only you and those who think like you are informed voters?
How distressing!
By the way what makes you think you are so smart?
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 22:11:23 -0700, [email protected] (George G) wrote:
>I would like to see Bush re-elected.
>I would like to see where the next war will be------------George
Like to modify my earlier prediction: Syria, Iran, Venezuela, N. Korea followed
by the biggest one CHINA!
"p_j" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:1gcfr2q.pk2r3qm0fg1kN%[email protected]...
> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > If you'll allow that the US of A is not the _only_ free country in the
> > > > > world (though even that might be somewhat debatable in light of the
> > > > > PATRIOT act), I ask you to consider:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, the patriot act has sure changed my life (this is also sarcasm)
> > >
> > > That is ignorance. It shows a basic lack of understanding of how rights
> > > and a free society are maintained. Civics 101 is where the concept is
> > > introduced.
> >
> > OK p_j, you've been asked this before and you simply dance around the
> > issue.
>
> BS. I answer most of your regurgitations of Rush Limbaugh/RNC talking
> points and I even let you have the last word, particularly when you
> don't make any argument.
>
> > What, exactly, has the Patriot act done that limits *your* civil
> > rights?
>
> Do you even understand the question? You obviously didn't follow the
> thread as the point I made was that it is irrelevant whether an
> individual experiences a loss of their rights. I referred to that
> concept as something that is taught in Civics 101.
>
> The Patriot Act allows incarceration and execution without any guilt
> whatsoever. That's just ONE thing. The right to surveil anyone at
> anytime is pure STASSI. I realize that isn't considered bad by many, but
> I am old fashioned and believe in the Constitution and the rule of law.
>
Ok p_j, I have a copy of the Patriot Act in front of me. Please help me by citing the section that provides for execution without
guilt. Or for that matter, please cite ANY section of the Patriot Act that supports your assertions.
> What is odd is that you seem to know nothing about the Patriot Act. Have
> you read any non-Taliban/RNC sources of information, i.e. looked for the
> truth?
>
> > What could be done instead of the Patriot act to prevent the
> > occurence of another attack like 9/1l that would not result in even more
> > restriction of individual freedoms?
>
> There are dozens of solutions related to aviation including merely
> notifying pilots of the possibility.
>
> NORAD could follow the same rules they followed every day up till 9/11.
>
> I listed several others in a response to your brother jihadist. The
> Hart/Rudmann (with Gingrich) commission listed fifty.
>
> For that matter what benefit does crapping on the constitution have?
> What would be different if Ashcroft received earlier permission to
> lawlessly pursue pot smokers and prostitutes? You can hear that opinion
> from former intelligence officials including republican ones. It just
> doesn't match the talking points. Once again, the republican solution is
> the same as always. More government, fewer rights.
"Renata" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> If we make the analogy of data to dots...
>
> There was apparently a lot of information/data/dots regarding the
> activities of the 9/11 perpetrators. The problem was connecting the
> dots.
>
> One thing the Patriot Act adds is more dots.
>
> Hindsight is 20/20, of course, but it seems that the last thing we
> need is more data to add to what folks already can't wade thru and
> glean meaningful insight. Structural changes s.a. more sharing of
> info. between agencies, figuring how to wade thru the data in a timely
> manner, _some_ additional data (but not at the usurption of our (US)
> founding documents like the Bill of RIghts) etc. yes. Gathering up
> info. on what books I buy, check out of the library, and in complete
> secrecy, is the govmnt sticking their nose in my business, which ain't
> any of theirs. Ya see, ole Ashy might decide it's suspect, even
> illegal, to get books on that what he defines as an immoral subject.
>
> Renata
I would suggest that you obtain a copy of the Patriot Act from the government printing office (it can be downloaded) and read it.
You are reacting to the misinformation that has been spread about the act, rather than to the contents of the act.
I recently challenged p_j to support his claims about the Patriot Act, including its allowing people to be imprisioned and executed
"without being found guilty" of a crime, by citing specific sections of the law. That was the end of the discussion.
>
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 05:15:52 GMT, Mark & Juanita
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > OK p_j, you've been asked this before and you simply dance around the
> >issue. What, exactly, has the Patriot act done that limits *your* civil
> >rights? What could be done instead of the Patriot act to prevent the
> >occurence of another attack like 9/1l that would not result in even more
> >restriction of individual freedoms?
>
"p_j" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:1gcn5yk.1c92ui45scqelN%[email protected]...
> Al Reid <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I recently challenged p_j to support his claims about the Patriot Act,
> > including its allowing people to be imprisioned and executed "without
> > being found guilty" of a crime, by citing specific sections of the law.
> > That was the end of the discussion.
>
> Mostly because I didn't take you seriously. I don't believe you are
> reading the Patriot Act. For one most of the it is in the form of
> changes to other legislation. Those in turn requires interpretation.
> They aren't typically written in the form of "now the FBI can go here or
> there." I've never heard anyone including Ashcroft challenge the notion
> that he can go into a court room and declare someone a terrorist which
> is a definition so broad and vague and have that person "detained" for 6
> months and after that time can have it renewed by the same "process."
>
> So are you lying or not?
>
> Its also dishonest to suggest that you were attempting to engage in
> "discussion." You ignored my entire post with the exception of your one
> claim that sounds as if you were lying.
>
> --
>
> "There is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be
> easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country where police were
> allowed to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a
> country where the government is entitled to open your mail, eavesdrop on
> your phone conversations, or intercept your email communications; if we
> lived in a country where people could be held in jail indefinitely based
> on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they were
> up to no good, the government would probably discover more terrorists or
> would-be terrorists, justas it would find more lawbreakers generally.
> But that wouldn't be a country in which we would want to live." -
> Senator Feingold
>
I think it is you p-j who is lying. I challenged you to substantiate your claims by citing the applicable sections of the act.
Rather than make a fool of yourself, you just moved on.
I do , indeed have all 131 pages of the act in my possession. In fact I also have a searchable PDF of the same document. So, when
ever you are ready, cite the sections that support your claims.
I really believe that you have never looked into or read the US Patriot Act and are just repeating the claims made by others.
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:57:13 -0500, "todd" <[email protected]> wrote:
>The press corps are going to have to come up with the John Kerry campaign
>commercial on their own. The President isn't going to give them their nice
>soundbyte where he admits fault for 9/11. When President Clinton admits his
>larger share of fault for 9/11, that's when I'll start waiting for President
>Bush's admission.
>
>todd
>
I have been of the opinion, since the day it happened, that the "fault" for the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers rested 100% on
the shoulders of the men sitting in the pilot's seat of the airplane at the moment of impact. I have seen or heard nothing since
that date that would influence me to change that opinion.
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA
In article <[email protected]>,
Frank Ketchum <[email protected]> wrote:
> But I am behind his policy of pre-emption instead of reaction.
If MOST of the terrorists /and/ /all/ /their/ /leaders/ were Saudis,
why is this mental midget attacking anywhere other than Saudi Arabia?
Gerry
In article <[email protected]>, Frank
Ketchum <[email protected]> wrote:
> soldiers are dying on the battlefield at this very minute to protect
> the freedoms that you and I both enjoy
What *American* freedoms are they protecting by killing Iraqis in Iraq?
You appear to have bought the propaganda completely. Remember, the
first casualty of war is truth. As soon as they announced that they
were even thinking about invading ANYWHERE, all Americans should have
avoided believing almost everything from their media. Their media are
"embedded" alright, but it's with the White House staff who produce the
press releases they rely on rather than actually having to go out and
find the truth.
Gerry
In article <[email protected]>, Leon
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Some one finally has the balls to [do] what needs to be done
If Saudis attack you and you take revenge on Iraqis or anyone other
than Saudis, it doesn't take balls. The leaders have to be brain dead
/or/ /have/ /a/ /hidden/ /agenda/.
Gerry
In article <[email protected]>, Nate
Perkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/04/20/canada.soldiers/index.html
> http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/factsheet.htm#troop_contributions
Perzactly.
Cretien used the UN as an excuse so he didn't have to admit that his
gutting the Canadian military means we're stretched way to thin right
now.
But don't underestimate either the Canadian people or our armed forces,
no matter what our government does.
djb
--
"We have been looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq for less time
than it took Hillary Clinton to find the billing record from the Rose Law firm.
-And they were in the same building with her." - <http://wizbangblog.com/>
In article <[email protected]>, George
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Yes, I know I'm also (way) behind Bush. Yes, someone finally did what others
> dare not do. He got balls!!
What balls does it take to send yet another generation of American
youth to possible death overseas while this little pissant stays home
in Washington. The only injury he's likely to suffer is maybe burning
himself on his BBQ or trip over a microphone stand.
Gerry
"xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in messag
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> > > i wont waste my time. you might have to use logic and think to follow
> me.
> > > since you cant get past my other example (which by the way would be
> > equally
> > > valid if i changed the words iraq to pink elephants, us to purple
> posies,
> > > and china to freckled frogs, my point is the same and has nothing to
do
> > with
> > > the names used) i wont even start in on this one.
> > >
> > > randy
> >
> > Based on this response, I'll just assume you were talking out of your
ass
> > earlier. Thanks for clarifying.
> >
> > todd
>
> i agree. you should assume that. it will be better for both of us this
> way.
>
> randy
Agreed. It sure beats backing up your own statement, which I'm forced to
conclude if you could, you would have by now.
todd
joey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thats cause everyother question was asking him to appologize. He may not be
> the most off the cuff guy but atleast I think I trust what he says. He'd
> make a really bad liar
That's why he rarely is shown to the public and when he does, he usually
reads prepared statements that are obviously not his words.
He gets caught in lies regardless. Not as many as Condoleeza, but he
still says stuff that's pure BS. For that matter, he often gives
different versions of stories when he rambles on.
The one about the PDB being an historical document is a laugher... he
got cornered into that by the thing being forced out, because that was
the story that Condi floated when it was still secret and they can't
back away from that so they just repeat it over and over.
--
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick
themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Winston
Churchill
Frank Ketchum <[email protected]> wrote:
> > If you'll allow that the US of A is not the _only_ free country in the
> > world (though even that might be somewhat debatable in light of the
> > PATRIOT act), I ask you to consider:
>
>
> Yeah, the patriot act has sure changed my life (this is also sarcasm)
That is ignorance. It shows a basic lack of understanding of how rights
and a free society are maintained. Civics 101 is where the concept is
introduced.
>
>
> > 1) Us poor people up here in Kunuckistan don't really consider him our
> > leader, even if he does have nukes and might be inclined to use them if
> > he ever finds out how much oil we got.
>
>
> It is so easy to distance yourself from unpleasant things which must be done
> no matter how you benefit from them (this is not sarcasm).
Must be done? Surely, you aren't serious.
>
> > 2) We definitely didn't vote for him. In fact, IIRC, the majority of
> > Americans also did not vote for him.
>
>
> The majority of Americans don't vote at all (this is not sarcasm). Dubya
> won the election according to our election laws. Get over it (not sarcasm).
This is blatantly false. It doesn't take much effort to find the truth
out, so I have to assume that you don't want to know it. Hundreds of
election laws were broken by the republicans, the most blatantly by
Choicepoint and Jeb. They don't even deny it.
>
>
> > This calls seriously into question two of your assertions, both the "of
> > the free world" bit and the "elected" bit.
>
> Yawn (seriously)
Your morals are showing.
Frank Ketchum <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yeah, just about what I expected. It's fine, joke all you want.
Bush jokes about his lies for occupying a country.
The truth
> is that someone has to stand up and wipe out the terrorist threat that the
> world faces.
WAKE UP. STOP DRINKING. TURN OFF TALK RADIO.
The threat from terrorism is greater today than it ever has been. The
underlying roots of terrorism are being nourished and propagated more
than ever before. No single figure in modern history has done as much to
legitimize terrorism as a means of combat than George Bush.
Besides, terrorism is a method of combat and the notion that it could be
wiped out is ABSURD. The US has, is, and will use terrorism as well. Is
US terrorism a bad thing or a good thing? Do you say that it isn't
terrorism because it is done by the US?
> It is sad indeed how Canada turned it's back on her old ally.
> France, sure we expected that.
France, at cost to themselves, stood by the US when they refused Bush
bribes.
> Germany, we expect that too.
Ditto. Allies to the US, but not to the current outlaw regime.
Russia, well
> duh! But we all thought that Canada could be counted on. Well Canada has
> sure shown her colors in this one. Don't give it another thought. We'll
> do what needs to be done with or without you.
What did they do wrong? Why is it that disobedience to Bush and honesty
are somehow betraying the US? What are you talking about?
We don't even ask for thanks
> when our soldiers and our real allies soldiers are dying on the battlefield
> at this very minute to protect the freedoms that you and I both enjoy.
No, sadly they aren't dying for freedom.
>
> Your American friend
> Frank
> BTW, if Canada is attacked by anyone, who do you think is going to be the
> first one there to help?
Attacked by who?
Bill Everette <[email protected]> wrote:
> > What *American* freedoms are they protecting by killing Iraqis in Iraq?
> >
>
> The same ones we were protecting by fighting Germans in France?
Glad you put that question mark there because the answer is obviously
no, but it does bring up the fact that some US interests and families
supported Hitler well into the fighting even though it was illegal. What
do you think of those people? Should their heirs be allowed to keep
money from that war profiteering?
If you mean WWI, you must not have read the url I gave you. I guess not
given that you have this deceptive quote in your post:
The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is
the most brutal wrongdoer. Theodore Roosevelt
Bill Everette <[email protected]> wrote:
> Can we start clubbing liberals?
Ah, yes, anyone who clings to the principles that the country was
founded on should be clubbed.
Personally, I think it is about time to emulate the French and break out
the guillotines and start chopping off the heads of traitors like Cheney
and Scalia. On second thought, perhaps only lesser criminals should be
treated mercifully. People who commit treason should be hung, drawn and
quartered and their heads left on stakes on the grounds of the White
House so the next time the fascists take power, they know there will be
a price to pay.
Tom Veatch <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have been of the opinion, since the day it happened, that the "fault"
> for the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers rested 100% on the shoulders
> of the men sitting in the pilot's seat of the airplane at the moment of
> impact.
Apply that logic to criminal law and you can save billions with the
people you let out of prison. I wonder if it would be more than half.
Apply that logic to civil law and most of it becomes moot. Of course,
much of it preceded the formation of America and indeed is viewed as
what makes society civilized, but hell, that whole civilization
rule-of-law BS is stupid anyways.
Oh, and by the way, most of the "war on terrorism" wouldn't be fought
either, so I guess we better determine the ethic by the situation.
Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
> You really don't get it,,huh?
>
> Remember the building that was blown up in Oklahoma up by an American? Did
> you think that we should have had another civil war because of that. You go
> after the governments that pose a threat.
Which would leave Iraq out.
--
Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley
Butler, USMC.
"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as
something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a
small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the
benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.
...
"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil
interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the
National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping
of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall
Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua
for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I
brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in
1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way
unmolested."
Fletis Humplebacker <!> wrote:
> > > Yeah, the patriot act has sure changed my life (this is also sarcasm)
>
> > That is ignorance. It shows a basic lack of understanding of how rights
> > and a free society are maintained. Civics 101 is where the concept is
> > introduced.
>
>
> That's odd. I thought it was the Bill of Rights and Constitution.
> Oh, you mean to kids with heads full of mush.
You know what I mean, but even in your dishonest response, you are
wrong. The principles embodied in the comatose Bill of Rights and
Constitution existed well before they did.
>
>
> > > The majority of Americans don't vote at all (this is not sarcasm).
> > > Dubya won the election according to our election laws. Get over it
> > > (not sarcasm).
>
>
> > This is blatantly false. It doesn't take much effort to find the truth
> > out, so I have to assume that you don't want to know it. Hundreds of
> > election laws were broken by the republicans, the most blatantly by
> > Choicepoint and Jeb. They don't even deny it.
>
>
> Your mom doesn't deny giving birth to a dumbass does she?
I accept your surrender.
mp <[email protected]> wrote:
> > He was
> > intelligent, well informed, and clearly on top of the game.
>
> That's not bad for someone who doesn't bother to read his PDB's, but instead
> relies on a short verbal summary.
... and doesn't read newspapers or books. If you want to hear what he
does do, listen to the sports news channels. He calls up whoever wins
sports events, so at least those are being monitered.
His National Security Advisor claims to not read the entire National
Intelligence Estimate, a fairly short document.
todd <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yeah, we should have just put up the force field around Washington and New
> York. I'm telling you right now, that any steps we would have taken to
> prevent 9/11 from happening would have been condemned by the left.
I guess there would have been criticism if you limit yourself to STASSI
style solutions. The left though? Are you talking about Bernie Sanders
or the republican party?
> You tell
> me what the ACLU would have had to say if we decided to put young Arab men
> through added scrutiny when entering the country.
The ACLU isn't the left.
> Have you actually read the Aug 6 PDB? Bin Laden wanted to target Washington
> and the WTC? There's some breaking news.
Bush and Condi claimed ignorance on several of the points in the PDB.
There were also dozens of other relevant documents.
> Look, I don't care who was in office in September of 2001, no president
> could have prevented it.
You're BSing or you're delusional. If you think that a dozen agencies
with budgets that total hundreds of billions of dollars, who were warned
repeatedly couldn't stop a dozen guys with razor blades, you can only be
a Bush cultist.
> You think things would have been different if Al
> Gore was president?
Hell yes. I doubt it would have happened.
> He was part of the status quo of the previous 8 years
> that saw our embassies and the Cole bombed and worse yet, our pullout in
> Somalia.
What did you want to do in Somalia (Bush I's mess by the way)?
> Our intelligence agencies were hamstrung by law from cooperating
> enough to put all the pieces together.
Since the 70's...
> I'm not at all confident that we
> could prevent another large attack with the current state of intelligence.
> Unfortunately, you can't just snap your fingers and make the collection,
> dissemination, and analysis of worldwide intelligence happen.
Well, when the leaders are told that Al Qaeda will hijack planes in the
country, and told repeatedly, and told the basics of security are
lacking as was done by the Gore Commission or in the Hart/Rudman report,
you can act. Or you can party and go around and collect bribes which is
basically what Bush did.
> I don't think
> you could have convinced more than 10-20% of Americans, if that many, prior
> to 9/11 that a terrorist organization could have pulled off the destruction
> of the WTC.
Because they couldn't believe the gross incompetence of the people
running the country.
> Consequently, we wouldn't have stood for the changes that would
> have needed to happen to prevent it.
Again, you trot out the mistaken argument that the US would have to
switch to fascist rule in order to deter the ever so able handful of
razor blade wielders.
There are literally dozens of potential solutions that would have
prevented the loss of the WTC with absolutely no loss of liberties by
the public. If NOTHING was changed including Bush's utter disdain for
his job, and NORAD followed the exact same procedures that they had all
along and have used all along, there would either be one or neither of
the towers lost. That's not a PC thing to say though.
> Sadly, only after the WTC was
> destroyed do we understand the threat here in the US.
Lots of people knew about it. More resources were dedicated to a single
brothel in New Orleans and many, many times more resources were put into
attacking pot smokers than were committed to fighting terrorism.
todd <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Glad you put that question mark there because the answer is obviously
> > no, but it does bring up the fact that some US interests and families
> > supported Hitler well into the fighting even though it was illegal. What
> > do you think of those people? Should their heirs be allowed to keep
> > money from that war profiteering?
>
> Just as bad would be the active desire to appease Hitler in 1938 rather than
> confront him, as Joseph Kennedy did. I don't have to explain the cost we
> endured for that short-sighted decision.
I think financing the enemy in the killing of our own troops isn't
really comparable to not roaming around the world nation building.
Besides, Hitler wouldn't have flourished if the greedy and corrupt
Treaty of Versailles was never signed. Better not to have Hitlers and
Noriegas and Saddams and Pinochets, etcetera, etcetara, but even today
the US is still at it.
Frank Ketchum <[email protected]> wrote:
> > That is ignorance. It shows a basic lack of understanding of how rights
> > and a free society are maintained. Civics 101 is where the concept is
> > introduced.
> >
>
> The rights of a free country don't come from a university.
I never suggested that they do.
> I do understand
> where rights come from and how they are maintained.
Then you would realize that your comment about the Patriot Act is
utterly meaningless. If anything it shows selfishness.
>
> >
> > This is blatantly false. It doesn't take much effort to find the truth
> > out, so I have to assume that you don't want to know it. Hundreds of
> > election laws were broken by the republicans, the most blatantly by
> > Choicepoint and Jeb. They don't even deny it.
> >
>
> Which laws? Dub won every single recount, even the recount done by the
> miami herold newspaper. Care to elaborate?
Sure, not a single recount declared unequivacolly that Bush won. What
makes you think that the Miami Herald said he did? They did have a
misleading headline, but the substance of the article was the same. The
winner depends on which legal votes are counted. I repeatedly read that
more legal voters went to vote for Gore than for Bush in the state,
although that scenario was not relevant as it wasn't legally requested.
Choicepoint kept tens of thousands of legal voters from being able to
vote and those people weren't included in the recount calculations.
Another blatant crime was the removal of absentee ballots which were
altered. Legally required provisional ballots weren't provided.
--
"Those who cast votes decide nothing. Those who count votes decide
everything." - Josef Stalin
Joseph Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> WELCOME BACK p_j!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Hey all of you guys out there reading the OT post I can already tell you
> where it is headed with p_j. It all the fault of the rich!!!
Gee, can you name some post where I said anything like that?
> Doesn't matter
> what the discussion is, somewhere some place it is going to be the evil rich
> for everything!!! (just wanted to save everyone the time of waiting for the
> climacting ending).
Still not sure what you're saying, but love the new word, 'climacting.'
> Have a great Smedley day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He was a great soldier wasn't he. A couple of congressional medal of
honors. How about you? And he was honest at a cost to himself. Seems to
me that is an honorable thing to do. How about you?
todd <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Can we start clubbing liberals?
> >
> > Ah, yes, anyone who clings to the principles that the country was
> > founded on should be clubbed.
>
> That's pretty rich. You should go on tour with that comedy act.
Take it up with wacky billy everette. Personally, I like the ideas and
principles that some say have to be abandoned to fight some guys with
razor blades.
todd <[email protected]> wrote:
> > take it one step further. say russia and china came in to help overthrow
> > the president on the basis that he never won a valid election. hell the
> US
> > interferes with other countries all the time because the 'elections were
> > tampered with'.
>
> Name a country we have tampered with that held elections that the UN
> recognized.
What's the question? I don't get the UN recognized part.
Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think that the fact that few do
> actually vote when compared to the numbers that do not vote is an indicator
> that the citizens are seldom given any real "good" choices.
I would disagree with the idea that those who won can't complain.
As for good choices, what about McCain?
todd <[email protected]> wrote:
> Nope. Even the police aren't accountable in this country for failing to
> protect someone from crime.
No longer true, but you aren't distinguishing between moral and legal
culpability. And criminal laws aren't the only ones in the country.
> Here in the United States, we blame criminals
> for criminal acts.
Holy cow, flip on CourtTV or better yet spend an afternoon in a county
courtroom. If there was a magic wand and your statement could be made
true, the US would save billions in prison costs.
> But if we accept your premise, I could say that it's
> awfully hard to counter in a couple of hundred days what the previous
> administration spent 8 years putting together.
Actually what happened is that this administration didn't follow through
and ignored blatant, repeated warnings. If you want to follow with the
old chestnut, Clinton is to blame for acne and bad weather and all that
is bad and evil, listen to Ashcroft dodge responsibility because he
tried it and his BSing has been pretty well eviscerated
todd <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The People "Selected" Al Gore and the Supereme Court Selected Bush.
>
> Nice try. What the Supreme Court did was stop a selective recount in
> Florida.
No they stopped all recounts.
> If we can start picking and choosing which Supreme Court cases we
> can ignore, I've got a list ready to go.
So do I, but you still haven't defended the one in 2000. Your reasoning
doesn't really exist in that one.
>
> Here's something to consider regarding the 2000 election that I don't think
> I've ever really heard discussed Obviously, Al Gore received more popular
> votes that President Bush. This would only be meaningful if that is how we
> elect the president. You might want to refer to Article II, Section 1 of
> the United States Constitution. I'll wait.........So, as you now see, here
> in the US, presidents are elected on the basis of electoral votes.
I wonder how many millions of lines of text have been used to discuss
that one. I wonder if anyone doesn't realize it. You left out how
electoral votes are determined.
> So,
> since the goal is to win the most electoral votes, perhaps that was the goal
> of the Bush campaign.
Ironically, the Bush campaign was prepared to sue if they lost the
electoral vote and won the popular one.
Frank Ketchum <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >You mean appointed as leader of the free world.
> >
> > Selected!
> >
> > The People "Selected" Al Gore and the Supereme Court Selected Bush.
> >
> >
>
> You can sing it from the mountain tops for the rest of your life. It
> doesn't make it the truth.
And all the nasty disinformation from Limbaugh and Hannity and the rest
of the RNC doesn't change reality. Nobody really expects republicans to
discuss it honsestly or to take responsibility. Go read the SC decision.
It is a joke and its almost impossible to get a lawyer to say anything
different (other than political operatives). Even operatives like
Douglas Kimec, a blatant shill and apologist gets all tongue tied and
wishy-washy trying to defend it. Read it. I dare you. I know you won't.
It really is a joke, start to finish.
> I think the fact that the whole
> lot of you have no other game plan than to attack bush on anything you can
> come up with is very telling about how much you like your own nominee.
You mean the way that republicans attacked Clinton? And those were
almost entirely fabrications and laughable criminal accusations
>
> good luck to you. you will need it.
Good luck to all of us. Good luck to the world.
There is a pathetic amoral coward marching around like a seven year old
wearing a bath towel pretending he's superman. The guy doesn't have the
competence or character to be a dog catcher and there are millions of
Americans who like that and don't give a damn about the consequences.
I truly believe that YOU would be a massive improvement and we obviously
don't agree on much. I'll bet if you got the responsibility, you'd work
hard for that looooooooong four years and give a damn about it.
Bush wants the power and the money and the fame, but he doesn't want the
job. Where is he today? Using Air Force one to slurp up millions,
killing time watching sports on tv, golfing, fishing or doing another
photo-op like the one in Florida where he read that damn goat book to a
bunch of kids while the country was being attacked?
--
"The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or
rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force
or fraud, in carrying elections." - Lord Acton
Keith Carlson <[email protected]> wrote:
> That's what I can't get over in this situation. Granted I may not be
> following news by the hour like some, but I have not heard of any
> information the US had prior to 9/11 that was specific enough to develop a
> plan that would have prevented that catastrophe.
There has been a river of information that was specific enough.
>
> People are so anxious to "hang" Bush, as someone said... they want to latch
> onto anything to discredit him.
I dunno. He's had all sorts of stuff basically "hung" on him and his
followers don't seem to care.
> But anyone who thinks the administration didn't act on information it had:
I do.
> Given that information, what would YOU have done? What's your plan... not
> given the benefit of hindsight?
Notify pilots. Arm pilots. Have NORAD do the same thing they've done
every day up till 9/11. Take agents surveilling prostitutes and surveil
known suspects. Translate documents. Ask translators if there were any
documents that referred to known information. Have the head of the CIA
spend less time subverting foreign governments and have him talk to the
President at a time when terrorism was expected. Have the President
actually participate.
I could go on for a long time. It was a bunch of guys with razor blades.
There are all sorts of people who made recommendations for specific
changes that would have a high probability of changing what went on. The
Gore commission had a laundry list of air travel security change
recommendations. Its just not PC to ever say anything good (honest)
about Gore. The Hart/Rudmann report talked about many of the same
things.
> Cancel all flights from East coast
> airports? Lock down all the airports and run a background check on every
> passenger? Or maybe... run background checks only on passengers who fit a
> certain profile? Can you imagine the outrage that would elicit?
Frank Ketchum <[email protected]> wrote:
> It doesn't square up (get it?) with
> the hatred of Bush because he is rich.
I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone express hatred for Bush for being
rich. I've heard people who hate his dishonesty and corruption and he
uses those to enrich himself, but I don't think those are the same.
I admire people who prosper by adding value to the lives of others or
even if they accumulate wealth without harming or cheating others.
--
"The Bush family fortune came from the Third Reich." - John Loftus,
former Justice Department Nazi war crimes investigator
todd <[email protected]> wrote:
> The only thing you can be sure of when Richard Ben-Veniste is asking the
> questions is that getting to the truth is the last priority.
He's asking great questions. That's why you don't like him... he is
interested in the truth. Its pretty obvious that Bush was vacationing
and there were warnings all around him. Rice was/is clueless. Ashcroft
flatly stated that terrorism was a low priority and he was worried about
prostitutes and drugs. He tried lying his way out of it and got caught
(again). During that whole time, people from the bottom to the top
warned of terrorist attacks being imminent and that they could be done
through hijackings and that the WTC was a likely target.
I guess its a trade off. There are more pot smokers in prison and
different hookers are making money. Thats your plus side.
> And people wonder why the Bush administration initially opposed the
> commission.
Yeah, if only there was an honorable truth seeker like HENRY KISSINGER,
war criminal and fugitive handling things. Bush didn't want the
commission because everything that comes out makes him look bad. F@#K
the RNC spin about never taking responsibility because he's a
republican.
What it REALLY boils down to is that Bush wants to increase the risk to
the country by not evaluating the past, for his own selfish interests.
NOT doing an investigation and the one now is pretty weak, endangers the
country.
> They understood that it was going to be less about how to fix
> things from here than an attempt to lay blame. I shudder to think that we
> could be attacked in the next few months while a bunch of politicians jockey
> for position.
lol... that's why there was a 9/11. Bush's rise to power was filled with
endless fake investigations and propaganda campaigns with the purpose of
taking power and making money. I still remember republicans whining
about Clinton's attacking Bin Laden and too many wars and too much
nation building and the US isn't the world's policeman, blah, blah,
blah. What lying hypocrites.
Bravo to Ben-Veniste for asking cowards to take responsibility and for
really seeking the truth in the face of the slime machine.
--
"This administration intends to be candid about its errors. For a wise
man once said, 'An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to
correct it'... without debate, without criticism, no administration and
no country can succeed - and no republic can survive." JFK after the Bay
of Pigs
Frank Ketchum <[email protected]> wrote:
> > i get the impression frank would stare into the sun until he went blind
> > rather than admitting he (or bush) could be wrong about anything at all.
> >
>
> Bush has been wrong about plenty in his first term as president. I will be
> the first to admit that and he has really irritated me with some of his
> policies. I don't agree with the tin foil hat conspiracy accusations of the
> man.
I get a kick out of the recent spin on conspiracy theories. Bush used
ones that a pickle wouldn't believe and used them to take power. Vince
Foster, hundreds of bodyguards, drug running, selling missile technology
for cash and on and on and on.
Now, if someone says that the same people who conspired to commit crimes
before like Negroponte and Cheney and Powell are accused of conspiring
to commit crimes its considered a "tin foil hat" thing.
If there was a real investigation into 9/11 most of it all would
disappear, but Bush's answer to everthing is to make it secret and to
hide. If you don't think that the CIA, MOSSAD and other countries don't
use fake terrorism or disinformation you're wearing a tin foil hat with
your own neander propeller.
--
"And then there was the Office of Strategic Influence. You may recall
that. And 'oh my goodness gracious isn't that terrible, Henny Penny the
sky is going to fall.' I went down that next day and said fine, if you
want to savage this thing, fine, I'll give you the corpse. There's the
name. You can have the name, but I'm gonna keep doing every single thing
that needs to be done and I have." - Donald Rumsfeld AKA McNarummy, once
wage and price Czar, talking about the OSI - an agency to spread
disinformation
todd <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Yeah, we should have just put up the force field around Washington and
> New
> > > York. I'm telling you right now, that any steps we would have taken to
> > > prevent 9/11 from happening would have been condemned by the left.
> >
> > I guess there would have been criticism if you limit yourself to STASSI
> > style solutions. The left though? Are you talking about Bernie Sanders
> > or the republican party?
> >
> > > You tell
> > > me what the ACLU would have had to say if we decided to put young Arab
> men
> > > through added scrutiny when entering the country.
> >
> > The ACLU isn't the left.
>
> You didn't answer the question.
Probably nothing. Explain why you think the Bill of Rights is leftist.
>
> > > Have you actually read the Aug 6 PDB? Bin Laden wanted to target
> Washington
> > > and the WTC? There's some breaking news.
> >
> > Bush and Condi claimed ignorance on several of the points in the PDB.
> > There were also dozens of other relevant documents.
>
> Specify.
I suppose I can go through articles and list them for you, but how is it
that you don't know about them and why can't you look at the thousands
of press accounts?
Here is just one:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A9642-2004Apr13?language=printe
r
If you really gave a damn about the truth, look at the Gore Commission
report or the Hart/Rudmann.
>
> > > Look, I don't care who was in office in September of 2001, no president
> > > could have prevented it.
> >
> > You're BSing or you're delusional. If you think that a dozen agencies
> > with budgets that total hundreds of billions of dollars, who were warned
> > repeatedly couldn't stop a dozen guys with razor blades, you can only be
> > a Bush cultist.
>
> Except that they were hamstrung by a previous administration that apparently
> didn't take the threat seriously enough to implement policies that might
> have had the effect of upsetting Arab-Americans.
No response again. The "hamstrung" language is straight from RNC sources
AKA Limbaugh et al. If you followed the issue rather than listening to
talk radio which tells you what to think rather than helps you, you
would know that the accusation is turning out to be the reverse of
reality.
> The Clinton administration
> gutted our intelligence abilities.
This is laughable propaganda to evade responsibility. The irony of the
inquiries and the focus on the issue is that it appears that just the
opposite is true. Rather than bleat some talking point of the RNC, try
and suggest how. Unfortunately you will find that most of the "gutted"
BS goes to a practice that Reagan instituted and Ashcroft decided to
leave in place.
> Do you think Bush came into office and
> immediately fired any intelligence operatives that spoke Arabic? They
> weren't there when he arrived. You can't turn this stuff around in 8
> months.
There are several controversies surrounding translators. Its interesting
that a couple are blocked from testifying.
> Hell, even now, Tenet says it will take another 5 years.
Which is a political statement from a guy who doesn't seem like he's
doing very well or is covering for his agency. Maybe the CIA should
restrict themselves to intelligence gathering.
>
> > > You think things would have been different if Al
> > > Gore was president?
> >
> > Hell yes. I doubt it would have happened.
>
> Now who's delusional? The terrorists were in the country, trained to fly
> the planes, and waiting to go while Gore was in office.
You can call me delusional, but if you look at Bush's actions and Gore's
repeated statements its pretty hard to conclude anything else. Gore had
a long list of SPECIFIC recommendations and noted air travel security
specifically.
You also ignore the fact that it was a bunch of guys with razor blades.
>
> > > He was part of the status quo of the previous 8 years
> > > that saw our embassies and the Cole bombed and worse yet, our pullout in
> > > Somalia.
> >
> > What did you want to do in Somalia (Bush I's mess by the way)?
>
> Gee, I don't know...not pull out at the first sign of some bloodshed? Al
> Queda learned an important lesson there.
What did you want to do in Somalia again? "Not pull out" sounds like
revenge.
>
> > > Our intelligence agencies were hamstrung by law from cooperating
> > > enough to put all the pieces together.
> >
> > Since the 70's...
>
> Thanks for making my point.
I don't agree that they were "hamstrung." The division didn't stop lots
of successful actions and the big government, anti-democracy crowd has
never made much of an argument as to how the division caused a failure.
By the way, if you knew what was found in the 70's, when those powers
were in place, you wouldn't claim that any point was made.
>
> > > I'm not at all confident that we
> > > could prevent another large attack with the current state of
> intelligence.
> > > Unfortunately, you can't just snap your fingers and make the collection,
> > > dissemination, and analysis of worldwide intelligence happen.
> >
> > Well, when the leaders are told that Al Qaeda will hijack planes in the
> > country, and told repeatedly, and told the basics of security are
> > lacking as was done by the Gore Commission or in the Hart/Rudman report,
> > you can act. Or you can party and go around and collect bribes which is
> > basically what Bush did.
>
> Ah. And this security became lacking on Inauguration Day?
Appointing a bizarre choice like Ashcroft was a big day.
>The Gore
> commission? That was compiled in February of 1997. Didn't Gore get all of
> the recommendations implemented?
What makes you say that?
> He had almost 3 years after that. Bush
> had 8 months. The FBI was telling him they were actively pursuing the
> matter.
That's the RNC talking point isn't it. Somehow, Bush should do NOTHING
as leader and commander in chief. Well, that is if you don't count
fund-raising, fishing, and campaigning for re-election.
You'll find the FBI number is turning out to be BS. I wonder if it was
in the original PDB.
Commisioner Roemer to the worst NSA ever:
"We have done thousands of interviews here at the 9/11 Commission. We've
gone through literally millions of pieces of paper. To date, we have
found nobody -- nobody at the FBI who knows anything about a tasking of
field offices.
We have talked to the director at the time of the FBI during this threat
period, Mr. Pickard. He says he did not tell the field offices to do
this.
And we have talked to the special agents in charge. They don't have any
recollection of receiving a notice of threat.
Nothing went down the chain to the FBI field offices on spiking of
information, on knowledge of al Qaeda in the country, and still, the FBI
doesn't do anything."
Newsday later had a story if you care.
As usual the "culture" of the FBI is to protect Ashcroft and Bush. Lots
of other back stories and subplots, none that I have ever seen that make
either of them look good.
> > > I don't think
> > > you could have convinced more than 10-20% of Americans, if that many,
> prior
> > > to 9/11 that a terrorist organization could have pulled off the
> destruction
> > > of the WTC.
> >
> > Because they couldn't believe the gross incompetence of the people
> > running the country.
> >
> > > Consequently, we wouldn't have stood for the changes that would
> > > have needed to happen to prevent it.
> >
> > Again, you trot out the mistaken argument that the US would have to
> > switch to fascist rule in order to deter the ever so able handful of
> > razor blade wielders.
> >
> > There are literally dozens of potential solutions that would have
> > prevented the loss of the WTC with absolutely no loss of liberties by
> > the public. If NOTHING was changed including Bush's utter disdain for
> > his job, and NORAD followed the exact same procedures that they had all
> > along and have used all along, there would either be one or neither of
> > the towers lost. That's not a PC thing to say though.
>
> This is all very easy to say with hindsight. Do you have any idea the
> number of threats that this country faces from groups all over the world,
> including right here?
Ah, no response but another talking point. By the way there were lots of
people who told Bush that the threat was imminent (unlike Iraq) and the
number one threat. Tenet referred to Al Qaeda threats as "blinking red"
and that his "hair was on fire."
So you say those should be given a low priority while prostitution and
pot smoking are near the top. Oh, and don't forget the protection of
stem cells.
> It's the intelligence agencies job to prioritize
> those threats and counter them. Unfortunately, the intelligence community
> was not able to confirm and counter the threat in time.
Bush. Ashcroft. Tenet. Unfortunately they didn't do their jobs. They
could have. They had the tools. Many of the people under them did. There
are dozens of things that could've been done that would've likely
prevented the attacks or made them far less successful and all you can
do is say "oh well." Just pretend it was Clinton or better yet Gore at
the helm. You may not admit it, but you know that the response by the
RNC and its outlets on Faux, the Moonie Times, and talk radio et al
would be the opposite
> Personally, I think
> it's pointless to play the blame game at this point. I'd rather focus on
> what needs to be changed to prevent the next one.
The two are the same. The problem is protecting Bush, not the country.
Besides, this is supposedly a new era of responsibility. Bush talks
about "justice" all the time and people being accountable for their
actions. F#@K the cultists who say Bush is a minor God.
> But if you really want to
> play the blame game, I can make a much stronger case for lack of action on
> the Clinton administration's 8 years than the Bush administration's 8
> months.
No you can't because you can't come up with anything that isn't an RNC
talking point which are rarely accurate. So far in every post, I haven't
heard you say a single thing that isn't Limbaugh stuff. I can back up my
arguments by using nothing but republicans. Most of what I say is
factual.
> Hell, the Clinton administration was treating Al Queda like the
> mob, not a military threat. They wanted to bring them to trial.
Patently false and you can find out the opposite but you have to try.
> We didn't
> want Bin Laden when the Sudan offered him to us because in Clinton's words,
> we didn't have any charge to hold him on.
This rates right up there with Bush's Yellowcake. Why is it that Bush
cultists hold on to this stuff well after it is dismissed as lies. I
suppose you're still excited by the rescue of Jessica Lynch.
> Yeah, we wouldn't want to violate
> Osama's civil liberties, would we?
Well, the disdain that conservatives have for the rule of law and
individual rights is mountainous, but Osama doesn't have civil liberties
in the Sudan (as if the story were true).
> Maybe if Clinton had been more focused
> on terrorism than getting BJs in the Oval Office, he might have thought
> twice about it.
Ah yes, oral sex. Bring that up because unlike Bush, the record is
showing that he was a President who actually focused on terrorism and
unlike Bush actually showed up on the job.
> Do you disagree or are you drinking the liberal Kool-Aid?
Everything I've said can be sourced from republicans. I love liberalism
though. My favorite liberal is Thomas Jefferson. Thanks to Talibanos,
just quoting him could be interpreted as violating the law.
As for kool-aid, talk radio is the Jim Jones flavor and you sound like
you make it an exclusive diet.
--
"In a way, the world-view of the Party imposed itself most successfully
on people incapable of understanding it. They could be made to accept
the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully
grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not
sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening.
By lack of understanding they remained sane. They simply swallowed
everything, and what they swallowed did them no harm, because it left no
residue behind, just as a grain of corn will pass undigested through the
body of a bird." - George Orwell in '1984'
todd <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > take it one step further. say russia and china came in to help
> overthrow
> > > > the president on the basis that he never won a valid election. hell
> the
> > > US
> > > > interferes with other countries all the time because the 'elections
> were
> > > > tampered with'.
> > >
> > > Name a country we have tampered with that held elections that the UN
> > > recognized.
> >
> > What's the question? I don't get the UN recognized part.
>
> I'm asking you to back up your statement that the US has interfered in
> another country after elections we didn't like. I'm trying to draw a
> distinction between a legitimate election and one in, say, Zimbabwe, where
> Mugabe wins reelection, but is not recognized by the US and the EU. So,
> other than a place like Zimbabwe, where most of the world believes the
> election was rigged, name a country that we interfered with. Is this a
> difficult question? I'm trying to get you to support your statement.
Its not my statement, but if you want to find a history of the US
interfering in elections, that's not hard. Obviously you won't get
recent history because it is secret and citizens are not allowed to know
what crimes their government commits.
Why don't you make some effort? Educate yourself on why in the 70's
restrictions were put on the CIA. Don't read Taliban/RNC news sources if
you are interested in the truth (obviously).
--
"The CIA is not now nor has it ever been a central intelligence agency.
It is the covert action arm of the President's foreign policy advisers.
In that capacity it overthrows or supports foreign governments while
reporting 'intelligence' justifying those activities. It shapes its
intelligence, even in such critical areas as Soviet nuclear weapons
capability, to support presidential policy. Disinformation is a large
part of its covert action responsibility, and the American people are
the primary target of its lies." former agent Ralph McGhee
Frank Ketchum <[email protected]> wrote:
> > And all the nasty disinformation from Limbaugh and Hannity and the rest
> > of the RNC doesn't change reality. Nobody really expects republicans to
> > discuss it honsestly or to take responsibility. Go read the SC decision.
> > It is a joke and its almost impossible to get a lawyer to say anything
> > different (other than political operatives). Even operatives like
> > Douglas Kimec, a blatant shill and apologist gets all tongue tied and
> > wishy-washy trying to defend it. Read it. I dare you. I know you won't.
> > It really is a joke, start to finish.
> >
> >
>
> Since I am not a member of the supreme court, I don't have my own copy. Do
> you have a link?
www.findlaw.com
lots of good stuff about lots of subjects there
> > Bush wants the power and the money and the fame, but he doesn't want the
> > job. Where is he today? Using Air Force one to slurp up millions,
> > killing time watching sports on tv, golfing, fishing or doing another
> > photo-op like the one in Florida where he read that damn goat book to a
> > bunch of kids while the country was being attacked?
> >
>
> Yeah, it was unbelievable that during the bush presidency, at a totally
> random moment, he was found to be in a school reading with children.
You don't address the point. Tenet said the terrorism warning light was
"blinking red." His "hair was on fire" with concern.
> What
> an asshole.
Yeah, for saying exactly what republicans said when they're not in
office. One of the lunatics in Congress actually proposed a law charging
Clinton for use of his office to campaign with. Talk radio bleated
endlessly on how it was wrong and immoral, blah, blah, blah. Now the
EXACT same suggestion is a violation of Political Correctness.
Look in a mirror.
> If 9/11 had happened under clinton he would have been in the
> whitehouse for sure. getting head from a fat intern, but there none the
> less.
Well, 9/11 may very well not have happened, but why don't you use
republicans sexual adventures as an example? How about his daddy and his
mistress?
Sorry if your sex life is bad, but blaming Clinton for everything is a
joke of a defense for a man whose entire life is nothing but failure.
You have my sympathy if you bought into the charade, but at some point
you gotta buck up and be a man.
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> > the way we've bombed the hell out of iraq for the last decade, littering the
> > country with radioactive material,
>
> despite the extreme rhetoric of those who oppose *any* military
> action, anywhere for any purpose
Wow, that's a mighty large straw man. Who do you know, have heard about
or read about, other than nuns who would fit that characterization?
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > If you'll allow that the US of A is not the _only_ free country in the
> > > > world (though even that might be somewhat debatable in light of the
> > > > PATRIOT act), I ask you to consider:
> > >
> > >
> > > Yeah, the patriot act has sure changed my life (this is also sarcasm)
> >
> > That is ignorance. It shows a basic lack of understanding of how rights
> > and a free society are maintained. Civics 101 is where the concept is
> > introduced.
>
> OK p_j, you've been asked this before and you simply dance around the
> issue.
BS. I answer most of your regurgitations of Rush Limbaugh/RNC talking
points and I even let you have the last word, particularly when you
don't make any argument.
> What, exactly, has the Patriot act done that limits *your* civil
> rights?
Do you even understand the question? You obviously didn't follow the
thread as the point I made was that it is irrelevant whether an
individual experiences a loss of their rights. I referred to that
concept as something that is taught in Civics 101.
The Patriot Act allows incarceration and execution without any guilt
whatsoever. That's just ONE thing. The right to surveil anyone at
anytime is pure STASSI. I realize that isn't considered bad by many, but
I am old fashioned and believe in the Constitution and the rule of law.
What is odd is that you seem to know nothing about the Patriot Act. Have
you read any non-Taliban/RNC sources of information, i.e. looked for the
truth?
> What could be done instead of the Patriot act to prevent the
> occurence of another attack like 9/1l that would not result in even more
> restriction of individual freedoms?
There are dozens of solutions related to aviation including merely
notifying pilots of the possibility.
NORAD could follow the same rules they followed every day up till 9/11.
I listed several others in a response to your brother jihadist. The
Hart/Rudmann (with Gingrich) commission listed fifty.
For that matter what benefit does crapping on the constitution have?
What would be different if Ashcroft received earlier permission to
lawlessly pursue pot smokers and prostitutes? You can hear that opinion
from former intelligence officials including republican ones. It just
doesn't match the talking points. Once again, the republican solution is
the same as always. More government, fewer rights.
todd <[email protected]> wrote:
> I like the way that instead of countering many points, you just try ignoring
> them as RNC "talking points"
Few, if any, of the talking points actually say anything. They are
slogans or phrases that lead the simple minded.
And hey, why is it that you never really respond? What's the deal?
Mouthing some propaganda from Karl Rove doesn't count.
> as if just because Rush talked about it makes
> it false (I know you wish that was true).
Its hard to imagine a profoundly more dishonest person and the truth is
that if Rush does say it, it is in all probability a distortion or
disinformation. ANYONE with morals can determine that by taking
virtually any five minute segment of his show and looking for the truth
of the matter. The trick is you have to seek the truth, not something
that supports emotional beliefs.
> I'll try to refocus you on just a
> couple of points.
>
> 1. Gore commission. Did Gore implement his own recommendations or not?
You make me wonder if you knew he was vice president.
He
> had 3 years after the publication of his own report. This is a simple
> question. What actually happened is that in late 1996, a preliminary report
> was issued that would have been tough on the airlines. Very shortly after,
> the airlines jumped all over Gore. Gore then sent a letter to the airlines'
> lobbyist that the changes would not cost them any money.
Are you one of the guys who squawks about conspiracy theories?
> The next day, a
> $40,000 contribution was receievd from TWA. In the next two weeks,
> Northwest, United, and American Airlines donated another $55,000. When it
> was all done, the democrats received half a million dollars prior to the 96
> election. I like how it was put in the Washington Times:
Moonie Times - not worth much.
>
> "It was a classic Washington victory. The policy wonks got their proposals
> noticed, the airlines got their bottom line protected and Mr. Gore got his
> party the money. The only losers were the passengers, who got no increased
> security from terrorism. So, when Mr. Gore actually had a chance to fight,
> rather than talk about, the powerful special interests on behalf of the
> little guy, he turned his money-stuffed coat and protected the interests
> that bought him."
Oh and of course no attribution. Is it BlackJack Bill Bennett, habitual
liar, Bill Salman brain, disinformation specialist or who? Is it an
editorial by the moonies or an op-ed by a moonie whore?
Besides, Bush is a complete whore who doesn't even bother to have his
party write legislation. They literally take orders from their bosses
who provide them with the actual language that is used for legislation.
Surely, if any of your moonie times conspiracy were true it wouldn't
make it anything like Bushco and the truth is that it is the moonie
times and a conspiracy theory.
>
> 2. Clinton/Bin Laden/Sudan. I suggest you read the following from
> Mansoor Ijaz, who was directly involved.
> http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_lade
> n.htm
The very same person claims that Bush deliberately allowed Bin Laden to
escape from Tora Bora. I read an account in the Christian Science
Moniter that describes the military actions that the military ADMIT
allowed him to escape. Was it deliberate? I kinda doubt it, but since
you claim that Ijaz is unimpeachable as a source then you must agree
that following 9/11 Bush deliberately allowed Bin Laden to escape.
> As for your assertion that Sudan offering Bin Laden to Clinton is some sort
> of fabrication, I'm going by Clinton's own words from 2002, which can be
> found here http://www.newsmax.com/clinton2.mp3 If you want to tell me that
> Clinton was lying, that would certainly have to be considered.
Your inference assumes a lot.
But thanks for the typical response in the thread of stop the "blame
game," "hindsight" is easy, and kooks claim conspiracy theories. Nothing
could be more appropriate of an answer than blaming Clinton with
hindsight claiming a conspiracy.
todd <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Its not my statement, but if you want to find a history of the US
> > interfering in elections, that's not hard. Obviously you won't get
> > recent history because it is secret and citizens are not allowed to know
> > what crimes their government commits.
> >
> > Why don't you make some effort? Educate yourself on why in the 70's
> > restrictions were put on the CIA. Don't read Taliban/RNC news sources if
> > you are interested in the truth (obviously).
>
> Damn, even another poster gave a try at pointing out Haiti. It was wrong,
> but at least he tried.
Wrong? lol... ignore all evidence except what supports your point and
then declare victory.
And of course you don't really respond to my point where I made no
mention of Haiti. There are dozens of countries where the US interferes
in elections and it isn't disputed.
Personally, given that Bush hired people who have a history of crime and
terrorism, you're the one with the far fetched theory.
What is really wierd is the bizarre desparation to defend Bush. No
amount of evidence matters. More information and people coming out last
weekend with the same old story. Bush is a liar. Duh. You believe him
and Rush though. OK.
Bill Everette <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I have no doubt that America could take N. Korea. But what would she do
> > with it?
>
> Turn it back over to South Korea
There's some of Bill's philosophy in a nutshell. People and land belong
to the state and can be traded like property.
I wonder if he knows about the recent elections in SK. Or better yet
how SKers view Bush. I suppose not.
--
"Al Qaeda and its leader, Mr. bin Laden, did not blindside the United
States, but were a threat recognized and discussed regularly at the
highest levels of government for nearly five years before the attacks,
in thousands of reports, often accompanied by urgent warnings from
lower-level experts." - NYT article on 9/11 commission findings
todd <[email protected]> evaded real discussion of BUSH:
> > > 1. Gore commission. Did Gore implement his own recommendations or not?
> >
> > You make me wonder if you knew he was vice president.
>
> Second time...no answer.
There is. You just can't figure it out.
> You're the one who brought up the Gore commission.
> Yes or no: did he implement his own recommendations in the 3 years after
> the report was published while he was still in office?
He couldn't. He was the vice president.
> It's interesting to
> me that you'd rather attempt to belittle me than answer the question.
Sorry, but it was a stupid question.
>
> > He
> > > had 3 years after the publication of his own report. This is a simple
> > > question. What actually happened is that in late 1996, a preliminary
> report
> > > was issued that would have been tough on the airlines. Very shortly
> after,
> > > the airlines jumped all over Gore. Gore then sent a letter to the
> airlines'
> > > lobbyist that the changes would not cost them any money.
> >
> > Are you one of the guys who squawks about conspiracy theories?
>
> More misdirection.
Actually it is an invitation to direction.
> > > The next day, a
> > > $40,000 contribution was receievd from TWA. In the next two weeks,
> > > Northwest, United, and American Airlines donated another $55,000. When
> it
> > > was all done, the democrats received half a million dollars prior to the
> 96
> > > election. I like how it was put in the Washington Times:
> >
> > Moonie Times - not worth much.
> > >
> > > "It was a classic Washington victory. The policy wonks got their
> proposals
> > > noticed, the airlines got their bottom line protected and Mr. Gore got
> his
> > > party the money. The only losers were the passengers, who got no
> increased
> > > security from terrorism. So, when Mr. Gore actually had a chance to
> fight,
> > > rather than talk about, the powerful special interests on behalf of the
> > > little guy, he turned his money-stuffed coat and protected the interests
> > > that bought him."
> >
> > Oh and of course no attribution. Is it BlackJack Bill Bennett, habitual
> > liar, Bill Salman brain, disinformation specialist or who? Is it an
> > editorial by the moonies or an op-ed by a moonie whore?
>
> It was written by Tony Blankley. Does that make it automatically untrue?
No, but Tony Blankley is an EXTREME partisan and dishonest. Was it an
editorial or an op-ed or what? Do you know anything about Tony Blankley?
Moreover Sun Myung Moon's illegal campaign contribution has repeatedly
concocted stories like "canoegate."
> > The very same person claims that Bush deliberately allowed Bin Laden to
> > escape from Tora Bora. I read an account in the Christian Science
> > Moniter that describes the military actions that the military ADMIT
> > allowed him to escape. Was it deliberate? I kinda doubt it, but since
> > you claim that Ijaz is unimpeachable as a source then you must agree
> > that following 9/11 Bush deliberately allowed Bin Laden to escape.
>
> There's one big difference. In the Clinton case, Ijaz was directly
> involved,
HE CLAIMS.
> so, unless he is flat lying, we can take what he says as fact.
A humungous "if."
>
> > But thanks for the typical response in the thread of stop the "blame
> > game," "hindsight" is easy, and kooks claim conspiracy theories. Nothing
> > could be more appropriate of an answer than blaming Clinton with
> > hindsight claiming a conspiracy.
>
> Pot. Kettle. Black.
BS and your failure to respond is noted.
I never used "blame game" rhetoric to stifle the truth, I never claimed
that hindsight isn't easy and I've never denigrated people for claiming
that multiple actors in government committed crimes together which is
all that a conspiracy theory is... I have laughed at some of the them
though. Junkie Limbaugh is still peddling the Vince Foster thing.
Besides, all the blaming of Clinton for the failures of Bush can't
change the fact that there were many, many warnings of 9/11 and Bush's
record is consistent... just look at the Cole... he did NOTHING.
xrongor <[email protected]> wrote:
> its really weird. but if you look carefully, none of the bush lovers ever
> really say anything. they wouldnt dare stick their necks out and make a
> 'statement'. all they do is repeat, endlessly, that everyone else is wrong.
And lots of the people that they routinely condemn are lifetime
republicans, career military, career intelligence, etc.
Notice how the outing of Valerie Plame has gone nowhere. That would be a
great question for Bush.
Have you asked Karl Rove if he did it or had any knowledge of it? Etc.
Rick Chamberlain <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I never used "blame game" rhetoric to stifle the truth, I never claimed
> > that hindsight isn't easy and I've never denigrated people for claiming
> > that multiple actors in government committed crimes together which is
> > all that a conspiracy theory is... I have laughed at some of the them
> > though. Junkie Limbaugh is still peddling the Vince Foster thing.
> >
> > Besides, all the blaming of Clinton for the failures of Bush can't
> > change the fact that there were many, many warnings of 9/11 and Bush's
> > record is consistent... just look at the Cole... he did NOTHING.
>
> Just what do you expect that a CANDIDATE do? The Cole happened in
> October 2000. Bush was inaugurated in January 2001.
>
> You talk a good game p_j (if that's your real name), but you need to
> spend a little more time fact checking before you spout off.
What don't you get? In June 2001, five months after Bush had been sworn
in, al Qaeda released a videotape claiming responsibility for the Cole
operation. If the Bush administration needed a casus belli to destroy al
Qaeda, here it was, broadcast around the world. Instead, the response
was to do absolutely nothing.
By your own statement Bush took power shortly after the attack. What did
he do? C'mon Rick, don't be a shill for the RNC? What did he do?
There has already been some investigation and if you want I can go on,
but I'll wait to see if you make ANY argument, because all you've done
up till now is say that Bush did nothing.
> On the bright side, you have all the DNC talking points down pat...
More tired old RNC talking points.
Hey, Rick who do you listen to on the radio?
Bill Everette <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > I have no doubt that America could take N. Korea. But what would she
> do
> > > > with it?
> > >
> > > Turn it back over to South Korea
> >
> > There's some of Bill's philosophy in a nutshell. People and land belong
> > to the state and can be traded like property.
Here is where Bill does a Bush and acknowledges (through his silence)
that land and people belong to the state.
> >
> > I wonder if he knows about the recent elections in SK. Or better yet
> > how SKers view Bush. I suppose not.
Here is where Bill does a Bush and gives a non-response.
> >
>
> I wonder if you know about the Korean War?
Sure.
> Did they like us when it served their purpose?
Ah, then they're ungrateful so we should ignore them now. OK.
> Do you wonder how long SK would last without our protection?
LMAO. What would happen Bill? C'mon don't run away AGAIN.
> I suppose you would turn it over to China?
You really are into this whole imperialism thing aren't you. How could
the US give away a people and a land?
By the way, China is proceeding in the opposite direction of the US.
They are increasing individual rights.
Sadly I see you are still using quotations that are deceptive. Shame on
you.
--
"I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less
we use our power the greater it will be." - Thomas Jefferson
Al Reid <[email protected]> wrote:
> I recently challenged p_j to support his claims about the Patriot Act,
> including its allowing people to be imprisioned and executed "without
> being found guilty" of a crime, by citing specific sections of the law.
> That was the end of the discussion.
Mostly because I didn't take you seriously. I don't believe you are
reading the Patriot Act. For one most of the it is in the form of
changes to other legislation. Those in turn requires interpretation.
They aren't typically written in the form of "now the FBI can go here or
there." I've never heard anyone including Ashcroft challenge the notion
that he can go into a court room and declare someone a terrorist which
is a definition so broad and vague and have that person "detained" for 6
months and after that time can have it renewed by the same "process."
So are you lying or not?
Its also dishonest to suggest that you were attempting to engage in
"discussion." You ignored my entire post with the exception of your one
claim that sounds as if you were lying.
--
"There is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be
easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country where police were
allowed to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a
country where the government is entitled to open your mail, eavesdrop on
your phone conversations, or intercept your email communications; if we
lived in a country where people could be held in jail indefinitely based
on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they were
up to no good, the government would probably discover more terrorists or
would-be terrorists, justas it would find more lawbreakers generally.
But that wouldn't be a country in which we would want to live." -
Senator Feingold
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 23:25:08 -0500, todd wrote:
> "Shawn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> So if you own a business and have a security guard and he's asleep when it
>> gets robbed and he had been warned that it could be robbed (just not given
>> a date or time), is it still just the robber's fault?
>>
>> Shawn
>
> Absolutely not. And if a woman walks down a dark alley that she knows is
> dangerous and gets attacked and raped, it's not the rapist's fault either.
> I mean, the woman should have known better, right? I'm sure you'd vote for
> acquittal if you were on the jury.
>
> todd
There may be a missing element to my analogy and yours. I'll use your
analogy for clarification. Suppose I was with the woman and told her that
I would protect her (see inauguration oath) and she got raped when we went
down the alley, while I did little to help her. Yes, the robber is at
fault for the rape, but I am at fault for not protecting her. Agree?
Shawn
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> Unfortunately most of the Americans didn't voter for him because they
> didn't vote...for anyone. They have no right to complain at all.
>
> RB
... and frankly, seeing how uninformed many of that most of Americans
who didn't vote are, I am glad that they don't vote. This idea that the
more people you get to the polls the better, is somewhat distressing.
One would at least hope those going to the polls have a modicum of
knowledge before casting a vote.
>
> Leon wrote:
> > "Paul Kierstead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:pmkierst-95A2DE.18082514042004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> >
> >>2) We definitely didn't vote for him. In fact, IIRC, the majority of
> >>Americans also did not vote for him.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ain't divine intervention great....
> >
> >
>
>
"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Yeah, just about what I expected. It's fine, joke all you want. The truth
> is that someone has to stand up and wipe out the terrorist threat that the
> world faces. It is sad indeed how Canada turned it's back on her old ally.
And the relevance to woodworking would be what?
Ah yes, Dufus is dumber than a post and the Canadians club baby seals to death.
Perhaps someone from up north could tell us whether they allow the use
of aluminium bats or whether they follow the major league rules and
require the use of wooden bats.
Perhaps one of the right wing Republicans on the list could post a
template for a turning a Canadian seal killing club on a lathe. They
could modify the pattern they use for making clubs for trolls.
I think that its time to move this thread to a less controvertial
topic. How about inviting those nice people from talk.origins to
come over? Then there are the abortion folk who are always up for
a nice quiet debate.
Of course in the great days of Usenet, twelve years ago you could
always count on a visit by the gun nut road show. Though that came
to a stop after Timothy McVeigh stopped posting.
"xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:xUFfc.146958$w54.963281@attbi_s01...
> > > I guess this is what I don't understand. We have dismantled terrorist
> > > networks and continue to capture/kill terrorists by our actions in
Iraq.
> >
> > There seems to be a tendency to lump anyone who is fighting the
occupation
> > as a terrorist. Let's do a role reversal here. If Russia or China
invaded
> > the US and you and your friends decided to fight back and defend
yourself
> > against the occupiers, would that make you a terrorist? Insurgent?
> Evildoer?
> > Deadender? Bush loyalist?
>
> take it one step further. say russia and china came in to help overthrow
> the president on the basis that he never won a valid election. hell the
US
> interferes with other countries all the time because the 'elections were
> tampered with'.
Name a country we have tampered with that held elections that the UN
recognized.
todd
"p_j" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1gccrh4.1gbo8jjq2blkaN%[email protected]...
> todd <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > take it one step further. say russia and china came in to help
overthrow
> > > the president on the basis that he never won a valid election. hell
the
> > US
> > > interferes with other countries all the time because the 'elections
were
> > > tampered with'.
> >
> > Name a country we have tampered with that held elections that the UN
> > recognized.
>
> What's the question? I don't get the UN recognized part.
I'm asking you to back up your statement that the US has interfered in
another country after elections we didn't like. I'm trying to draw a
distinction between a legitimate election and one in, say, Zimbabwe, where
Mugabe wins reelection, but is not recognized by the US and the EU. So,
other than a place like Zimbabwe, where most of the world believes the
election was rigged, name a country that we interfered with. Is this a
difficult question? I'm trying to get you to support your statement.
todd
Frank Ketchum wrote:
> "Paul Kierstead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:pmkierst-8D2D93.18435514042004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
>>Yes, I do understand, really. I am really proud of America. Electing
>>Dubya is indeed most unpleasant and must be a great cross to bear. We
>>would never have the stomach for it.
>>
>>Come to think of it, Dubya must be the leader of the free world. The
>>great and all-seeing president rules us all and we shall all bow before
>>him.
>>
>>No wait, he isn't our leader. I guess we aren't free.
>
>
> Yeah, just about what I expected. It's fine, joke all you want. The truth
> is that someone has to stand up and wipe out the terrorist threat that the
> world faces. It is sad indeed how Canada turned it's back on her old ally.
> France, sure we expected that. Germany, we expect that too. Russia, well
> duh! But we all thought that Canada could be counted on. Well Canada has
> sure shown her colors in this one. Don't give it another thought. We'll
> do what needs to be done with or without you. We don't even ask for thanks
> when our soldiers and our real allies soldiers are dying on the battlefield
> at this very minute to protect the freedoms that you and I both enjoy.
>
> Your American friend
> Frank
> BTW, if Canada is attacked by anyone, who do you think is going to be the
> first one there to help?
France?
RB
>
>
George wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 17:28:03 -0700, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
>
>
> Did you hear Bush says the scientists are still afraid to talk he still believe
> they will find the WMDs?
>
> I am not too smart, can you tell me why our leader Bush did not answer a single
> question, but instead he talk about the Iraqi love freedom, democracy blah,
> blah....
>
'Caused he's not too bright. His handlers gave him answers but he
couldn't figure which ones went with which questions. That's what
happens when a President's hat size and IQ are the same.
RB
>
But the Israelis are our allies.
...Remember the USS Liberty.
RB
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> In article <1gcait3.15eplghl7lte4N%[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>
>>The threat from terrorism is greater today than it ever has been. The
>>underlying roots of terrorism are being nourished and propagated more
>>than ever before. No single figure in modern history has done as much to
>>legitimize terrorism as a means of combat than George Bush.
>>
>
> And his deed yesterday backing Sharon in keeping Jewish
> settlements in occupied territory will inspire even more
> terrorists.
>
Unfortunately most of the Americans didn't voter for him because they
didn't vote...for anyone. They have no right to complain at all.
RB
Leon wrote:
> "Paul Kierstead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:pmkierst-95A2DE.18082514042004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
>>2) We definitely didn't vote for him. In fact, IIRC, the majority of
>>Americans also did not vote for him.
>
>
>
> Ain't divine intervention great....
>
>
mp wrote:
>>I feel really at ease after hearing W. speak last night.
>
>
> You're not the only one. Many people I've spoken to also mention the
> "laxative effect" whenever they hear him speak.
>
>
>> He was
>>intelligent, well informed, and clearly on top of the game.
>
>
> That's not bad for someone who doesn't bother to read his PDB's, but instead
> relies on a short verbal summary.
>
I used to receive copies of the PDB. In prior administrations they were
on VHS cassettes delivered each morning and were viewed, not read.
RB
>
>>I'm so
>>proud that we elected Mr. Bush as the leader of the free world.
>
>
> You mean appointed as leader of the free world.
>
>
>>He's
>>a model for other leaders!
>
>
> You must be referring to the Bush Action Leader GI dolls.
>
>
>>I guess I'm a little disappointed that he
>>was unable to come up with something that he would have done
>>differently now that he's had a chance to reflect upon 9/11.
>
>
> That wasn't a fair question. How's he supposed to know? Cheney or Wolfowitz
> haven't yet had a chance to tell him what he would have done differently.
> All GW knows is that "it was some bad pilot" that hit the first tower.
>
>
>>Let's be
>>fair here though. He's only had a few years to think about it, and
>>I'm sure he really didn't expect anyone to ask him anything so out of
>>left field anyway. It's not like he would have been prepped for
>>questions about our failings on 9/11.
>
>
> Again, that was an unfair question. The press has no right to ask unscripted
> questions or speak out of turn.
>
>
>>That hasn't been in the news
>>lately or anything. He got the important stuff right. I say, "4 more
>>years" Yahoo, go W.!!!!
>
>
> Two bad about the two term limit. Then again, at the rate things are
> progressing, in another four years there may no longer be a constitution
> (for those fluent in Bushspeak, that would be constitutipation) to contend
> with. Maybe the Supreme Court will then be able to appoint him president for
> life.
>
>
>
I'm wrong. It looks like the 2000 election had 51% participation.
Probably more than that if the non citizen population is removed.
Still, this is a poor showing.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
RB
mp wrote:
>>Unfortunately most of the Americans didn't voter for him because they
>>didn't vote...for anyone. They have no right to complain at all.
>
>
> Really? Less than 50% voter turnout?
>
>
Didn't anyone notice that he didn't answer one question from the press. He
just rambled on and on waving the "freedom" flag and repeating the same
excuses for the war that have been proven false over and over.
"Doug" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sorry, I know this is a WW cite, but I can't help just throwing this
> out there (I'm not the first to defile this cite with political
> musings).
>
> I feel really at ease after hearing W. speak last night. He was
> intelligent, well informed, and clearly on top of the game. I'm so
> proud that we elected Mr. Bush as the leader of the free world. He's
> a model for other leaders! I guess I'm a little disappointed that he
> was unable to come up with something that he would have done
> differently now that he's had a chance to reflect upon 9/11. Let's be
> fair here though. He's only had a few years to think about it, and
> I'm sure he really didn't expect anyone to ask him anything so out of
> left field anyway. It's not like he would have been prepped for
> questions about our failings on 9/11. That hasn't been in the news
> lately or anything. He got the important stuff right. I say, "4 more
> years" Yahoo, go W.!!!!
Did you see the look on her face as Bush answered the media with those
rambling, and convoluted statements, if looks could kill -- she was not a
happy woman.
"Puff Griffis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p%[email protected]...
I think that Mrs. Rice might have a shot at the Presidency. From all that I
have read about her she is an intelligent, well read and well spoken person
who has handled herself well in a very bad situation. Besides that it's time
the USA elects a woman Prez and she sure would be my pick over the left's
choice.
Puff
"Pop Rivet" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You really should precede your subject with "OT" when you go off topic -
> some purists get pretty upset when you don't announce it.
>
> I think you and I are in for a LOT of flaming, because I cannot help, much
> as I usually ignore OT's, esp political ones, joining you with an "ATABOY
> GW!"
> Actually, I don't blame him for more or less ignoring the Something
Done
> Different" question. No matter what he said, it would have taken a
> direction that would have started one of those "by his own admission"
witch
> hunts. I expect better of good journalists.
>
> I've listened to the Congressional hearings the last couple of days too
and
> I have to add that I'm wondering if we aren't seeing a presidential
> candidate in the making in Condolesa (SP?) Rice in about 8 years. Between
> her testimony and Bush's speech last nite, there's lots of stuff there to
> bring the right people together to benefit the whole free world and then
> some.
>
> Pop
>
>
>
> "Doug" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Sorry, I know this is a WW cite, but I can't help just throwing this
> > out there (I'm not the first to defile this cite with political
> > musings).
> >
> > I feel really at ease after hearing W. speak last night. He was
> > intelligent, well informed, and clearly on top of the game. I'm so
> > proud that we elected Mr. Bush as the leader of the free world. He's
> > a model for other leaders! I guess I'm a little disappointed that he
> > was unable to come up with something that he would have done
> > differently now that he's had a chance to reflect upon 9/11. Let's be
> > fair here though. He's only had a few years to think about it, and
> > I'm sure he really didn't expect anyone to ask him anything so out of
> > left field anyway. It's not like he would have been prepped for
> > questions about our failings on 9/11. That hasn't been in the news
> > lately or anything. He got the important stuff right. I say, "4 more
> > years" Yahoo, go W.!!!!
>
>
"George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 15:10:30 -0700, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >You mean appointed as leader of the free world.
>
> Selected!
>
> The People "Selected" Al Gore and the Supereme Court Selected Bush.
Nice try. What the Supreme Court did was stop a selective recount in
Florida. If we can start picking and choosing which Supreme Court cases we
can ignore, I've got a list ready to go.
Here's something to consider regarding the 2000 election that I don't think
I've ever really heard discussed Obviously, Al Gore received more popular
votes that President Bush. This would only be meaningful if that is how we
elect the president. You might want to refer to Article II, Section 1 of
the United States Constitution. I'll wait.........So, as you now see, here
in the US, presidents are elected on the basis of electoral votes. So,
since the goal is to win the most electoral votes, perhaps that was the goal
of the Bush campaign. Instead of pressing for more votes in a state you
know you won't carry, like California or New York (or in states you know you
will carry, like Texas), you put the full-court press on in states like
Missouri, Georgia, Iowa, Wisconsin, Oregon, and New Mexico where the vote
was going to be much closer. To try to change the rules after the fact is
really nonsense. The best analogy I can come up with is a basketball game.
Team A scores 30 2-point shots and Team B scores 25 3-point shots
(amazingly, no fouls were committed during the game). Using the Democrat's
logic, Team A won, because after all, they scored more baskets. Of course,
if Team B had known beforehand that the 3-point shots didn't do them any
good, they might have changed their strategy.
todd
"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > i wont waste my time. you might have to use logic and think to follow
me.
> > since you cant get past my other example (which by the way would be
> equally
> > valid if i changed the words iraq to pink elephants, us to purple
posies,
> > and china to freckled frogs, my point is the same and has nothing to do
> with
> > the names used) i wont even start in on this one.
> >
> > randy
>
> Based on this response, I'll just assume you were talking out of your ass
> earlier. Thanks for clarifying.
>
> todd
i agree. you should assume that. it will be better for both of us this
way.
randy
"Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Shawn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 04:48:58 GMT, Tom Veatch wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:57:13 -0500, "todd" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>The press corps are going to have to come up with the John Kerry
campaign
> > >>commercial on their own. The President isn't going to give them their
nice
> > >>soundbyte where he admits fault for 9/11. When President Clinton
admits his
> > >>larger share of fault for 9/11, that's when I'll start waiting for
President
> > >>Bush's admission.
> > >>
> > >>todd
> > >>
> > >
> > > I have been of the opinion, since the day it happened, that the
"fault" for the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers rested 100%
> on
> > > the shoulders of the men sitting in the pilot's seat of the airplane
at the moment of impact. I have seen or heard nothing since
> > > that date that would influence me to change that opinion.
> > >
> > > Tom Veatch
> > > Wichita, KS USA
> >
> > So if you own a business and have a security guard and he's asleep when
it
> > gets robbed and he had been warned that it could be robbed (just not
given
> > a date or time), is it still just the robber's fault?
> >
>
> Of course not! It is you, the business owner, who is at fault for not
taking any measures to prevent the robbery. Forget the fact
> that you have what you believe to be a qualified, experiences security
guard on your payroll. You SHOULD have known he would fall
> asleep, and should have done more to keep him awake.
btw, by this logic, it is clearly the fault of george bush and his
administration that the terrorists attacked. in fact, the terrorists arent
at fault at all by your way of thinking (or not thinking as i would prefer
to put it)
randy
"G.E.R.R.Y." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:160420041610211571%[email protected]...
> What balls does it take to send yet another generation of American
> youth to possible death overseas while this little pissant stays home
> in Washington. The only injury he's likely to suffer is maybe burning
> himself on his BBQ or trip over a microphone stand.
Plenty. It takes a lack of balls to sit back and say Ouhhh they did not
mean to run 2 airplanes into out buildings. A lack of balls to sit back
and let it happen again. A lack of balls to look the other way and ignore
the obvious. Your so called pissant could be any president as none would do
what you assume Bush should do.
"p_j" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1gchd4i.16xsi82sw9kuN%[email protected]...
> > 1. Gore commission. Did Gore implement his own recommendations or not?
>
> You make me wonder if you knew he was vice president.
Second time...no answer. You're the one who brought up the Gore commission.
Yes or no: did he implement his own recommendations in the 3 years after
the report was published while he was still in office? It's interesting to
me that you'd rather attempt to belittle me than answer the question.
> He
> > had 3 years after the publication of his own report. This is a simple
> > question. What actually happened is that in late 1996, a preliminary
report
> > was issued that would have been tough on the airlines. Very shortly
after,
> > the airlines jumped all over Gore. Gore then sent a letter to the
airlines'
> > lobbyist that the changes would not cost them any money.
>
> Are you one of the guys who squawks about conspiracy theories?
More misdirection.
> > The next day, a
> > $40,000 contribution was receievd from TWA. In the next two weeks,
> > Northwest, United, and American Airlines donated another $55,000. When
it
> > was all done, the democrats received half a million dollars prior to the
96
> > election. I like how it was put in the Washington Times:
>
> Moonie Times - not worth much.
> >
> > "It was a classic Washington victory. The policy wonks got their
proposals
> > noticed, the airlines got their bottom line protected and Mr. Gore got
his
> > party the money. The only losers were the passengers, who got no
increased
> > security from terrorism. So, when Mr. Gore actually had a chance to
fight,
> > rather than talk about, the powerful special interests on behalf of the
> > little guy, he turned his money-stuffed coat and protected the interests
> > that bought him."
>
> Oh and of course no attribution. Is it BlackJack Bill Bennett, habitual
> liar, Bill Salman brain, disinformation specialist or who? Is it an
> editorial by the moonies or an op-ed by a moonie whore?
It was written by Tony Blankley. Does that make it automatically untrue?
Based on how Washington works, no matter who's in office, it sounds
reasonable to me.
> Besides, Bush is a complete whore who doesn't even bother to have his
> party write legislation. They literally take orders from their bosses
> who provide them with the actual language that is used for legislation.
> Surely, if any of your moonie times conspiracy were true it wouldn't
> make it anything like Bushco and the truth is that it is the moonie
> times and a conspiracy theory.
> >
> > 2. Clinton/Bin Laden/Sudan. I suggest you read the following from
> > Mansoor Ijaz, who was directly involved.
> >
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_lade
> > n.htm
>
> The very same person claims that Bush deliberately allowed Bin Laden to
> escape from Tora Bora. I read an account in the Christian Science
> Moniter that describes the military actions that the military ADMIT
> allowed him to escape. Was it deliberate? I kinda doubt it, but since
> you claim that Ijaz is unimpeachable as a source then you must agree
> that following 9/11 Bush deliberately allowed Bin Laden to escape.
There's one big difference. In the Clinton case, Ijaz was directly
involved, so, unless he is flat lying, we can take what he says as fact. In
the Bush case of supposedly allowing Bin Laden to escape, that is Ijaz's
opinion, since he wasn't directly involved.
> > As for your assertion that Sudan offering Bin Laden to Clinton is some
sort
> > of fabrication, I'm going by Clinton's own words from 2002, which can be
> > found here http://www.newsmax.com/clinton2.mp3 If you want to tell me
that
> > Clinton was lying, that would certainly have to be considered.
>
> Your inference assumes a lot.
I didn't infer anything. Clinton, in his own words, did not want Bin Laden
because we had nothing to hold him on.
> But thanks for the typical response in the thread of stop the "blame
> game," "hindsight" is easy, and kooks claim conspiracy theories. Nothing
> could be more appropriate of an answer than blaming Clinton with
> hindsight claiming a conspiracy.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
todd
In article <150420041031138445%[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Frank Ketchum <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > But I am behind his policy of pre-emption instead of reaction.
>
> If MOST of the terrorists /and/ /all/ /their/ /leaders/ were Saudis,
> why is this mental midget attacking anywhere other than Saudi Arabia?
>
> Gerry
>
Gee, let's see, maybe because they were trained in Afghanistan by an
EXILE from Saudi Arabia. Maybe because they have also sworn to unseat
the present Saudi government because it isn't practicing a radical
enough brand of Islam? Maybe because the Afghan government was
providing support and asylum for the terrorists who trained in that
country? Maybe because Saudi did *not* express support for the
terrorists? Maybe because only a mental midget would *not* recognize
that an *exiled* Saudi does not express official Saudi policy? ... and
maybe because other pressures can be brought to bear upon Saudi Arabia
to reduce the extreme rhetoric present in their radical form of
Wahabism?
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
... snip
> But the more significant truth of their treason (which funded the
> killing of two cousins and an uncle of mine at the Battle of the Bulge)
> is that their "Third Reich" fortune was gained in their role as
> intermediary for the Roman Catholic Church (whose Croatian and Vatican
> priesthood later facilitated, with their CIA's oversight, Operation
> Ratline) and its correspondent banker, Rockefeller (whose father had
> earlier built Standard Oil's monopoly through murder and arson) whose
> Council on Foreign Relations lied to us about our need to go to Rome's
> Vietnam after its CIA had murdered JFK for ordering us out.
>
I just recognized the writing style of Mr. Jones -- He is writing what
and how Serdar Argic would have written had Serdar been a US citizen
instead of a Turkish propagandist.
" ... nice try, but what about the 10000 turks wantonly killed by the
armeniens? As Dr. Agop Zahoryan has said in ..."
More serdar-speak:
"But, I am still waiting for your views on the Armenian genocide of 2.5
million Muslim people that took place in x-Soviet Armenia and Eastern
Anatolia between 1914 and 1920, which by the way was presented in its
full form and not just quoted in excerpts. For instance, are you
claiming that these 'Western/Jewish/Armenian' texts of 'it' are
incorrect? If so, please provide us with your corrections.
This is U.S. Ambassador Bristol, not 'clockian/arromdian/perlmanian-
SDPA'."
Very similar writing style, just the victims and conspiracies have
been changed.
"Paul Kierstead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:pmkierst-95A2DE.18082514042004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Hmmm...can never tell if you guys are serious or sarcastic.
The OP is being sarcastic.
> If you'll allow that the US of A is not the _only_ free country in the
> world (though even that might be somewhat debatable in light of the
> PATRIOT act), I ask you to consider:
Yeah, the patriot act has sure changed my life (this is also sarcasm)
> 1) Us poor people up here in Kunuckistan don't really consider him our
> leader, even if he does have nukes and might be inclined to use them if
> he ever finds out how much oil we got.
It is so easy to distance yourself from unpleasant things which must be done
no matter how you benefit from them (this is not sarcasm).
> 2) We definitely didn't vote for him. In fact, IIRC, the majority of
> Americans also did not vote for him.
The majority of Americans don't vote at all (this is not sarcasm). Dubya
won the election according to our election laws. Get over it (not sarcasm).
> This calls seriously into question two of your assertions, both the "of
> the free world" bit and the "elected" bit.
Yawn (seriously)
"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:ZNAfc.147534$K91.373572@attbi_s02...
>
> > just imagine if it happened here in the US. it wouldnt work. the
people
> in
> > the us would rather have a president we didnt really elect than some
other
> > country telling us they are here to save us from the person who stole
the
> > oval office and bombing us to get him out of there.
> >
> > why do we expect people in other countries to act any differently?
> >
> > randy
>
> Nice try equating the political situation in the US with Saddam being in
> power in Iraq. If you even think there is a comparison, you are one
twisted
> person.
>
> todd
and you are twisting my words completely. good republican sock puppet.
dont they teach the concept of a 'hypothetical situation' in community
college any more? did you see the word 'imagine'? apparantly thats too
much of a strech for you....
randy
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 05:05:49 GMT, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <xUFfc.146958$w54.963281@attbi_s01>, [email protected]
>says...
>... snip
>>
>> the way we've bombed the hell out of iraq for the last decade, littering the
>> country with radioactive material,
umm... Mark... it does.
http://www.rimbaud.freeserve.co.uk/dhap99f.html
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 09:24:31 -0700, bridger wrote:
> the reasons the russians had such a hard time there was that their
> objective was to stick around and hold and use a path to the sea.
Yabbut, there isn't any Sea of Afghan - Afghanistan is landlocked.
-Doug
--
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always
depend on the support of Paul." - George Bernard Shaw
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 05:05:49 GMT, Mark & Juanita
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <xUFfc.146958$w54.963281@attbi_s01>, [email protected]
> >says...
> >... snip
> >>
> >> the way we've bombed the hell out of iraq for the last decade, littering the
> >> country with radioactive material,
>
>
> umm... Mark... it does.
>
> http://www.rimbaud.freeserve.co.uk/dhap99f.html
>
From <http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm> (hey, your source
could hardly be called fair and unbiased)
" a common misconception is that radiation is depleted uranium's primary
hazard. This is not the case under most battlefield exposure scenarios.
Depleted uranium is approximately 40 percent less radioactive than
natural uranium. Depleted uranium emits alpha and beta particles, and
gamma rays. Alpha particles, the primary radiation type produced by
depleted uranium, are blocked by skin, while beta particles are blocked
by the boots and battle dress utility uniform (BDUs) typically worn by
service members. While gamma rays are a form of highly-penetrating
energy , the amount of gamma radiation emitted by depleted uranium is
very low. Thus, depleted uranium does not significantly add to the
background radiation that we encounter every day."
"The published results of these medical evaluations conclude that the
presence of retained DU fragments is the only scenario predictive of a
high urine uranium value, and those with retained DU fragments continue
to have elevated urine uranium levels nine years after the incident. It
is unlikely that an individual would have an elevated urine uranium
result, and consequently any uranium-related health effects, in the
absence of retained DU fragments. Those individuals with normal urine
uranium levels now are unlikely to develop any uranium-related toxicity
in the future, regardless of what their DU exposure may have been in the
Gulf War. Those DU-exposed friendly fire individuals with elevated
levels of urinary uranium nine years after the Gulf War have not
developed kidney abnormalities, leukemia, bone or lung cancer, or any
classical uranium-related adverse outcome. The DU Medical Follow-up
Program will continue to evaluate these individuals with elevated urine
uranium levels to enable early detection of potential untoward health
effects in the future due to their continued chronic exposure to DU."
Some other interesting comments in the above:
"For example, some Eastern Bloc equipment also contains other more
highly radioactive sources such as radium dials as well as asbestos. "
"xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ZNAfc.147534$K91.373572@attbi_s02...
> just imagine if it happened here in the US. it wouldnt work. the people
in
> the us would rather have a president we didnt really elect than some other
> country telling us they are here to save us from the person who stole the
> oval office and bombing us to get him out of there.
>
> why do we expect people in other countries to act any differently?
>
> randy
Nice try equating the political situation in the US with Saddam being in
power in Iraq. If you even think there is a comparison, you are one twisted
person.
todd
"xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:4CUfc.151012$w54.1055968@attbi_s01...
>
> "todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:ZNAfc.147534$K91.373572@attbi_s02...
> >
> > > just imagine if it happened here in the US. it wouldnt work. the
> people
> > in
> > > the us would rather have a president we didnt really elect than some
> other
> > > country telling us they are here to save us from the person who stole
> the
> > > oval office and bombing us to get him out of there.
> > >
> > > why do we expect people in other countries to act any differently?
> > >
> > > randy
> >
> > Nice try equating the political situation in the US with Saddam being in
> > power in Iraq. If you even think there is a comparison, you are one
> twisted
> > person.
> >
> > todd
>
> and you are twisting my words completely. good republican sock puppet.
>
> dont they teach the concept of a 'hypothetical situation' in community
> college any more? did you see the word 'imagine'? apparantly thats too
> much of a strech for you....
>
> randy
First...incorrect usage of "sock puppet".
Second...your "hypothetical situation" presupposes that liberating US
citizens from the Bush administration is somehow similar to liberating
Iraqis from the Saddam regime. I'm sure in Bizarro world where you live,
that's a perfect analogy, but those living (and dying) under the thumb of
Saddam would beg to differ.
todd
"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 09:24:31 -0700, bridger wrote:
>
>
> > the reasons the russians had such a hard time there was that their
> > objective was to stick around and hold and use a path to the sea.
>
> Yabbut, there isn't any Sea of Afghan - Afghanistan is landlocked.
>
> -Doug
afghanistan is between russia and the arabian sea. if you want to get the
oil from baku to the arabian sea (which you do if you are russia) you need a
path there. hence you need to take over afghanistan (and pakistan). that
or iran...
why did they lose? same reason the us cant win in iraq and didnt win in
vietnam. no matter what reason you give for entering another country, if
you piss off and kill too many civilians you simply cannot win.
just imagine if it happened here in the US. it wouldnt work. the people in
the us would rather have a president we didnt really elect than some other
country telling us they are here to save us from the person who stole the
oval office and bombing us to get him out of there.
why do we expect people in other countries to act any differently?
randy
> > and you are twisting my words completely. good republican sock puppet.
> >
> > dont they teach the concept of a 'hypothetical situation' in community
> > college any more? did you see the word 'imagine'? apparantly thats too
> > much of a strech for you....
> >
> > randy
>
> First...incorrect usage of "sock puppet".
if the shoe fits...
>
> Second...your "hypothetical situation" presupposes that liberating US
> citizens from the Bush administration is somehow similar to liberating
> Iraqis from the Saddam regime. I'm sure in Bizarro world where you live,
> that's a perfect analogy, but those living (and dying) under the thumb of
> Saddam would beg to differ.
i guess they dont teach it any more.
randy
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 04:14:26 GMT, "Guy"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> >
>> > You've GOT to be kidding!
>> >
>> > If you want a country that can fight back, how about North Korea
>> > and their big brother?
>> >
>>
>> The comparison I was making was with Afghanistan which has no real
>military
>
>
>
>I expect you might get some disagreement on this from the Russians.
>
>
the reasons the russians had such a hard time there was that their
objective was to stick around and hold and use a path to the sea. they
made an easy target for the tribal and nomadic locals, who knew very
well how to operate in those mountains.
Bush's objectives otoh were 1) revenge and 2) put the us on a military
footing as quickly as possible.
Frank:
Please wake up and don't buy this crap! The links between Iraq and
terrorism never existed! And much more importantly, the devistation
of Iraq will only provoke more hatred and many more terrorists. I
can't understand why people don't see this (and I'm not so original as
to be responsible for this supposition) Read and watch TV and you will
see that many who know more than you and I combined are agreeing on
this point. I'm not sure how to deal with terrorism but Bush and his
relic of a cabinet are resorting to old school military applications
(extremely poorly I might add -- another point even Pat Buchanan
agrees with) (ie. no exit strategy, too few troops etc. . )which will
not work. Bottom line, we will NOT be safer because of cowboy Bush.
That is the one thing I will guarantee!
"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Paul Kierstead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:pmkierst-8D2D93.18435514042004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> >
> > Yes, I do understand, really. I am really proud of America. Electing
> > Dubya is indeed most unpleasant and must be a great cross to bear. We
> > would never have the stomach for it.
> >
> > Come to think of it, Dubya must be the leader of the free world. The
> > great and all-seeing president rules us all and we shall all bow before
> > him.
> >
> > No wait, he isn't our leader. I guess we aren't free.
>
> Yeah, just about what I expected. It's fine, joke all you want. The truth
> is that someone has to stand up and wipe out the terrorist threat that the
> world faces. It is sad indeed how Canada turned it's back on her old ally.
> France, sure we expected that. Germany, we expect that too. Russia, well
> duh! But we all thought that Canada could be counted on. Well Canada has
> sure shown her colors in this one. Don't give it another thought. We'll
> do what needs to be done with or without you. We don't even ask for thanks
> when our soldiers and our real allies soldiers are dying on the battlefield
> at this very minute to protect the freedoms that you and I both enjoy.
>
> Your American friend
> Frank
> BTW, if Canada is attacked by anyone, who do you think is going to be the
> first one there to help?
[email protected] (Phillip Hallam-Baker) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > Yeah, just about what I expected. It's fine, joke all you want. The truth
> > is that someone has to stand up and wipe out the terrorist threat that the
> > world faces. It is sad indeed how Canada turned it's back on her old ally.
>
> And the relevance to woodworking would be what?
>
> Ah yes, Dufus is dumber than a post and the Canadians club baby seals to death.
>
> Perhaps someone from up north could tell us whether they allow the use
> of aluminium bats or whether they follow the major league rules and
> require the use of wooden bats.
>
> Perhaps one of the right wing Republicans on the list could post a
> template for a turning a Canadian seal killing club on a lathe. They
> could modify the pattern they use for making clubs for trolls.
That was pretty funny!
Speaking of soundbites, If I were a democratic add maker, I'd just put
Bush's answer to the "what would you do differently" question on a
loop. That was priceless. It's great to watch our Prez looking like
a 4th grader being asked about Trigonometry.
And I can't believe people are so ridiculous about the lefty media!
Give me a break. What kind of questions did you want them to ask him.
yeah great, throw him a bunch of softballs when the country is in
crisis! Come on! I'll admit the pressure for an apology was
overplayed and even perhaps irrelevant, I don't hold Bush responsible
for 9/11 (and I hate his guts). I only started this post to vent my
outrage that out of 260 million+ people in this country we couldn't
come up with someone who looks like he has at least an elementary
school education.
"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Doug" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Sorry, I know this is a WW cite, but I can't help just throwing this
> > out there (I'm not the first to defile this cite with political
> > musings).
> >
> > I feel really at ease after hearing W. speak last night. He was
> > intelligent, well informed, and clearly on top of the game. I'm so
> > proud that we elected Mr. Bush as the leader of the free world. He's
> > a model for other leaders! I guess I'm a little disappointed that he
> > was unable to come up with something that he would have done
> > differently now that he's had a chance to reflect upon 9/11. Let's be
> > fair here though. He's only had a few years to think about it, and
> > I'm sure he really didn't expect anyone to ask him anything so out of
> > left field anyway. It's not like he would have been prepped for
> > questions about our failings on 9/11. That hasn't been in the news
> > lately or anything. He got the important stuff right. I say, "4 more
> > years" Yahoo, go W.!!!!
>
> The press corps are going to have to come up with the John Kerry campaign
> commercial on their own. The President isn't going to give them their nice
> soundbyte where he admits fault for 9/11. When President Clinton admits his
> larger share of fault for 9/11, that's when I'll start waiting for President
> Bush's admission.
>
> todd
"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 15:10:30 -0700, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >You mean appointed as leader of the free world.
> >
> > Selected!
> >
> > The People "Selected" Al Gore and the Supereme Court Selected Bush.
> >
> >
>
> You can sing it from the mountain tops for the rest of your life. It
> doesn't make it the truth. So let's suppose bush wins in november and
> serves his second term out. He will then be eligible to run for a third
> term. don't you realize that the constitution says that a person can only be
> elected to the presidency twice? if he wasn't elected for the first term, i
> expect all of you to support a third bush presidency run based on your own
> arguement about him not being elected for the first term.
>
>
> Why aren't you people instead focusing your energy on the future and
> defeating your arch-nemesis bush? Why doesn't any democrat stand up and
> sing the praises of their nominee for this next election? No matter how
> evil you guys paint bush, in november there will be a choice to be made,
> bush or kerry. It is really that simple. I think the fact that the whole
> lot of you have no other game plan than to attack bush on anything you can
> come up with is very telling about how much you like your own nominee.
>
> good luck to you. you will need it.
>
> Frank
OK, A reasonably fair point. It would be nice to praise Kerry, but
I've come to accept that American presidential politics is about
choosing the lesser of two evils. There's plenty of negative that I
can say about Kerry, but the number one goal is simple: get rid of
Bush at all costs! There is simply no way we could do worse.
PERRIOD. Bush is a self/crony serving whacko hell bent on a personal
agenda regardless of the long-term damage. Consider the press releases
from Bob Woodard's book: Bush was fixated on Iraq from day one. He
wanted to get in there in the worst way regardles of logic or exit
strategy. That is why we have a mess now and are allies are fleeing
our side. Combine this with a sub-par intellect, and you've got a
recipe for real disaster. Make no mistake about it, this country will
be for a long time recovering from Bush II. Thanks for wishing the
Democrats luck, but they don't need luck, they simply need to let Bush
play himself out. He's crubling like a deck of cards. I really don't
think luck will be needed. At this pace Bush will be railroaded back
to Texas.
I don't mind your objection to my posting. I was going fishing I
suppose. But with 145 responses (most of them entertaining, fun and
inetelligent) people spoke for themselves. There was a spirited
conversation taking place that could be ignored by just skipping one,
clearly titled post. I wouldn't want to change the nature of this
site (by the way, I do visit this site everyday as a WW. I'm not very
experience, so I don't post very much).
"Joseph Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> That is okay Fred. You seem to be a regular here so if
> you OT I don't mind (maybe some others do). Have at it.
> What DOES GET ME UPSET is when you see guys with
> hundreds of OT posts (usually Bush Haters) who never
> post anything woodworking related. They just rant and rave
> and post their politcal BS and chastise everyone who joins in
> who doesn't agree with them, but never a WW post! (p_j)
> I enjoy a good OT post argument/discussion as much as the next
> guy but WW is why I'm here.
>
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > [email protected] (Doug) wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > Sorry, I know this is a WW cite, but I can't help just throwing this
> > > out there (I'm not the first to defile this cite with political
> > > musings).
> >
> > Would that you were the last.
> >
> > --
> >
> > FF
"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote:
...
> It is sad indeed how Canada turned it's back on her old ally.
> France, sure we expected that. Germany, we expect that too. Russia, well
> duh! But we all thought that Canada could be counted on. Well Canada has
> sure shown her colors in this one.
...
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/04/20/canada.soldiers/index.html
http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/factsheet.htm#troop_contributions
"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Name either of your US Senators". If you're not engaged in the process
> enough to know that, well......
>
I like it. I like it alot. However it will never happen. Hell, people
don't even have to be living to cast votes in this country.
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 04:48:58 GMT, Tom Veatch wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:57:13 -0500, "todd" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>The press corps are going to have to come up with the John Kerry campaign
>>commercial on their own. The President isn't going to give them their nice
>>soundbyte where he admits fault for 9/11. When President Clinton admits his
>>larger share of fault for 9/11, that's when I'll start waiting for President
>>Bush's admission.
>>
>>todd
>>
>
> I have been of the opinion, since the day it happened, that the "fault" for the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers rested 100% on
> the shoulders of the men sitting in the pilot's seat of the airplane at the moment of impact. I have seen or heard nothing since
> that date that would influence me to change that opinion.
>
> Tom Veatch
> Wichita, KS USA
So if you own a business and have a security guard and he's asleep when it
gets robbed and he had been warned that it could be robbed (just not given
a date or time), is it still just the robber's fault?
Shawn
That is okay Fred. You seem to be a regular here so if
you OT I don't mind (maybe some others do). Have at it.
What DOES GET ME UPSET is when you see guys with
hundreds of OT posts (usually Bush Haters) who never
post anything woodworking related. They just rant and rave
and post their politcal BS and chastise everyone who joins in
who doesn't agree with them, but never a WW post! (p_j)
I enjoy a good OT post argument/discussion as much as the next
guy but WW is why I'm here.
"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Doug) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > Sorry, I know this is a WW cite, but I can't help just throwing this
> > out there (I'm not the first to defile this cite with political
> > musings).
>
> Would that you were the last.
>
> --
>
> FF
Joseph Smith sermonizes:
>
>That is okay Fred. You seem to be a regular here so if
>you OT I don't mind (maybe some others do). Have at it.
>What DOES GET ME UPSET is when you see guys with
>hundreds of OT posts
WTF don't you just filter them and not try to dictate to others? It may strike
you as odd, but absolutely no one needs your permission to post here.
Charlie Self
"If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our
institutions, great is our sin." Charles Darwin
Acknowledged. I was just being supportive.
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Joseph Smith sermonizes:
>
> >
> >That is okay Fred. You seem to be a regular here so if
> >you OT I don't mind (maybe some others do). Have at it.
> >What DOES GET ME UPSET is when you see guys with
> >hundreds of OT posts
>
> WTF don't you just filter them and not try to dictate to others? It may
strike
> you as odd, but absolutely no one needs your permission to post here.
>
> Charlie Self
> "If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our
> institutions, great is our sin." Charles Darwin
>
[email protected] (Charlie Self) trolled in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> WTF don't you just filter them
Please tell me how, and while you are at it, explain to me just
who died and left you incharge of dictating what I should do.
If you didn't learn basic courtesy from your parents, then surely
we won't be able to reach it to you either.
--
FF
Charlie Self wrote:
> In the meantime, KMA.
I have to admire an eloquent man.
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
[email protected]
http://www.mortimerschnerd.com
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> As to filtering, why should I? Why souldn't the folks who don't care for
> what I write filter me instead, eh?
What makes you so sure they don't?
> Why have more than one newsgroup, if we can just use filters instead....
It helps if the majority of the newsgroup is on-topic. Then the filters get rid
of the crap.
> But you deserve a better explanation than that. I use the Google
> Web interface to read UseNet. For many reasons I prefer it to
> newsreaders. However, Google does not have any effective or reasonable
> way to filter.
That's the price you pay for reinventing the wheel. I do newsgroups the old
fashioned way, and see very little crap as a result of my filters.
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
[email protected]
http://www.mortimerschnerd.com
Fredfighter responds, sort of:
>[email protected] (Charlie Self) trolled in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>> WTF don't you just filter them
>
>Please tell me how, and while you are at it, explain to me just
>who died and left you incharge of dictating what I should do.
>
>If you didn't learn basic courtesy from your parents, then surely
>we won't be able to reach it to you either.
Marvelous. It wasn't your post I was responding to, but something of a defense
of you. If you don't know how to filter by now, then there's little hope.
Why" by the way is a question, and is the first word in WTF.
In the meantime, KMA.
Charlie Self
"If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our
institutions, great is our sin." Charles Darwin
[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> Marvelous. It wasn't your post I was responding to, but something
> of a defense
> of you. If you don't know how to filter by now, then there's little hope.
Maybe someday I'll learn to read.
As to filtering, why should I? Why souldn't the folks who don't care for
what I write filter me instead, eh?
Why have more than one newsgroup, if we can just use filters instead....
But you deserve a better explanation than that. I use the Google
Web interface to read UseNet. For many reasons I prefer it to
newsreaders. However, Google does not have any effective or reasonable
way to filter.
Now I will correct my earlier article, so that I can stop KYA:
> aol.comnotforme (Charlie Self) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> WTF don't you just filter them
See above. Also consider that an ounce of prevention is worth a
pound of cure.
However, if THEY didn't learn basic courtesy from your parents,
then surely we won't be able to reach it to them either.
> Why" by the way is a question, and is the first word in WTF.
I knew that. I was answering a question with a question.
--
FF
Fredfighter notes:
>
>Maybe someday I'll learn to read.
>
>As to filtering, why should I? Why souldn't the folks who don't care for
>what I write filter me instead, eh?
>
>Why have more than one newsgroup, if we can just use filters instead....
>
>But you deserve a better explanation than that. I use the Google
>Web interface to read UseNet. For many reasons I prefer it to
>newsreaders. However, Google does not have any effective or reasonable
>way to filter.
>
>Now I will correct my earlier article, so that I can stop KYA:
Sounds reasonable to me. But it isn't the people who don't want to read you who
are the problem. It's the ones that make you gag when you read them...as in
some of the forgers and others we've had on occasion lately.
Charlie Self
"Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a
pleasure." Ambrose Bierce
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:
> >[email protected] (Charlie Self) trolled in message
> >news:<[email protected]>...
> >>
> >> WTF don't you just filter them
> >
> >Please tell me how
>
> Ya know, with all the trouble we've had the last few months with the trolls,
> "how to filter" is one question
'Twas a rhetorical question.
--
FF
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:
>[email protected] (Charlie Self) trolled in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>> WTF don't you just filter them
>
>Please tell me how
Ya know, with all the trouble we've had the last few months with the trolls,
"how to filter" is one question that *nobody* who reads this group should have
to ask any more.
DAGS. RTFM. Or check my sig.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
"xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> by the way, what exactly did bush and gore spend all those millions on
> during the last election? maybe trying to buy your vote? im not telling
> anyone who to vote for. all the people i registered had stated they
wanted
> to get rid of bush and i told them how to do it. im just suggesting we
make
> a lunch out of it. if it really bothers you that much (which lets face
it,
> it doesnt) i retract my free lunch statement. dont offer a free lunch.
> just a free country. trust me, its plenty.
>
Yes, a person who can't even figure out how to register to vote is likely to
make a well informed decision. But it is definately their right.
Frank
"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >
> > You've GOT to be kidding!
> >
> > If you want a country that can fight back, how about North Korea
> > and their big brother?
> >
>
> The comparison I was making was with Afghanistan which has no real
military
I expect you might get some disagreement on this from the Russians.
> or even much of a government. Of course the Iraqi military proper was
> pretty much a joke, but there was a lot of concern over troops getting
> gassed etc.
>
> That is an excellent point also, to deal with pissant problematic
countries
> before they get the backing of someone serious. Yet another reason to act
> pre-emptively. Diplomatically is about all that makes sense with NK.
>
>
> Frank
>
>
>
"Rick Chamberlain" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> > > If you do vote and voted for the winner, shut up
> > > and put up with your decision. Remember the old saying, You made the
bed,
> > > now lay in it. If you voted and lost, you can complain. If you did
not
> > > vote, you may complain because there was no one worth voting. IMHO
voting
> > > for the sake of voting sends the wrong message.
> > >
> >
> > And encouraging people to vote who have no idea what's going on
> > is reprehensible.
>
> Really? So you support that there be a minimum intelligence test in
> order to vote?
>
> I'll take the bait - so what would constitute a "qualified" voter?
>
> Would people get extra credit for being a minority? For being a single
> mom? How about points for spelling their name correctly? Negative
> points if you're a reporter?
>
> And just who would determine the qualifications?
Here's my test for national elections:
"Name either of your US Senators". If you're not engaged in the process
enough to know that, well......
todd
You may have took me wrong. I am behind Bush. Some one finally has the
balls to what needs to be done whether it is an inconvenience or not.
"George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 02:42:38 GMT, "Leon" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> >I totally agree.. Some people don't like him..
>
> Why? Bush is a peace loving, God fearing man.
> How could you not like the man who is trying to bring peace and democracy
to the
> Arab World? Let's hope he succeed bring democracy to the Middle East,
> converting every Arabs to Christianity.
>
>
>
That is an excellent point!!! That means Hillary can't run
in 2008 because she was really the president during Clinton's
8 years!
Where are those WMD's?
"If Saddam Hussein fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some
ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his
program of weapons of mass destruction...he will then conclude that he can
go right on doing more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction....
Some way, someday, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal." .... President
Bill Clinton
On December 16, 1998, Bill Clinton ordered a strike "to attack Iraq's
nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, and its military capacity
to threaten their neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national
interests of the United States..." February 17, 1998, Bill Clinton:
"Saddam's son-in-law and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program, defected to Jordan." Here are just some of the things
this defection forced Iraq to admit, as cited by Clinton: "[A]n offensive
biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum...2,000
gallons of anthrax, 25 biological-filled scud warheads, and 157 aerial
bombs."
the Senate Committee on Armed Services to President Bill Clinton on October
9, 1998. It reminds the president of the February resolution authorizing
military force if Saddam failed to comply with UN Security Council
resolutions "concerning the disclosure and destruction of Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction."
The letter concludes: "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and
consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions
(including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites)
to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its
weapons of mass destruction programs." ....
Signed by Senate Democrats: Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey,
Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and
Kerry.
Sounds to me like we need to be asking people (i.e. Kerry) who were in
office while
Bush was still governor of Texas.
Joey in Chesapeake
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > So let's suppose bush wins in november and
> > serves his second term out. He will then be eligible to run for a third
> > term. don't you realize that the constitution says that a person can
only be
> > elected to the presidency twice? if he wasn't elected for the first
term, i
> > expect all of you to support a third bush presidency run based on your
own
> > arguement about him not being elected for the first term.
> >
> Let's just hope he doesn't get that idea :-).
>
> --
> Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
"Bill Everette" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "G.E.R.R.Y."
> >
> > What *American* freedoms are they protecting by killing Iraqis in Iraq?
> >
>
> The same ones we were protecting by fighting Germans in France?
bullshit. im sure even someone as thick as you doesnt believe this.
randy
"Paul Kierstead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:pmkierst-A49CFF.19103014042004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
> I am sorry to hear you say that. Canadian soldiers are fighting and
> dying right now in Afganistan because we _do_ believe in your cause. I
> think you will find very few Canadians who do not believe that terrorism
> poses a real threat and that someone -- including them -- needs to do
> something about it.
Then what are they doing about it? Or what do they want to do about it?
Feeling that "something should be done" doesn't really make much of a
difference, now does it? It is arguably the reason 9/11 happened in the
first place. Everyone was sitting around knowing that we are the targets of
terrorists but not doing anything about it. Everyone was with us in
Afghanistan and we do appreciate it. When the war on terror took us to a
country that could actually fight back, it was just odd to see the sudden
changes in some of our allies. That's all.
> Canada did not turn its back on America; it just believed (and still
> believes, if you read our polls) that invading Iraq was not going to
> achieve -- or even further -- that goal. In fact, a recent poll in
> Canada revealed that a very large number of Canadians (I believe a
> majority, but not 100% sure) believed that invading Iraq will actually
> worsen the problem, not improve it.
I guess this is what I don't understand. We have dismantled terrorist
networks and continue to capture/kill terrorists by our actions in Iraq. We
are/have removed their ability to attack us on our home front, they must
attack us in thier own training ground. How does this make it worse? Do
you think that now they will REALLY be mad at us because of our actions? Is
this how you treat your criminals? Don't arrest them or prosecute them
because it will make them mad? The fact is that the people who will be more
mad at us for Iraq are the very people who are plotting to attack us anyway.
I don't much think our foreign policy ought to be run as a popularity
contest as it has been occasionally in the past.
Canadians did not believe in the
> WMDs and did not believe that Iraq posed a real threat. That is all. We
> did not abandon you, we simply do not agree with your method in this
> case. As I said, Dubya is NOT leader of the free world; he is leader of
> the US, perhaps, but other countries have differing opinions on what
> best to do about it. I think you will find France has a lot of
> experience with terrorism and also firmly believes in wiping it out;
> violently if necessary (their history certainly shows that). Perhaps you
> should consider the outcome in Iraq (no WMDs found, a real mess
> currently) and consider that perhaps others may have had some good
> points in their reservations. Maybe we were right, maybe we were wrong,
> but to conclude we don't do the right thing because we are afraid is
> factually wrong and insulting.
Nobody claims W is the leader of the free world. I personally don't care
for a lot of his politics. But I am behind his policy of pre-emption
instead of reaction. What is frustrating is that there has been such a
steady drumbeat of criticism about our pre-emptive policy. Now, at the
exact same time, the very same parties are critical of Bush for not being
pre-emptive before 9/11 and stopping the attacks. It is such a rediculous
situation.
Frank ---> watching the leafs/sens game at the moment. Go leafs!
"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > in frankspeak being disgusted with the sytem and choosing not to vote
> equals
> > 'cant even figure out how to register to vote'.
> > in frankspeak wanting to be rid of george bush after the next election,
is
> > not a 'well informed decision'.
> >
>
>
> Your words Randy, not mine -
> "all the people i registered had stated they wanted to get rid of bush and
i
> told them how to do it."
> Without you they couldn't figure it out is how I interpreted that. If
that
> isn't what you meant, I'm sorry.
all i meant was that i told them to quit bitching and start voting.
>
> I did not say that wanting to get rid of bush is uninformed. I said
someone
> who can't figure out how to vote is probably uninformed. I say the same
> thing about people who would vote for Bush based on any single issue.
>
> Frank
its just frustrating frank. how can we (not just you and i, but everyone)
even begin to discuss big issues when we have such miscommunication on the
small ones. i think the only way for such discussions to work is in a
moderated forum that keeps the topic from shifting every post and keeps the
focus on the issue being discussed. ive tried to focus my efforts
elsewhere, but here i am again, caught up on some silly political thread.
i did manage to stay out of the last political thread. ill try and miss the
next one too <g>
randy
"xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:PCUfc.156128$JO3.94490@attbi_s04...
>
> "todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:xUFfc.146958$w54.963281@attbi_s01...
> > > > > I guess this is what I don't understand. We have dismantled
> terrorist
> > > > > networks and continue to capture/kill terrorists by our actions in
> > Iraq.
> > > >
> > > > There seems to be a tendency to lump anyone who is fighting the
> > occupation
> > > > as a terrorist. Let's do a role reversal here. If Russia or China
> > invaded
> > > > the US and you and your friends decided to fight back and defend
> > yourself
> > > > against the occupiers, would that make you a terrorist? Insurgent?
> > > Evildoer?
> > > > Deadender? Bush loyalist?
> > >
> > > take it one step further. say russia and china came in to help
> overthrow
> > > the president on the basis that he never won a valid election. hell
the
> > US
> > > interferes with other countries all the time because the 'elections
were
> > > tampered with'.
> >
> > Name a country we have tampered with that held elections that the UN
> > recognized.
> >
> > todd
>
> my point EXACTLY!!!
>
> thanks.
>
> randy
You point is that there aren't any? I'll try to simplify the question for
you. You say interfere with the election process other countries "all the
time". We have certainly criticized some elections, but by my recollection,
only those that even the UN failed to recognize. So, let's try again. Name
an internationally-recognized election that we interfered with. Since we do
it "all the time", there should be at least 10 you can come with right off
the bat.
todd
todd
"xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> i wont waste my time. you might have to use logic and think to follow me.
> since you cant get past my other example (which by the way would be
equally
> valid if i changed the words iraq to pink elephants, us to purple posies,
> and china to freckled frogs, my point is the same and has nothing to do
with
> the names used) i wont even start in on this one.
>
> randy
Based on this response, I'll just assume you were talking out of your ass
earlier. Thanks for clarifying.
todd
You're right Again!
--
********************************************************************
I think there is only one quality worse than hardness of heart and that is
softness of head.
Theodore Roosevelt
The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on a level with
the man who loves other women as much as he loves his own wife.
Theodore Roosevelt
The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is the
most brutal wrongdoer.
Theodore Roosevelt > --
Simple and effective test.
I still remember David Letterman asking people on the street who they voted
for during one of Clinton's runs.
The one answer that left me completely floored was "George Clinton" with a
"gansta" accent. That left me wondering if the Parliament Funkadelic was
going to be his cabinet.
Also, as you implied, MANY people have NO IDEA who holds what office or what
their ideology is. I'm sure we've all seen the test showing pictures of
elected officials (especially those in HIGH positions) an people having no
idea who they were. It's pathetic. The information is so easy obtainable.
--
********************************************************************
I think there is only one quality worse than hardness of heart and that is
softness of head.
Theodore Roosevelt
The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on a level with
the man who loves other women as much as he loves his own wife.
Theodore Roosevelt
The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is the
most brutal wrongdoer.
Theodore Roosevelt
"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Rick Chamberlain" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > [email protected] says...
> > > > If you do vote and voted for the winner, shut up
> > > > and put up with your decision. Remember the old saying, You made
the
> bed,
> > > > now lay in it. If you voted and lost, you can complain. If you did
> not
> > > > vote, you may complain because there was no one worth voting. IMHO
> voting
> > > > for the sake of voting sends the wrong message.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And encouraging people to vote who have no idea what's going on
> > > is reprehensible.
> >
> > Really? So you support that there be a minimum intelligence test in
> > order to vote?
> >
> > I'll take the bait - so what would constitute a "qualified" voter?
> >
> > Would people get extra credit for being a minority? For being a single
> > mom? How about points for spelling their name correctly? Negative
> > points if you're a reporter?
> >
> > And just who would determine the qualifications?
>
> Here's my test for national elections:
>
> "Name either of your US Senators". If you're not engaged in the process
> enough to know that, well......
>
> todd
>
>
"p_j" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1gcfmtg.9s0wojyq0jpcN%[email protected]...
> todd <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > take it one step further. say russia and china came in to help
> > overthrow
> > > > > the president on the basis that he never won a valid election.
hell
> > the
> > > > US
> > > > > interferes with other countries all the time because the
'elections
> > were
> > > > > tampered with'.
> > > >
> > > > Name a country we have tampered with that held elections that the UN
> > > > recognized.
> > >
> > > What's the question? I don't get the UN recognized part.
> >
> > I'm asking you to back up your statement that the US has interfered in
> > another country after elections we didn't like. I'm trying to draw a
> > distinction between a legitimate election and one in, say, Zimbabwe,
where
> > Mugabe wins reelection, but is not recognized by the US and the EU. So,
> > other than a place like Zimbabwe, where most of the world believes the
> > election was rigged, name a country that we interfered with. Is this a
> > difficult question? I'm trying to get you to support your statement.
>
> Its not my statement, but if you want to find a history of the US
> interfering in elections, that's not hard. Obviously you won't get
> recent history because it is secret and citizens are not allowed to know
> what crimes their government commits.
>
> Why don't you make some effort? Educate yourself on why in the 70's
> restrictions were put on the CIA. Don't read Taliban/RNC news sources if
> you are interested in the truth (obviously).
Damn, even another poster gave a try at pointing out Haiti. It was wrong,
but at least he tried.
todd
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > If you do vote and voted for the winner, shut up
> > and put up with your decision. Remember the old saying, You made the bed,
> > now lay in it. If you voted and lost, you can complain. If you did not
> > vote, you may complain because there was no one worth voting. IMHO voting
> > for the sake of voting sends the wrong message.
> >
>
> And encouraging people to vote who have no idea what's going on
> is reprehensible.
Really? So you support that there be a minimum intelligence test in
order to vote?
I'll take the bait - so what would constitute a "qualified" voter?
Would people get extra credit for being a minority? For being a single
mom? How about points for spelling their name correctly? Negative
points if you're a reporter?
And just who would determine the qualifications?
Or if it's just the ability to read, then anyone in Palm Beach who
couldn't read a ballot should be disqualified.
Unfortunately, voting has become nothing more than a pissing contest -
people don't give a rip about the long term, just how this is going to
affect me now.
Would you deduct points for nearsightedness?
--
Regards,
Rick
(Remove the HIGH SPOTS for e-mail)
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> > >
> > > And encouraging people to vote who have no idea what's going on
> > > is reprehensible.
> >
> > Really? So you support that there be a minimum intelligence test in
> > order to vote?
> >
> Yes. Do you believe someone so handicapped they have the
> intelligence of a 5 year old should vote? Then let's register
> all the 5 year olds :-).
Of course not. But I can't remember a single instance of a report where
a severely handicapped person of voting age was allowed to vote.
> > I'll take the bait - so what would constitute a "qualified" voter?
> >
> As others have said, knowing the names of some of your elected
> reps would be a good start = federal for federal elections,
> state for state elections, etc..
>
> And being able to state in a general way what three or more of
> the articles in the Bill of Rights are about would be good too.
> But then when people were asked to sign a petition that was the
> Bill of Rights a while back, they refused and called it
> communistic :-).
Based on that criteria, you'd disqualify a huge number of people.
Unfortunately, Civics class isn't high on the list of most high school
curricula, and shame on us if we were to actually expect that kids learn
about our country...
> > Would people get extra credit for being a minority? For being a single
> > mom?
>
> Hell, no.
>
> How about points for spelling their name correctly?
>
> By definition, however you spell your name is correct if you can
> remember to doit the same way from one time to the next. If
> not, see "5 year olds" above :-).
>
> > Negative points if you're a reporter?
> >
> Now that I could go for if you'll go for double negative points
> for politicians :-).
Sure - no problem for me. But I'm sure the politicians would develop
some sort of doublespeak for their job title. Maybe they'd go back to
"public servant"?
> > And just who would determine the qualifications?
> >
> Aye, there's the rub.
Well, on balance I agree that there should be a minimum intelligence
quotient for anyone to vote. I mean, immigrants seeking citizenship
need to know this stuff, so why can't our high school kids know it?
However, the way our country is constructed, it can't happen.
About the only thing we could do would be to only allow those with a
valid driver's license or a national ID of some sort. But that doesn't
sit well with the Democrats, who think that will scare off their base.
--
Regards,
Rick
(Remove the HIGH SPOTS for e-mail)
In article <1gcjpdt.95do0nlj2m8xN%[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
<snip>
> I never used "blame game" rhetoric to stifle the truth, I never claimed
> that hindsight isn't easy and I've never denigrated people for claiming
> that multiple actors in government committed crimes together which is
> all that a conspiracy theory is... I have laughed at some of the them
> though. Junkie Limbaugh is still peddling the Vince Foster thing.
>
> Besides, all the blaming of Clinton for the failures of Bush can't
> change the fact that there were many, many warnings of 9/11 and Bush's
> record is consistent... just look at the Cole... he did NOTHING.
Just what do you expect that a CANDIDATE do? The Cole happened in
October 2000. Bush was inaugurated in January 2001.
You talk a good game p_j (if that's your real name), but you need to
spend a little more time fact checking before you spout off.
On the bright side, you have all the DNC talking points down pat...
--
Regards,
Rick
(Remove the HIGH SPOTS for e-mail)
In article <1gcn50h.5nvem7vjxeziN%[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Rick Chamberlain <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I never used "blame game" rhetoric to stifle the truth, I never claimed
> > > that hindsight isn't easy and I've never denigrated people for claiming
> > > that multiple actors in government committed crimes together which is
> > > all that a conspiracy theory is... I have laughed at some of the them
> > > though. Junkie Limbaugh is still peddling the Vince Foster thing.
> > >
> > > Besides, all the blaming of Clinton for the failures of Bush can't
> > > change the fact that there were many, many warnings of 9/11 and Bush's
> > > record is consistent... just look at the Cole... he did NOTHING.
> >
> > Just what do you expect that a CANDIDATE do? The Cole happened in
> > October 2000. Bush was inaugurated in January 2001.
> >
> > You talk a good game p_j (if that's your real name), but you need to
> > spend a little more time fact checking before you spout off.
>
> What don't you get? In June 2001, five months after Bush had been sworn
> in, al Qaeda released a videotape claiming responsibility for the Cole
> operation. If the Bush administration needed a casus belli to destroy al
> Qaeda, here it was, broadcast around the world. Instead, the response
> was to do absolutely nothing.
Really? Is this a phantom videotape? March of 2001, bin Laden praised
the attackers of the Cole. He took no responsibility.
From al-bab (Arab gateway site, p_j):
Bin Laden was reported to be "delighted" by the attack on USS Cole -
though denying any involvement. According to al-Hayat newspaper, he
"knelt and thanked God for this operation which has shaken the American
military reputation"
http://www.al-bab.com/yemen/cole8.htm
http://www.al-bab.com/yemen/cole4.htm
Now, last November, Yemen finally arrested the man who they think is the
mastermind of the Cole bombing, and he is an al Queda operative. Should
we go back and rebomb Afghanistan now?
> By your own statement Bush took power shortly after the attack. What did
> he do? C'mon Rick, don't be a shill for the RNC? What did he do?
You'd do much better if some fact checking first p_j. You use the same
old tired statements when you get caught. You get caught, so you
flip/deflect/deny/accuse. You're actually pretty good at it.
> There has already been some investigation and if you want I can go on,
> but I'll wait to see if you make ANY argument, because all you've done
> up till now is say that Bush did nothing.
Please go on p_j, take the rope...
> > On the bright side, you have all the DNC talking points down pat...
>
> More tired old RNC talking points.
Pot - Kettle - Black. So predictable.
> Hey, Rick who do you listen to on the radio?
I prefer country and classic rock - what do you listen to?
--
Regards,
Rick
(Remove the HIGH SPOTS for e-mail)
"Tom Veatch"
> I have been of the opinion, since the day it happened, that the "fault"
for the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers rested 100% on
> the shoulders of the men sitting in the pilot's seat of the airplane at
the moment of impact. I have seen or heard nothing since
> that date that would influence me to change that opinion.
I agree 100%. Some people NEED to use this as a political attack dog.
I really didn't care for Clinton, but I'll not lay blame for this at his
feet, nor will I lay it at Bush's.
We were not prepared for an attack like this.
No more than we were prepared for an attack by Japan.
Hindsight is 20/20 as usual.
--
********************************************************************
I think there is only one quality worse than hardness of heart and that is
softness of head.
Theodore Roosevelt
The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on a level with
the man who loves other women as much as he loves his own wife.
Theodore Roosevelt
The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is the
most brutal wrongdoer.
Theodore Roosevelt
"xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> in frankspeak being disgusted with the sytem and choosing not to vote
equals
> 'cant even figure out how to register to vote'.
> in frankspeak wanting to be rid of george bush after the next election, is
> not a 'well informed decision'.
>
Your words Randy, not mine -
"all the people i registered had stated they wanted to get rid of bush and i
told them how to do it."
Without you they couldn't figure it out is how I interpreted that. If that
isn't what you meant, I'm sorry.
I did not say that wanting to get rid of bush is uninformed. I said someone
who can't figure out how to vote is probably uninformed. I say the same
thing about people who would vote for Bush based on any single issue.
Frank
"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:xUFfc.146958$w54.963281@attbi_s01...
> > > > I guess this is what I don't understand. We have dismantled
terrorist
> > > > networks and continue to capture/kill terrorists by our actions in
> Iraq.
> > >
> > > There seems to be a tendency to lump anyone who is fighting the
> occupation
> > > as a terrorist. Let's do a role reversal here. If Russia or China
> invaded
> > > the US and you and your friends decided to fight back and defend
> yourself
> > > against the occupiers, would that make you a terrorist? Insurgent?
> > Evildoer?
> > > Deadender? Bush loyalist?
> >
> > take it one step further. say russia and china came in to help
overthrow
> > the president on the basis that he never won a valid election. hell the
> US
> > interferes with other countries all the time because the 'elections were
> > tampered with'.
>
> Name a country we have tampered with that held elections that the UN
> recognized.
>
> todd
my point EXACTLY!!!
thanks.
randy
"G.E.R.R.Y."
>
> What *American* freedoms are they protecting by killing Iraqis in Iraq?
>
The same ones we were protecting by fighting Germans in France?
--
********************************************************************
I think there is only one quality worse than hardness of heart and that is
softness of head.
Theodore Roosevelt
The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on a level with
the man who loves other women as much as he loves his own wife.
Theodore Roosevelt
The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is the
most brutal wrongdoer.
Theodore Roosevelt
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> You've GOT to be kidding!
>
> If you want a country that can fight back, how about North Korea
> and their big brother?
>
The comparison I was making was with Afghanistan which has no real military
or even much of a government. Of course the Iraqi military proper was
pretty much a joke, but there was a lot of concern over troops getting
gassed etc.
That is an excellent point also, to deal with pissant problematic countries
before they get the backing of someone serious. Yet another reason to act
pre-emptively. Diplomatically is about all that makes sense with NK.
Frank
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <VwZfc.6661$0b4.15622@attbi_s51>,
> [email protected] says...
> > That's what I can't get over in this situation. Granted I may not be
> > following news by the hour like some, but I have not heard of any
> > information the US had prior to 9/11 that was specific enough to develop
a
> > plan that would have prevented that catastrophe.
> >
> I have to agree. As much as I detest Bush and his cronies,
> unless the commission can show that some government official
> deliberately aided Bin Laden et al, hindsight is a waste of
> time. There's always a memo somewhere from someone that wasn't
> acted on in any situation like this. It's meaningless.
>
> --
> Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
I can't believe I'm about to say this, but I agree with you, Larry. ;-)
The only thing you can be sure of when Richard Ben-Veniste is asking the
questions is that getting to the truth is the last priority. The only
purpose for a politcal hack like him in being on a commission is to attempt
to place blame somewhere. And then you have people like Jamie Gorelick
sitting on the commission who really ought to be sitting in the witness
chair. And people wonder why the Bush administration initially opposed the
commission. They understood that it was going to be less about how to fix
things from here than an attempt to lay blame. I shudder to think that we
could be attacked in the next few months while a bunch of politicians jockey
for position.
todd
"xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%VVfc.153863$K91.405871@attbi_s02...
> well its like 20% of the actual population. but after you eliminate all
the
> blacks who have had their right to vote stripped from them, the people
whos
> votes didnt get counted or were given an illegible ballot, kids, etc...
> its 50% of the 'eligible voting' population <g>
>
Dude, what happened to you Randy? I know this post is tongue in cheek, but
it's pretty much in line with your recent posts.
In the past we have argued about various points and I have always thought
you had valid points and were worth reading. But lately, man seem to have
gone off the deep end. Are you alright?
Frank
"Eric Tonks" <etonks@sunstormADD-DOT-COM> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Didn't anyone notice that he didn't answer one question from the press. He
> just rambled on and on waving the "freedom" flag and repeating the same
> excuses for the war that have been proven false over and over.
>
Didn't anyone notice how paritsan the questions were? Geez, the white house
press corps isn't even trying to pretend that they are non-partisan any
more. Apparently all bets are off. It's a sad situation really. I thought
reporters and journalists were supposed to report the facts and let the
public form their own opinions. It's as if the media nowadays has their own
agenda.
Frank
"p_j" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1gcajxf.faixse1qg9h1tN%[email protected]...
> Bill Everette <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Can we start clubbing liberals?
>
> Ah, yes, anyone who clings to the principles that the country was
> founded on should be clubbed.
That's pretty rich. You should go on tour with that comedy act.
todd
"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:Y2Wfc.156415$JO3.94567@attbi_s04...
> >
> >
> > i get the impression frank would stare into the sun until he went blind
> > rather than admitting he (or bush) could be wrong about anything at all.
> >
>
> Bush has been wrong about plenty in his first term as president. I will
be
> the first to admit that and he has really irritated me with some of his
> policies. I don't agree with the tin foil hat conspiracy accusations of
the
> man.
>
> > what im i doing? ive registered 4 people to vote, that wont be voting
for
> > bush, and that wouldnt have registered had i not intervened. and thats
> the
> > only 'something' that matters. talk is cheap. votes count. if you
want
> to
> > get rid of george bush, dont waste your time trying to convince frank,
> there
> > are plenty of people out there that dont plan to vote but hate bush.
they
> > are convinced voting doesnt matter. as the last 'election' proved all
too
> > well, it does. bring them a voter registration card. better yet drive
> them
> > down to city hall. offer them a free lunch on voting day and a ride to
> the
> > polls. get their ass in there.
> >
>
> you call the last election a joke and then immediatly advocate purchasing
> votes for the next one? election fraud doesn't seem to bother you as much
> as you claim. can you even get through an entire post without embarassing
> yourself?
always the low road with you guys... if i can choose the president because
im willing to offer a free cheeseburger and fries at mickey d's, i bet i
could rule the world if i offered fillet minion!!
by the way, what exactly did bush and gore spend all those millions on
during the last election? maybe trying to buy your vote? im not telling
anyone who to vote for. all the people i registered had stated they wanted
to get rid of bush and i told them how to do it. im just suggesting we make
a lunch out of it. if it really bothers you that much (which lets face it,
it doesnt) i retract my free lunch statement. dont offer a free lunch.
just a free country. trust me, its plenty.
randy
"p_j" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1gccsq9.da2nk71jqprwiN%[email protected]...
>
> And all the nasty disinformation from Limbaugh and Hannity and the rest
> of the RNC doesn't change reality. Nobody really expects republicans to
> discuss it honsestly or to take responsibility. Go read the SC decision.
> It is a joke and its almost impossible to get a lawyer to say anything
> different (other than political operatives). Even operatives like
> Douglas Kimec, a blatant shill and apologist gets all tongue tied and
> wishy-washy trying to defend it. Read it. I dare you. I know you won't.
> It really is a joke, start to finish.
>
>
Since I am not a member of the supreme court, I don't have my own copy. Do
you have a link?
>
> Bush wants the power and the money and the fame, but he doesn't want the
> job. Where is he today? Using Air Force one to slurp up millions,
> killing time watching sports on tv, golfing, fishing or doing another
> photo-op like the one in Florida where he read that damn goat book to a
> bunch of kids while the country was being attacked?
>
Yeah, it was unbelievable that during the bush presidency, at a totally
random moment, he was found to be in a school reading with children. What
an asshole. If 9/11 had happened under clinton he would have been in the
whitehouse for sure. getting head from a fat intern, but there none the
less.
Frank
"Tom Veatch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:57:13 -0500, "todd" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >The press corps are going to have to come up with the John Kerry campaign
> >commercial on their own. The President isn't going to give them their
nice
> >soundbyte where he admits fault for 9/11. When President Clinton admits
his
> >larger share of fault for 9/11, that's when I'll start waiting for
President
> >Bush's admission.
> >
> >todd
> >
>
> I have been of the opinion, since the day it happened, that the "fault"
for the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers rested 100% on
> the shoulders of the men sitting in the pilot's seat of the airplane at
the moment of impact. I have seen or heard nothing since
> that date that would influence me to change that opinion.
>
> Tom Veatch
> Wichita, KS USA
Actually, I was thinking the same thing this morning while in the shower. I
guess I'm referring to the responsibility of having an apparatus in place
that twarts such an attack. But you're correct...some people do act like it
was Bush, Clinton, Ashcroft, or Tenet at the controls of the planes. As far
as the responsiblity on our side, I think there is plenty of blame to go
around for the past several administrations.
todd
"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:PCUfc.156128$JO3.94490@attbi_s04...
> >
> > "todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > "xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:xUFfc.146958$w54.963281@attbi_s01...
> > > > > > I guess this is what I don't understand. We have dismantled
> > terrorist
> > > > > > networks and continue to capture/kill terrorists by our actions
in
> > > Iraq.
> > > > >
> > > > > There seems to be a tendency to lump anyone who is fighting the
> > > occupation
> > > > > as a terrorist. Let's do a role reversal here. If Russia or China
> > > invaded
> > > > > the US and you and your friends decided to fight back and defend
> > > yourself
> > > > > against the occupiers, would that make you a terrorist? Insurgent?
> > > > Evildoer?
> > > > > Deadender? Bush loyalist?
> > > >
> > > > take it one step further. say russia and china came in to help
> > overthrow
> > > > the president on the basis that he never won a valid election. hell
> the
> > > US
> > > > interferes with other countries all the time because the 'elections
> were
> > > > tampered with'.
> > >
> > > Name a country we have tampered with that held elections that the UN
> > > recognized.
> > >
> > > todd
> >
> > my point EXACTLY!!!
> >
> > thanks.
> >
> > randy
>
> You point is that there aren't any? I'll try to simplify the question for
> you. You say interfere with the election process other countries "all the
> time". We have certainly criticized some elections, but by my
recollection,
> only those that even the UN failed to recognize. So, let's try again.
Name
> an internationally-recognized election that we interfered with. Since we
do
> it "all the time", there should be at least 10 you can come with right off
> the bat.
i wont waste my time. you might have to use logic and think to follow me.
since you cant get past my other example (which by the way would be equally
valid if i changed the words iraq to pink elephants, us to purple posies,
and china to freckled frogs, my point is the same and has nothing to do with
the names used) i wont even start in on this one.
randy
"G.E.R.R.Y." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:150420041052194595%[email protected]...
>
> If Saudis attack you and you take revenge on Iraqis or anyone other
> than Saudis, it doesn't take balls. The leaders have to be brain dead
> /or/ /have/ /a/ /hidden/ /agenda/.
>
Oh yes, the "no war for oil" mentality. What would you say if we did go
into Saudi Arabia? There is lots of oil there. Come on Gerry, no war for
oil! How do you square it when your arguments are contradictory.
The fact is that Saudi Arabia is not where the terrorist networks and
training grounds are located. To want to topple the Saudi government
because the hijackers were Saudis is, to use your terms, brain dead.
Don't forget President Bush's speech where he promised the world that we
would make no distinction between terrorists and those who harbor
terrorists.
"xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Y2Wfc.156415$JO3.94567@attbi_s04...
>
>
> i get the impression frank would stare into the sun until he went blind
> rather than admitting he (or bush) could be wrong about anything at all.
>
Bush has been wrong about plenty in his first term as president. I will be
the first to admit that and he has really irritated me with some of his
policies. I don't agree with the tin foil hat conspiracy accusations of the
man.
> what im i doing? ive registered 4 people to vote, that wont be voting for
> bush, and that wouldnt have registered had i not intervened. and thats
the
> only 'something' that matters. talk is cheap. votes count. if you want
to
> get rid of george bush, dont waste your time trying to convince frank,
there
> are plenty of people out there that dont plan to vote but hate bush. they
> are convinced voting doesnt matter. as the last 'election' proved all too
> well, it does. bring them a voter registration card. better yet drive
them
> down to city hall. offer them a free lunch on voting day and a ride to
the
> polls. get their ass in there.
>
you call the last election a joke and then immediatly advocate purchasing
votes for the next one? election fraud doesn't seem to bother you as much
as you claim. can you even get through an entire post without embarassing
yourself?
"p_j" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1gcaim6.z5c63aj7rqsnN%[email protected]...
>
> That is ignorance. It shows a basic lack of understanding of how rights
> and a free society are maintained. Civics 101 is where the concept is
> introduced.
>
The rights of a free country don't come from a university. I do understand
where rights come from and how they are maintained.
>
> This is blatantly false. It doesn't take much effort to find the truth
> out, so I have to assume that you don't want to know it. Hundreds of
> election laws were broken by the republicans, the most blatantly by
> Choicepoint and Jeb. They don't even deny it.
>
Which laws? Dub won every single recount, even the recount done by the
miami herold newspaper. Care to elaborate?
"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> > - Referring to the Aug 6th memo as containing no "actionable
> intelligence",
> > even though it lists Washington and the WTC as targets.
>
> Yeah, we should have just put up the force field around Washington and New
> York. I'm telling you right now, that any steps we would have taken to
> prevent 9/11 from happening would have been condemned by the left. You
tell
> me what the ACLU would have had to say if we decided to put young Arab men
> through added scrutiny when entering the country. They would have been
> standing in federal court 5 seconds later arguing that it was racial
> profiling.
>
> Have you actually read the Aug 6 PDB? Bin Laden wanted to target
Washington
> and the WTC? There's some breaking news. Thank God Dick Clark's on the
> job! What are you going to do based on that infomation? The PDB says
that
> the FBI alone was conducting 70 field investigations in the US. If I had
> read that memo in Aug of 2001, I'd have said "tell me something I don't
> already know". The memo makes it appear that the FBI was working on it.
> Look, I don't care who was in office in September of 2001, no president
> could have prevented it. You think things would have been different if Al
> Gore was president? He was part of the status quo of the previous 8 years
> that saw our embassies and the Cole bombed and worse yet, our pullout in
> Somalia. Our intelligence agencies were hamstrung by law from cooperating
> enough to put all the pieces together. I'm not at all confident that we
> could prevent another large attack with the current state of intelligence.
> Unfortunately, you can't just snap your fingers and make the collection,
> dissemination, and analysis of worldwide intelligence happen. I don't
think
> you could have convinced more than 10-20% of Americans, if that many,
prior
> to 9/11 that a terrorist organization could have pulled off the
destruction
> of the WTC. Consequently, we wouldn't have stood for the changes that
would
> have needed to happen to prevent it. Sadly, only after the WTC was
> destroyed do we understand the threat here in the US.
>
> todd
>
>
LOL... force field.
Todd, you NAILED it.
That's what I can't get over in this situation. Granted I may not be
following news by the hour like some, but I have not heard of any
information the US had prior to 9/11 that was specific enough to develop a
plan that would have prevented that catastrophe.
People are so anxious to "hang" Bush, as someone said... they want to latch
onto anything to discredit him. Politics.
Not that I'm a huge Bush fan (hmmm... maybe "bush" ;-), but not Dubya). I
take issue with the objectives in Iraq.
But anyone who thinks the administration didn't act on information it had:
Given that information, what would YOU have done? What's your plan... not
given the benefit of hindsight? Cancel all flights from East coast
airports? Lock down all the airports and run a background check on every
passenger? Or maybe... run background checks only on passengers who fit a
certain profile? Can you imagine the outrage that would elicit?
Politics sucks.
"George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 15:10:30 -0700, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >You mean appointed as leader of the free world.
>
> Selected!
>
> The People "Selected" Al Gore and the Supereme Court Selected Bush.
>
>
You can sing it from the mountain tops for the rest of your life. It
doesn't make it the truth. So let's suppose bush wins in november and
serves his second term out. He will then be eligible to run for a third
term. don't you realize that the constitution says that a person can only be
elected to the presidency twice? if he wasn't elected for the first term, i
expect all of you to support a third bush presidency run based on your own
arguement about him not being elected for the first term.
Why aren't you people instead focusing your energy on the future and
defeating your arch-nemesis bush? Why doesn't any democrat stand up and
sing the praises of their nominee for this next election? No matter how
evil you guys paint bush, in november there will be a choice to be made,
bush or kerry. It is really that simple. I think the fact that the whole
lot of you have no other game plan than to attack bush on anything you can
come up with is very telling about how much you like your own nominee.
good luck to you. you will need it.
Frank
"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >
> > by the way, what exactly did bush and gore spend all those millions on
> > during the last election? maybe trying to buy your vote? im not
telling
> > anyone who to vote for. all the people i registered had stated they
> wanted
> > to get rid of bush and i told them how to do it. im just suggesting we
> make
> > a lunch out of it. if it really bothers you that much (which lets face
> it,
> > it doesnt) i retract my free lunch statement. dont offer a free lunch.
> > just a free country. trust me, its plenty.
> >
>
> Yes, a person who can't even figure out how to register to vote is likely
to
> make a well informed decision. But it is definately their right.
>
> Frank
welcome to franks world.
in frankspeak being disgusted with the sytem and choosing not to vote equals
'cant even figure out how to register to vote'.
in frankspeak wanting to be rid of george bush after the next election, is
not a 'well informed decision'.
but at least they have rights there!! go frankland!!
randy
"Paul Kierstead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:pmkierst-95A2DE.18082514042004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> 2) We definitely didn't vote for him. In fact, IIRC, the majority of
> Americans also did not vote for him.
Ain't divine intervention great....
"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 15:10:30 -0700, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >You mean appointed as leader of the free world.
> >
> > Selected!
> >
> > The People "Selected" Al Gore and the Supereme Court Selected Bush.
> >
> >
>
> You can sing it from the mountain tops for the rest of your life. It
> doesn't make it the truth. So let's suppose bush wins in november and
> serves his second term out. He will then be eligible to run for a third
> term. don't you realize that the constitution says that a person can only
be
> elected to the presidency twice? if he wasn't elected for the first term,
i
> expect all of you to support a third bush presidency run based on your own
> arguement about him not being elected for the first term.
>
>
> Why aren't you people instead focusing your energy on the future and
> defeating your arch-nemesis bush? Why doesn't any democrat stand up and
> sing the praises of their nominee for this next election? No matter how
> evil you guys paint bush, in november there will be a choice to be made,
> bush or kerry. It is really that simple. I think the fact that the
whole
> lot of you have no other game plan than to attack bush on anything you can
> come up with is very telling about how much you like your own nominee.
>
> good luck to you. you will need it.
>
> Frank
i get the impression frank would stare into the sun until he went blind
rather than admitting he (or bush) could be wrong about anything at all.
what im i doing? ive registered 4 people to vote, that wont be voting for
bush, and that wouldnt have registered had i not intervened. and thats the
only 'something' that matters. talk is cheap. votes count. if you want to
get rid of george bush, dont waste your time trying to convince frank, there
are plenty of people out there that dont plan to vote but hate bush. they
are convinced voting doesnt matter. as the last 'election' proved all too
well, it does. bring them a voter registration card. better yet drive them
down to city hall. offer them a free lunch on voting day and a ride to the
polls. get their ass in there.
otherwise frank might be right about 4 more years...
randy
"p_j" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1gcfjdp.m6soo31ufk7eeN%[email protected]...
I like the way that instead of countering many points, you just try ignoring
them as RNC "talking points" as if just because Rush talked about it makes
it false (I know you wish that was true). I'll try to refocus you on just a
couple of points.
1. Gore commission. Did Gore implement his own recommendations or not? He
had 3 years after the publication of his own report. This is a simple
question. What actually happened is that in late 1996, a preliminary report
was issued that would have been tough on the airlines. Very shortly after,
the airlines jumped all over Gore. Gore then sent a letter to the airlines'
lobbyist that the changes would not cost them any money. The next day, a
$40,000 contribution was receievd from TWA. In the next two weeks,
Northwest, United, and American Airlines donated another $55,000. When it
was all done, the democrats received half a million dollars prior to the 96
election. I like how it was put in the Washington Times:
"It was a classic Washington victory. The policy wonks got their proposals
noticed, the airlines got their bottom line protected and Mr. Gore got his
party the money. The only losers were the passengers, who got no increased
security from terrorism. So, when Mr. Gore actually had a chance to fight,
rather than talk about, the powerful special interests on behalf of the
little guy, he turned his money-stuffed coat and protected the interests
that bought him."
2. Clinton/Bin Laden/Sudan. I suggest you read the following from Mansoor
Ijaz, who was directly involved.
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm
As for your assertion that Sudan offering Bin Laden to Clinton is some sort
of fabrication, I'm going by Clinton's own words from 2002, which can be
found here http://www.newsmax.com/clinton2.mp3 If you want to tell me that
Clinton was lying, that would certainly have to be considered.
todd
ooh some elite intellectual posting .Dang
"Kim Whitmyre" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > Sorry, I know this is a WW cite, but I can't help just throwing this
> > out there (I'm not the first to defile this cite with political
> > musings).
> >
> > I feel really at ease after hearing W. speak last night. He was
> > intelligent, well informed, and clearly on top of the game. I'm so
> > proud that we elected Mr. Bush as the leader of the free world. He's
> > a model for other leaders! I guess I'm a little disappointed that he
> > was unable to come up with something that he would have done
> > differently now that he's had a chance to reflect upon 9/11. Let's be
> > fair here though. He's only had a few years to think about it, and
> > I'm sure he really didn't expect anyone to ask him anything so out of
> > left field anyway. It's not like he would have been prepped for
> > questions about our failings on 9/11. That hasn't been in the news
> > lately or anything. He got the important stuff right. I say, "4 more
> > years" Yahoo, go W.!!!!
> >
> He casts, he trolls, he got quite a few fish!! Har. . .
>
> Kim
"Doug" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sorry, I know this is a WW cite, but I can't help just throwing this
> out there (I'm not the first to defile this cite with political
> musings).
>
> I feel really at ease after hearing W. speak last night. He was
> intelligent, well informed, and clearly on top of the game. I'm so
> proud that we elected Mr. Bush as the leader of the free world. He's
> a model for other leaders! I guess I'm a little disappointed that he
> was unable to come up with something that he would have done
> differently now that he's had a chance to reflect upon 9/11. Let's be
> fair here though. He's only had a few years to think about it, and
> I'm sure he really didn't expect anyone to ask him anything so out of
> left field anyway. It's not like he would have been prepped for
> questions about our failings on 9/11. That hasn't been in the news
> lately or anything. He got the important stuff right. I say, "4 more
> years" Yahoo, go W.!!!!
The press corps are going to have to come up with the John Kerry campaign
commercial on their own. The President isn't going to give them their nice
soundbyte where he admits fault for 9/11. When President Clinton admits his
larger share of fault for 9/11, that's when I'll start waiting for President
Bush's admission.
todd
"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:%VVfc.153863$K91.405871@attbi_s02...
> > well its like 20% of the actual population. but after you eliminate all
> the
> > blacks who have had their right to vote stripped from them, the people
> whos
> > votes didnt get counted or were given an illegible ballot, kids, etc...
> > its 50% of the 'eligible voting' population <g>
> >
>
> Dude, what happened to you Randy? I know this post is tongue in cheek,
but
> it's pretty much in line with your recent posts.
> In the past we have argued about various points and I have always thought
> you had valid points and were worth reading. But lately, man seem to have
> gone off the deep end. Are you alright?
>
> Frank
lol, im back to being 'off the deep end'
randy
Thats cause everyother question was asking him to appologize. He may not be
the most off the cuff guy but atleast I think I trust what he says. He'd
make a really bad liar
"Eric Tonks" <etonks@sunstormADD-DOT-COM> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Didn't anyone notice that he didn't answer one question from the press. He
> just rambled on and on waving the "freedom" flag and repeating the same
> excuses for the war that have been proven false over and over.
>
> "Doug" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Sorry, I know this is a WW cite, but I can't help just throwing this
> > out there (I'm not the first to defile this cite with political
> > musings).
> >
> > I feel really at ease after hearing W. speak last night. He was
> > intelligent, well informed, and clearly on top of the game. I'm so
> > proud that we elected Mr. Bush as the leader of the free world. He's
> > a model for other leaders! I guess I'm a little disappointed that he
> > was unable to come up with something that he would have done
> > differently now that he's had a chance to reflect upon 9/11. Let's be
> > fair here though. He's only had a few years to think about it, and
> > I'm sure he really didn't expect anyone to ask him anything so out of
> > left field anyway. It's not like he would have been prepped for
> > questions about our failings on 9/11. That hasn't been in the news
> > lately or anything. He got the important stuff right. I say, "4 more
> > years" Yahoo, go W.!!!!
>
>
In article <1gcaim6.z5c63aj7rqsnN%[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Frank Ketchum <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > If you'll allow that the US of A is not the _only_ free country in the
> > > world (though even that might be somewhat debatable in light of the
> > > PATRIOT act), I ask you to consider:
> >
> >
> > Yeah, the patriot act has sure changed my life (this is also sarcasm)
>
> That is ignorance. It shows a basic lack of understanding of how rights
> and a free society are maintained. Civics 101 is where the concept is
> introduced.
OK p_j, you've been asked this before and you simply dance around the
issue. What, exactly, has the Patriot act done that limits *your* civil
rights? What could be done instead of the Patriot act to prevent the
occurence of another attack like 9/1l that would not result in even more
restriction of individual freedoms?
You have not been watching the news for the last 14 years???
"G.E.R.R.Y." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:150420041031138445%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Frank Ketchum <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > But I am behind his policy of pre-emption instead of reaction.
>
> If MOST of the terrorists /and/ /all/ /their/ /leaders/ were Saudis,
> why is this mental midget attacking anywhere other than Saudi Arabia?
>
> Gerry
"Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:58Cfc.139959$gA5.1671688@attbi_s03...
> >
> > "Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > "Shawn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > > On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 04:48:58 GMT, Tom Veatch wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:57:13 -0500, "todd"
<[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>The press corps are going to have to come up with the John Kerry
> > campaign
> > > > >>commercial on their own. The President isn't going to give them
> their
> > nice
> > > > >>soundbyte where he admits fault for 9/11. When President Clinton
> > admits his
> > > > >>larger share of fault for 9/11, that's when I'll start waiting for
> > President
> > > > >>Bush's admission.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>todd
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > I have been of the opinion, since the day it happened, that the
> > "fault" for the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers rested 100%
> > > on
> > > > > the shoulders of the men sitting in the pilot's seat of the
airplane
> > at the moment of impact. I have seen or heard nothing since
> > > > > that date that would influence me to change that opinion.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tom Veatch
> > > > > Wichita, KS USA
> > > >
> > > > So if you own a business and have a security guard and he's asleep
> when
> > it
> > > > gets robbed and he had been warned that it could be robbed (just not
> > given
> > > > a date or time), is it still just the robber's fault?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Of course not! It is you, the business owner, who is at fault for not
> > taking any measures to prevent the robbery. Forget the fact
> > > that you have what you believe to be a qualified, experiences security
> > guard on your payroll. You SHOULD have known he would fall
> > > asleep, and should have done more to keep him awake.
> >
> > btw, by this logic, it is clearly the fault of george bush and his
> > administration that the terrorists attacked. in fact, the terrorists
aren
> t
> > at fault at all by your way of thinking (or not thinking as i would
prefer
> > to put it)
> >
>
> I was being sarcastic and trying to see what king of response I would get.
> I surely do believe the robber is at fault, and is entirely to blame for
the
> crime. I may also have to get a new security guard as well or maybe a few
> large, mean dogs.
>
> Later,
sorry al, i guess my sarcasm filter broke down <g>
randy
Dude
Every other question was about him apologizing for 9/1 like he loaded the
fuel on the planes then gave GPS coordinates to the WTT. Jeesh
"George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 17:28:03 -0700, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> >Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
>
> Did you hear Bush says the scientists are still afraid to talk he still
believe
> they will find the WMDs?
>
> I am not too smart, can you tell me why our leader Bush did not answer a
single
> question, but instead he talk about the Iraqi love freedom, democracy
blah,
> blah....
>
>
In article
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> When the war on terror took us to a
> country that could actually fight back,
>
You've GOT to be kidding!
If you want a country that can fight back, how about North Korea
and their big brother?
Oh that's right, we're going to solve that one diplomatically.
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
Aye. Might be a couple of Brits out there as well. Mebbe a few Spaniards.
You're not on your own, however much you might think so. Leave it at that.
Cheers
Frank
"Paul Kierstead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:pmkierst-A49CFF.19103014042004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > It is sad indeed how Canada turned it's back on her old ally.
> > France, sure we expected that. Germany, we expect that too. Russia,
well
> > duh! But we all thought that Canada could be counted on. Well Canada
has
> > sure shown her colors in this one. Don't give it another thought.
We'll
> > do what needs to be done with or without you. We don't even ask for
thanks
> > when our soldiers and our real allies soldiers are dying on the
battlefield
> > at this very minute to protect the freedoms that you and I both enjoy.
>
> I am sorry to hear you say that. Canadian soldiers are fighting and
> dying right now in Afganistan because we _do_ believe in your cause. I
> think you will find very few Canadians who do not believe that terrorism
> poses a real threat and that someone -- including them -- needs to do
> something about it.
>
> Canada did not turn its back on America; it just believed (and still
> believes, if you read our polls) that invading Iraq was not going to
> achieve -- or even further -- that goal. In fact, a recent poll in
> Canada revealed that a very large number of Canadians (I believe a
> majority, but not 100% sure) believed that invading Iraq will actually
> worsen the problem, not improve it. Canadians did not believe in the
> WMDs and did not believe that Iraq posed a real threat. That is all. We
> did not abandon you, we simply do not agree with your method in this
> case. As I said, Dubya is NOT leader of the free world; he is leader of
> the US, perhaps, but other countries have differing opinions on what
> best to do about it. I think you will find France has a lot of
> experience with terrorism and also firmly believes in wiping it out;
> violently if necessary (their history certainly shows that). Perhaps you
> should consider the outcome in Iraq (no WMDs found, a real mess
> currently) and consider that perhaps others may have had some good
> points in their reservations. Maybe we were right, maybe we were wrong,
> but to conclude we don't do the right thing because we are afraid is
> factually wrong and insulting.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.656 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 09/04/2004
>>"Puff Griffis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p%[email protected]...
>>I think that Mrs. Rice might have a shot at the Presidency.
No doubt she is sharp, but IMHO she is not nearly telegenic enough, even
when she is not being beat up by an interviewer, she seems way too
uncomfortable.
-s
In article <1gcait3.15eplghl7lte4N%[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> The threat from terrorism is greater today than it ever has been. The
> underlying roots of terrorism are being nourished and propagated more
> than ever before. No single figure in modern history has done as much to
> legitimize terrorism as a means of combat than George Bush.
>
And his deed yesterday backing Sharon in keeping Jewish
settlements in occupied territory will inspire even more
terrorists.
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> If you do vote and voted for the winner, shut up
> and put up with your decision. Remember the old saying, You made the bed,
> now lay in it. If you voted and lost, you can complain. If you did not
> vote, you may complain because there was no one worth voting. IMHO voting
> for the sake of voting sends the wrong message.
>
And encouraging people to vote who have no idea what's going on
is reprehensible.
Because they were being misused, we threw out any tests for
qualifying a voter. We threw out the baby with the bathwater.
Now we register to vote when we go to the license bureau.
Now we don't even have to go to the polls - we can all mail in
our vote (and maybe a few others as well?).
Television has encouraged all this because the politicians
realized they could use mass marketing techniques on voters and
the stupider the voters the better it worked.
I don't think there is a solution at this point - any attempt to
qualify voters would cause too much of an uproar - by both
parties.
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
In article
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> So let's suppose bush wins in november and
> serves his second term out. He will then be eligible to run for a third
> term. don't you realize that the constitution says that a person can only be
> elected to the presidency twice? if he wasn't elected for the first term, i
> expect all of you to support a third bush presidency run based on your own
> arguement about him not being elected for the first term.
>
Let's just hope he doesn't get that idea :-).
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> >
> > And encouraging people to vote who have no idea what's going on
> > is reprehensible.
>
> Really? So you support that there be a minimum intelligence test in
> order to vote?
>
Yes. Do you believe someone so handicapped they have the
intelligence of a 5 year old should vote? Then let's register
all the 5 year olds :-).
> I'll take the bait - so what would constitute a "qualified" voter?
>
As others have said, knowing the names of some of your elected
reps would be a good start = federal for federal elections,
state for state elections, etc..
And being able to state in a general way what three or more of
the articles in the Bill of Rights are about would be good too.
But then when people were asked to sign a petition that was the
Bill of Rights a while back, they refused and called it
communistic :-).
> Would people get extra credit for being a minority? For being a single
> mom?
Hell, no.
How about points for spelling their name correctly?
By definition, however you spell your name is correct if you can
remember to doit the same way from one time to the next. If
not, see "5 year olds" above :-).
> Negative points if you're a reporter?
>
Now that I could go for if you'll go for double negative points
for politicians :-).
> And just who would determine the qualifications?
>
Aye, there's the rub.
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Nope. Even the police aren't accountable in this country for failing to
> protect someone from crime.
>
It's even worse than that. The courts have held that the cops
have no duty to prevent crime in any way, just to catch the
perps.
So legally a cop can watch someone shoot you without trying to
stop it. All he has to do is arrest the shooter.
And the inmates are running the asylum.
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
In article <VwZfc.6661$0b4.15622@attbi_s51>,
[email protected] says...
> That's what I can't get over in this situation. Granted I may not be
> following news by the hour like some, but I have not heard of any
> information the US had prior to 9/11 that was specific enough to develop a
> plan that would have prevented that catastrophe.
>
I have to agree. As much as I detest Bush and his cronies,
unless the commission can show that some government official
deliberately aided Bin Laden et al, hindsight is a waste of
time. There's always a memo somewhere from someone that wasn't
acted on in any situation like this. It's meaningless.
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> > I like it. I like it alot. However it will never happen. Hell, people
> > don't even have to be living to cast votes in this country.
>
> We practically invented that here in Chicago.
>
> todd
>
I lived in Chicago in the late '50s. We got a new police
commisioner. He told everyone to just throw away their parking
tickets until he got things straightened out, the money was all
getting siphoned off before it got to the city treasury anyway.
The cops in Cicero spent all their time protecting the homes of
mob bosses.
And I got thrown out of (as in physically deposited on the
sidewalk) a steelworkers union meeting for asking when we got to
see a financial statement.
I also sat on the roof of our 3rd floor walkup in Rogers Park
and watched Echo go over.
Those were the "good old days" for no other reason than that
most of my life was still ahead of me :-).
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> This idea that the
> more people you get to the polls the better, is somewhat distressing.
> One would at least hope those going to the polls have a modicum of
> knowledge before casting a vote.
>
We agreed on something!!!
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> In another words, only you and those who think like you are informed voters?
> How distressing!
>
> By the way what makes you think you are so smart?
>
They know who their senator is?
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
Joseph Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
: WELCOME BACK p_j!!!!!!!!!!!!
: Hey all of you guys out there reading the OT post I can already tell you
: where it is headed with p_j. It all the fault of the rich!!! Doesn't matter
: what the discussion is, somewhere some place it is going to be the evil rich
: for everything!!!
Did you download this from Rush's Daily No-Brainer Buzzword site?
Pathetic.
Have you read any of the posts in this (long) thread?
-- Andy Barss
Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
: Plenty. It takes a lack of balls to sit back and say Ouhhh they did not
: mean to run 2 airplanes into out buildings.
Hmmm. I dare you to name one American politican, of any party, who said
anything resembling that.
A lack of balls to sit back
: and let it happen again.
How is the invasion of Iraq, with the subsequent destabilization and
incitement of new recruits to terrorist cells, supposed to keep al Quaeda
from striking again?
A lack of balls to look the other way and ignore
: the obvious.
I reiterate my first question.
: Your so called pissant could be any president as none would do
: what you assume Bush should do.
You're a flack for the RNC, aren't ya?
-- Andy Barss
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
For weeks, Bill, I've tried to ignore your quotes from the most
jingoistic president we've had - even worse than the present
one.
> I think there is only one quality worse than hardness of heart and that is
> softness of head.
> Theodore Roosevelt
>
Now there's a nice meaningless quote - everyone can apply it to
those they disagree with. You can apply it to me and I can
apply it to you. Of course, I'm right :-).
> The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on a level with
> the man who loves other women as much as he loves his own wife.
> Theodore Roosevelt
>
My country right or wrong? Love it or leave it? Nationalism
has been the excuse for almost as many wars as religion has.
> The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is the
> most brutal wrongdoer.
> Theodore Roosevelt
>
Wow! Not only his country, but "all of humanity". Classed with
McVeigh et al. Let's lynch all the Quakers!
If you've absolutely got to quote a politician, how about
Jefferson?
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
In article <xUFfc.146958$w54.963281@attbi_s01>, [email protected]
says...
... snip
>
> the way we've bombed the hell out of iraq for the last decade, littering the
> country with radioactive material,
despite the extreme rhetoric of those who oppose *any* military
action, anywhere for any purpose -- Depleted Uranium does not constitute
"radioactive" material.
> killing civilians, etc... who can blame
who just happened to be manning surface to air missile sites. Seems
Saddaam was the one killing civilians during that decade, one of the
reasons for establishing the no-fly zones.
> a few of them for being pissed off and getting revenge. and i think thats
> all most of this 'uprising' really is no matter what the shurb calls it.
> the simple truth is that we arent going to leave until iraq has 'elected'
> the government we want them to elect. any other party trying to seize power
> will be immediately catagorized and dealt with.
>
> randy
>
>
>
>
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 20:18:35 -0600, George wrote:
> I am not too smart, can you tell me why our leader Bush did not answer a
> single question, but instead he talk about the Iraqi love freedom,
> democracy blah, blah....
I think you answered your own question.
-Doug
--
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always
depend on the support of Paul." - George Bernard Shaw
I look at the differently. If you do vote and voted for the winner, shut up
and put up with your decision. Remember the old saying, You made the bed,
now lay in it. If you voted and lost, you can complain. If you did not
vote, you may complain because there was no one worth voting. IMHO voting
for the sake of voting sends the wrong message. Its an indicator that many
people will vote for anything or any one. I think that the fact that few do
actually vote when compared to the numbers that do not vote is an indicator
that the citizens are seldom given any real "good" choices.
"RB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Unfortunately most of the Americans didn't voter for him because they
> didn't vote...for anyone. They have no right to complain at all.
>
> RB
>
> Leon wrote:
> > "Paul Kierstead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
news:pmkierst-95A2DE.18082514042004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> >
> >>2) We definitely didn't vote for him. In fact, IIRC, the majority of
> >>Americans also did not vote for him.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ain't divine intervention great....
> >
> >
>
[email protected] (Doug) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Sorry, I know this is a WW cite, but I can't help just throwing this
> out there (I'm not the first to defile this cite with political
> musings).
Would that you were the last.
--
FF
"SGL" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> I am getting ready to make a crosscut sled. I was going to make the sled
> out of 3/4" x 2' x 4' material from HD. The types of material they have
> available, that I am considering, are birch, oak, melamine, and MDF.
> I am looking for any opinions on which material to use and why. Thanks
> in advance.
MDF works well for this sort of thing.
--
FF
"xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:58Cfc.139959$gA5.1671688@attbi_s03...
>
> "Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Shawn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > > On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 04:48:58 GMT, Tom Veatch wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:57:13 -0500, "todd" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>The press corps are going to have to come up with the John Kerry
> campaign
> > > >>commercial on their own. The President isn't going to give them
their
> nice
> > > >>soundbyte where he admits fault for 9/11. When President Clinton
> admits his
> > > >>larger share of fault for 9/11, that's when I'll start waiting for
> President
> > > >>Bush's admission.
> > > >>
> > > >>todd
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > I have been of the opinion, since the day it happened, that the
> "fault" for the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers rested 100%
> > on
> > > > the shoulders of the men sitting in the pilot's seat of the airplane
> at the moment of impact. I have seen or heard nothing since
> > > > that date that would influence me to change that opinion.
> > > >
> > > > Tom Veatch
> > > > Wichita, KS USA
> > >
> > > So if you own a business and have a security guard and he's asleep
when
> it
> > > gets robbed and he had been warned that it could be robbed (just not
> given
> > > a date or time), is it still just the robber's fault?
> > >
> >
> > Of course not! It is you, the business owner, who is at fault for not
> taking any measures to prevent the robbery. Forget the fact
> > that you have what you believe to be a qualified, experiences security
> guard on your payroll. You SHOULD have known he would fall
> > asleep, and should have done more to keep him awake.
>
> btw, by this logic, it is clearly the fault of george bush and his
> administration that the terrorists attacked. in fact, the terrorists aren
t
> at fault at all by your way of thinking (or not thinking as i would prefer
> to put it)
>
I was being sarcastic and trying to see what king of response I would get.
I surely do believe the robber is at fault, and is entirely to blame for the
crime. I may also have to get a new security guard as well or maybe a few
large, mean dogs.
Later,
--
Al Reid
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know
for sure that just ain't so." --- Mark Twain
> randy
>
>
"Shawn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 23:25:08 -0500, todd wrote:
>
> > "Shawn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> So if you own a business and have a security guard and he's asleep when
it
> >> gets robbed and he had been warned that it could be robbed (just not
given
> >> a date or time), is it still just the robber's fault?
> >>
> >> Shawn
> >
> > Absolutely not. And if a woman walks down a dark alley that she knows
is
> > dangerous and gets attacked and raped, it's not the rapist's fault
either.
> > I mean, the woman should have known better, right? I'm sure you'd vote
for
> > acquittal if you were on the jury.
> >
> > todd
>
> There may be a missing element to my analogy and yours. I'll use your
> analogy for clarification. Suppose I was with the woman and told her that
> I would protect her (see inauguration oath) and she got raped when we went
> down the alley, while I did little to help her. Yes, the robber is at
> fault for the rape, but I am at fault for not protecting her. Agree?
>
> Shawn
Nope. Even the police aren't accountable in this country for failing to
protect someone from crime. Here in the United States, we blame criminals
for criminal acts. But if we accept your premise, I could say that it's
awfully hard to counter in a couple of hundred days what the previous
administration spent 8 years putting together. But if you read my other
posts, I don't think we could have stopped this if we wanted to, no matter
who was in the White House. Going back for many, many years, we just did
not have an intelligence infrastruction in place to effectively counter this
threat. Even now, we are just beginning to retool our intelligence efforts
to get a better handle.
todd
"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Name either of your US Senators". If you're not engaged in the process
> > enough to know that, well......
> >
>
> I like it. I like it alot. However it will never happen. Hell, people
> don't even have to be living to cast votes in this country.
We practically invented that here in Chicago.
todd
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Sorry, I know this is a WW cite, but I can't help just throwing this
> out there (I'm not the first to defile this cite with political
> musings).
>
> I feel really at ease after hearing W. speak last night. He was
> intelligent, well informed, and clearly on top of the game. I'm so
> proud that we elected Mr. Bush as the leader of the free world. He's
> a model for other leaders! I guess I'm a little disappointed that he
> was unable to come up with something that he would have done
> differently now that he's had a chance to reflect upon 9/11. Let's be
> fair here though. He's only had a few years to think about it, and
> I'm sure he really didn't expect anyone to ask him anything so out of
> left field anyway. It's not like he would have been prepped for
> questions about our failings on 9/11. That hasn't been in the news
> lately or anything. He got the important stuff right. I say, "4 more
> years" Yahoo, go W.!!!!
>
He casts, he trolls, he got quite a few fish!! Har. . .
Kim
"p_j" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1gcjj7a.1m4jmovju5zrN%[email protected]...
> Bill Everette <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I have no doubt that America could take N. Korea. But what would she
do
> > > with it?
> >
> > Turn it back over to South Korea
>
> There's some of Bill's philosophy in a nutshell. People and land belong
> to the state and can be traded like property.
>
> I wonder if he knows about the recent elections in SK. Or better yet
> how SKers view Bush. I suppose not.
>
I wonder if you know about the Korean War?
Did they like us when it served their purpose?
Do you wonder how long SK would last without our protection?
I suppose you would turn it over to China?
--
********************************************************************
I think there is only one quality worse than hardness of heart and that is
softness of head.
Theodore Roosevelt
The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on a level with
the man who loves other women as much as he loves his own wife.
Theodore Roosevelt
The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is the
most brutal wrongdoer.
Theodore Roosevelt
"Shawn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So if you own a business and have a security guard and he's asleep when it
> gets robbed and he had been warned that it could be robbed (just not given
> a date or time), is it still just the robber's fault?
>
> Shawn
Absolutely not. And if a woman walks down a dark alley that she knows is
dangerous and gets attacked and raped, it's not the rapist's fault either.
I mean, the woman should have known better, right? I'm sure you'd vote for
acquittal if you were on the jury.
todd
"xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%TAfc.145063$w54.956957@attbi_s01...
>
> "Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Shawn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > > On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 04:48:58 GMT, Tom Veatch wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:57:13 -0500, "todd" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>The press corps are going to have to come up with the John Kerry
> campaign
> > > >>commercial on their own. The President isn't going to give them
their
> nice
> > > >>soundbyte where he admits fault for 9/11. When President Clinton
> admits his
> > > >>larger share of fault for 9/11, that's when I'll start waiting for
> President
> > > >>Bush's admission.
> > > >>
> > > >>todd
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > I have been of the opinion, since the day it happened, that the
> "fault" for the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers rested 100%
> > on
> > > > the shoulders of the men sitting in the pilot's seat of the airplane
> at the moment of impact. I have seen or heard nothing since
> > > > that date that would influence me to change that opinion.
> > > >
> > > > Tom Veatch
> > > > Wichita, KS USA
> > >
> > > So if you own a business and have a security guard and he's asleep
when
> it
> > > gets robbed and he had been warned that it could be robbed (just not
> given
> > > a date or time), is it still just the robber's fault?
> > >
> >
> > Of course not! It is you, the business owner, who is at fault for not
> taking any measures to prevent the robbery. Forget the fact
> > that you have what you believe to be a qualified, experiences security
> guard on your payroll. You SHOULD have known he would fall
> > asleep, and should have done more to keep him awake.
>
> ill be over to rob you tonight. it wont be my fault. it will be yours
for
> failing to prevent it. you were warned....
If you stop by, be warned, I have a couple of attack cats.
>
> randy
>
>
"p_j" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1gccpfr.17n91vs6lm3f6N%[email protected]...
> todd <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, we should have just put up the force field around Washington and
New
> > York. I'm telling you right now, that any steps we would have taken to
> > prevent 9/11 from happening would have been condemned by the left.
>
> I guess there would have been criticism if you limit yourself to STASSI
> style solutions. The left though? Are you talking about Bernie Sanders
> or the republican party?
>
> > You tell
> > me what the ACLU would have had to say if we decided to put young Arab
men
> > through added scrutiny when entering the country.
>
> The ACLU isn't the left.
You didn't answer the question.
> > Have you actually read the Aug 6 PDB? Bin Laden wanted to target
Washington
> > and the WTC? There's some breaking news.
>
> Bush and Condi claimed ignorance on several of the points in the PDB.
> There were also dozens of other relevant documents.
Specify.
> > Look, I don't care who was in office in September of 2001, no president
> > could have prevented it.
>
> You're BSing or you're delusional. If you think that a dozen agencies
> with budgets that total hundreds of billions of dollars, who were warned
> repeatedly couldn't stop a dozen guys with razor blades, you can only be
> a Bush cultist.
Except that they were hamstrung by a previous administration that apparently
didn't take the threat seriously enough to implement policies that might
have had the effect of upsetting Arab-Americans. The Clinton administration
gutted our intelligence abilities. Do you think Bush came into office and
immediately fired any intelligence operatives that spoke Arabic? They
weren't there when he arrived. You can't turn this stuff around in 8
months. Hell, even now, Tenet says it will take another 5 years.
> > You think things would have been different if Al
> > Gore was president?
>
> Hell yes. I doubt it would have happened.
Now who's delusional? The terrorists were in the country, trained to fly
the planes, and waiting to go while Gore was in office.
> > He was part of the status quo of the previous 8 years
> > that saw our embassies and the Cole bombed and worse yet, our pullout in
> > Somalia.
>
> What did you want to do in Somalia (Bush I's mess by the way)?
Gee, I don't know...not pull out at the first sign of some bloodshed? Al
Queda learned an important lesson there.
> > Our intelligence agencies were hamstrung by law from cooperating
> > enough to put all the pieces together.
>
> Since the 70's...
Thanks for making my point.
> > I'm not at all confident that we
> > could prevent another large attack with the current state of
intelligence.
> > Unfortunately, you can't just snap your fingers and make the collection,
> > dissemination, and analysis of worldwide intelligence happen.
>
> Well, when the leaders are told that Al Qaeda will hijack planes in the
> country, and told repeatedly, and told the basics of security are
> lacking as was done by the Gore Commission or in the Hart/Rudman report,
> you can act. Or you can party and go around and collect bribes which is
> basically what Bush did.
Ah. And this security became lacking on Inauguration Day? The Gore
commission? That was compiled in February of 1997. Didn't Gore get all of
the recommendations implemented? He had almost 3 years after that. Bush
had 8 months. The FBI was telling him they were actively pursuing the
matter.
> > I don't think
> > you could have convinced more than 10-20% of Americans, if that many,
prior
> > to 9/11 that a terrorist organization could have pulled off the
destruction
> > of the WTC.
>
> Because they couldn't believe the gross incompetence of the people
> running the country.
>
> > Consequently, we wouldn't have stood for the changes that would
> > have needed to happen to prevent it.
>
> Again, you trot out the mistaken argument that the US would have to
> switch to fascist rule in order to deter the ever so able handful of
> razor blade wielders.
>
> There are literally dozens of potential solutions that would have
> prevented the loss of the WTC with absolutely no loss of liberties by
> the public. If NOTHING was changed including Bush's utter disdain for
> his job, and NORAD followed the exact same procedures that they had all
> along and have used all along, there would either be one or neither of
> the towers lost. That's not a PC thing to say though.
This is all very easy to say with hindsight. Do you have any idea the
number of threats that this country faces from groups all over the world,
including right here? It's the intelligence agencies job to prioritize
those threats and counter them. Unfortunately, the intelligence community
was not able to confirm and counter the threat in time. Personally, I think
it's pointless to play the blame game at this point. I'd rather focus on
what needs to be changed to prevent the next one. But if you really want to
play the blame game, I can make a much stronger case for lack of action on
the Clinton administration's 8 years than the Bush administration's 8
months. Hell, the Clinton administration was treating Al Queda like the
mob, not a military threat. They wanted to bring them to trial. We didn't
want Bin Laden when the Sudan offered him to us because in Clinton's words,
we didn't have any charge to hold him on. Yeah, we wouldn't want to violate
Osama's civil liberties, would we? Maybe if Clinton had been more focused
on terrorism than getting BJs in the Oval Office, he might have thought
twice about it. Do you disagree or are you drinking the liberal Kool-Aid?
todd
its really weird. but if you look carefully, none of the bush lovers ever
really say anything. they wouldnt dare stick their necks out and make a
'statement'. all they do is repeat, endlessly, that everyone else is wrong.
randy
>
> What is really wierd is the bizarre desparation to defend Bush. No
> amount of evidence matters. More information and people coming out last
> weekend with the same old story. Bush is a liar. Duh. You believe him
> and Rush though. OK.
If we make the analogy of data to dots...
There was apparently a lot of information/data/dots regarding the
activities of the 9/11 perpetrators. The problem was connecting the
dots.
One thing the Patriot Act adds is more dots.
Hindsight is 20/20, of course, but it seems that the last thing we
need is more data to add to what folks already can't wade thru and
glean meaningful insight. Structural changes s.a. more sharing of
info. between agencies, figuring how to wade thru the data in a timely
manner, _some_ additional data (but not at the usurption of our (US)
founding documents like the Bill of RIghts) etc. yes. Gathering up
info. on what books I buy, check out of the library, and in complete
secrecy, is the govmnt sticking their nose in my business, which ain't
any of theirs. Ya see, ole Ashy might decide it's suspect, even
illegal, to get books on that what he defines as an immoral subject.
Renata
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 05:15:52 GMT, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> OK p_j, you've been asked this before and you simply dance around the
>issue. What, exactly, has the Patriot act done that limits *your* civil
>rights? What could be done instead of the Patriot act to prevent the
>occurence of another attack like 9/1l that would not result in even more
>restriction of individual freedoms?
"Keith Carlson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:VwZfc.6661$0b4.15622@attbi_s51...
>
> People are so anxious to "hang" Bush, as someone said... they want to
latch
> onto anything to discredit him. Politics.
The thing that I just can't wrap my head around is this- the dems have such
a hatred for this man and they think the war in Iraq is the key to unhinging
him. Ok, fair enough, give it a shot. But then who do they nominate from
all of the candidates? This guy has no way to explain his many positions on
this war and security. Why do you think nobody is hearing from Kerry at the
moment? He has nothing to say with credibility on this issue. The 9/11
commission is doing his campaigning for him right now. Not to mention he is
the wealthiest member of the senate. It doesn't square up (get it?) with
the hatred of Bush because he is rich. I mean, come on you guys, Howard
Dean was the guy that you all are. Why didn't he get the nomination? What
gives?
> Not that I'm a huge Bush fan (hmmm... maybe "bush" ;-),
Well, at least neatly trimmed.
"p_j" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1gcajpq.12rutlx1ftxadrN%[email protected]...
> Bill Everette <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > What *American* freedoms are they protecting by killing Iraqis in
Iraq?
> > >
> >
> > The same ones we were protecting by fighting Germans in France?
>
> Glad you put that question mark there because the answer is obviously
> no, but it does bring up the fact that some US interests and families
> supported Hitler well into the fighting even though it was illegal. What
> do you think of those people? Should their heirs be allowed to keep
> money from that war profiteering?
Just as bad would be the active desire to appease Hitler in 1938 rather than
confront him, as Joseph Kennedy did. I don't have to explain the cost we
endured for that short-sighted decision.
todd
I think that Mrs. Rice might have a shot at the Presidency. From all =
that I have read about her she is an intelligent, well read and well =
spoken person who has handled herself well in a very bad situation. =
Besides that it's time the USA elects a woman Prez and she sure would be =
my pick over the left's choice.
Puff
"Pop Rivet" <[email protected]> wrote in message =
news:[email protected]...
> You really should precede your subject with "OT" when you go off topic =
-
> some purists get pretty upset when you don't announce it.
>=20
> I think you and I are in for a LOT of flaming, because I cannot help, =
much
> as I usually ignore OT's, esp political ones, joining you with an =
"ATABOY
> GW!"
> Actually, I don't blame him for more or less ignoring the Something =
Done
> Different" question. No matter what he said, it would have taken a
> direction that would have started one of those "by his own admission" =
witch
> hunts. I expect better of good journalists.
>=20
> I've listened to the Congressional hearings the last couple of days =
too and
> I have to add that I'm wondering if we aren't seeing a presidential
> candidate in the making in Condolesa (SP?) Rice in about 8 years. =
Between
> her testimony and Bush's speech last nite, there's lots of stuff there =
to
> bring the right people together to benefit the whole free world and =
then
> some.
>=20
> Pop
>=20
>=20
>=20
> "Doug" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Sorry, I know this is a WW cite, but I can't help just throwing this
> > out there (I'm not the first to defile this cite with political
> > musings).
> >
> > I feel really at ease after hearing W. speak last night. He was
> > intelligent, well informed, and clearly on top of the game. I'm so
> > proud that we elected Mr. Bush as the leader of the free world. =
He's
> > a model for other leaders! I guess I'm a little disappointed that =
he
> > was unable to come up with something that he would have done
> > differently now that he's had a chance to reflect upon 9/11. Let's =
be
> > fair here though. He's only had a few years to think about it, and
> > I'm sure he really didn't expect anyone to ask him anything so out =
of
> > left field anyway. It's not like he would have been prepped for
> > questions about our failings on 9/11. That hasn't been in the news
> > lately or anything. He got the important stuff right. I say, "4 =
more
> > years" Yahoo, go W.!!!!
>=20
>
"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Didn't anyone notice how paritsan the questions were? Geez, the white
> house
> > press corps isn't even trying to pretend that they are non-partisan any
> > more. Apparently all bets are off. It's a sad situation really. I
> thought
> > reporters and journalists were supposed to report the facts and let the
> > public form their own opinions. It's as if the media nowadays has their
> own
> > agenda.
>
> That could be. I'd also suggest that the White House is very controlling
of
> the media. Many of the press questions are submitted beforehand, as Dumbya
> unwittingly let on. The whole charade is scripted. Reporters aren't given
> much of a chance to ask tough questions. If they do they're barred from
> future press conferences. Look what happened to Helen Thomas.
The same thing that happened to Sam Donaldson during the Clinton
administration.
> Some of my favourite hightlights from the press conference:
>
> - Calling Rumsfeld Secretary of State
>
> - "we assumed oceans would protect us"
>
> - "Most of Iraq is relatively stable"
>
> - "This has been tough weeks in that country (sic)"
>
> - "I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I
could
> plan for it."
>
> - "I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this
press
> conference with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but
it
> hadn't [sic] yet,"
>
> - Referring to the Aug 6th memo as containing no "actionable
intelligence",
> even though it lists Washington and the WTC as targets.
Yeah, we should have just put up the force field around Washington and New
York. I'm telling you right now, that any steps we would have taken to
prevent 9/11 from happening would have been condemned by the left. You tell
me what the ACLU would have had to say if we decided to put young Arab men
through added scrutiny when entering the country. They would have been
standing in federal court 5 seconds later arguing that it was racial
profiling.
Have you actually read the Aug 6 PDB? Bin Laden wanted to target Washington
and the WTC? There's some breaking news. Thank God Dick Clark's on the
job! What are you going to do based on that infomation? The PDB says that
the FBI alone was conducting 70 field investigations in the US. If I had
read that memo in Aug of 2001, I'd have said "tell me something I don't
already know". The memo makes it appear that the FBI was working on it.
Look, I don't care who was in office in September of 2001, no president
could have prevented it. You think things would have been different if Al
Gore was president? He was part of the status quo of the previous 8 years
that saw our embassies and the Cole bombed and worse yet, our pullout in
Somalia. Our intelligence agencies were hamstrung by law from cooperating
enough to put all the pieces together. I'm not at all confident that we
could prevent another large attack with the current state of intelligence.
Unfortunately, you can't just snap your fingers and make the collection,
dissemination, and analysis of worldwide intelligence happen. I don't think
you could have convinced more than 10-20% of Americans, if that many, prior
to 9/11 that a terrorist organization could have pulled off the destruction
of the WTC. Consequently, we wouldn't have stood for the changes that would
have needed to happen to prevent it. Sadly, only after the WTC was
destroyed do we understand the threat here in the US.
todd
You really should precede your subject with "OT" when you go off topic -
some purists get pretty upset when you don't announce it.
I think you and I are in for a LOT of flaming, because I cannot help, much
as I usually ignore OT's, esp political ones, joining you with an "ATABOY
GW!"
Actually, I don't blame him for more or less ignoring the Something Done
Different" question. No matter what he said, it would have taken a
direction that would have started one of those "by his own admission" witch
hunts. I expect better of good journalists.
I've listened to the Congressional hearings the last couple of days too and
I have to add that I'm wondering if we aren't seeing a presidential
candidate in the making in Condolesa (SP?) Rice in about 8 years. Between
her testimony and Bush's speech last nite, there's lots of stuff there to
bring the right people together to benefit the whole free world and then
some.
Pop
"Doug" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sorry, I know this is a WW cite, but I can't help just throwing this
> out there (I'm not the first to defile this cite with political
> musings).
>
> I feel really at ease after hearing W. speak last night. He was
> intelligent, well informed, and clearly on top of the game. I'm so
> proud that we elected Mr. Bush as the leader of the free world. He's
> a model for other leaders! I guess I'm a little disappointed that he
> was unable to come up with something that he would have done
> differently now that he's had a chance to reflect upon 9/11. Let's be
> fair here though. He's only had a few years to think about it, and
> I'm sure he really didn't expect anyone to ask him anything so out of
> left field anyway. It's not like he would have been prepped for
> questions about our failings on 9/11. That hasn't been in the news
> lately or anything. He got the important stuff right. I say, "4 more
> years" Yahoo, go W.!!!!
In article <160420041610211571%[email protected]>,
"G.E.R.R.Y." <[email protected]> wrote:
> The only injury he's likely to suffer is maybe burning
> himself on his BBQ or trip over a microphone stand.
Well....there are always pretzels.
In article <[email protected]>,
"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 1) Us poor people up here in Kunuckistan don't really consider him our
> > leader, even if he does have nukes and might be inclined to use them if
> > he ever finds out how much oil we got.
>
>
> It is so easy to distance yourself from unpleasant things which must be done
> no matter how you benefit from them (this is not sarcasm).
Yes, I do understand, really. I am really proud of America. Electing
Dubya is indeed most unpleasant and must be a great cross to bear. We
would never have the stomach for it.
Come to think of it, Dubya must be the leader of the free world. The
great and all-seeing president rules us all and we shall all bow before
him.
No wait, he isn't our leader. I guess we aren't free.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Doug) wrote:
> I feel really at ease after hearing W. speak last night. He was
> intelligent, well informed, and clearly on top of the game. I'm so
> proud that we elected Mr. Bush as the leader of the free world.
Hmmm...can never tell if you guys are serious or sarcastic.
If you'll allow that the US of A is not the _only_ free country in the
world (though even that might be somewhat debatable in light of the
PATRIOT act), I ask you to consider:
1) Us poor people up here in Kunuckistan don't really consider him our
leader, even if he does have nukes and might be inclined to use them if
he ever finds out how much oil we got.
2) We definitely didn't vote for him. In fact, IIRC, the majority of
Americans also did not vote for him.
This calls seriously into question two of your assertions, both the "of
the free world" bit and the "elected" bit.
Just so you knew, eh?
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 00:05:36 -0500, "todd" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Name a country we have tampered with that held elections that the UN
>recognized.
Haiti - Removal of Pres Aristide.
Venezuela - Overthrow Venezuela President Chavez?
"George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 00:05:36 -0500, "todd" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >Name a country we have tampered with that held elections that the UN
> >recognized.
>
> Haiti - Removal of Pres Aristide.
Not according to US Ambassador James Foley who spoke to him at length before
he left. Apparently, it looked better after he was safely out of the
country to claim that he had been forced out. Another case of damned if you
do, damned if you don't.
> Venezuela - Overthrow Venezuela President Chavez?
You have some proof of this, other than Chavez's rantings? This comes from
a guy who referred to Condi Rice as "illiterate" and seeks to invalidate the
opposition's petition for a referendum on his resignation. You can disagree
with Condi, but it's a stretch to call her illiterate. It's popular
nowadays when you have internal problems to claim that the US is behind it.
todd
In article <[email protected]>,
"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote:
> It is sad indeed how Canada turned it's back on her old ally.
> France, sure we expected that. Germany, we expect that too. Russia, well
> duh! But we all thought that Canada could be counted on. Well Canada has
> sure shown her colors in this one. Don't give it another thought. We'll
> do what needs to be done with or without you. We don't even ask for thanks
> when our soldiers and our real allies soldiers are dying on the battlefield
> at this very minute to protect the freedoms that you and I both enjoy.
I am sorry to hear you say that. Canadian soldiers are fighting and
dying right now in Afganistan because we _do_ believe in your cause. I
think you will find very few Canadians who do not believe that terrorism
poses a real threat and that someone -- including them -- needs to do
something about it.
Canada did not turn its back on America; it just believed (and still
believes, if you read our polls) that invading Iraq was not going to
achieve -- or even further -- that goal. In fact, a recent poll in
Canada revealed that a very large number of Canadians (I believe a
majority, but not 100% sure) believed that invading Iraq will actually
worsen the problem, not improve it. Canadians did not believe in the
WMDs and did not believe that Iraq posed a real threat. That is all. We
did not abandon you, we simply do not agree with your method in this
case. As I said, Dubya is NOT leader of the free world; he is leader of
the US, perhaps, but other countries have differing opinions on what
best to do about it. I think you will find France has a lot of
experience with terrorism and also firmly believes in wiping it out;
violently if necessary (their history certainly shows that). Perhaps you
should consider the outcome in Iraq (no WMDs found, a real mess
currently) and consider that perhaps others may have had some good
points in their reservations. Maybe we were right, maybe we were wrong,
but to conclude we don't do the right thing because we are afraid is
factually wrong and insulting.
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:54:46 -0600, "xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote:
>its really weird. but if you look carefully, none of the bush lovers ever
>really say anything. they wouldnt dare stick their necks out and make a
>'statement'. all they do is repeat, endlessly, that everyone else is wrong.
Yesterday I met a friend of ours while we were waiting for our kids after
school. "X," is very religious had been trying for years trying to convert us
(by the way, I was a Protestant). My family except me did attend their church
for sometimes and stopped until they realized being religious does not necessary
make one a good person. While we were talking about the kid's future, "X" had
decided to send the kid to Aerospace enggr. I told "X" to reconsider as I see
hard time ahead especially in the aviation downturn. "X" responds was the future
will be very bright for the defense industries. I was stun!
To cut the long story short. "X" still maintains that Saddam was responsible for
9/11 and we defended ourself cuz Iraq attacked us.
I almost die of heart attack!
As I see the young men and women die needlessly, It reminds me of Peter, Paul
and Mary's 60's song "How many tears...."
>randy
"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > "xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in messag
>
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > > i wont waste my time. you might have to use logic and think to
follow
> > me.
> > > > since you cant get past my other example (which by the way would be
> > > equally
> > > > valid if i changed the words iraq to pink elephants, us to purple
> > posies,
> > > > and china to freckled frogs, my point is the same and has nothing to
> do
> > > with
> > > > the names used) i wont even start in on this one.
> > > >
> > > > randy
> > >
> > > Based on this response, I'll just assume you were talking out of your
> ass
> > > earlier. Thanks for clarifying.
> > >
> > > todd
> >
> > i agree. you should assume that. it will be better for both of us this
> > way.
> >
> > randy
>
> Agreed. It sure beats backing up your own statement, which I'm forced to
> conclude if you could, you would have by now.
>
> todd
todd, ive been down this road on the newsgroups several times and i would
like to think ive learned something. any media source i quote will be from
the 'liberal' media. i could state 10 right things and get one thing wrong,
and even though none of the things are dependant on each other, somehow if
one is wrong all are wrong. ill have to get into pissing contests over
grammar. ill be personally ridiculed. nobody is gonna change their minds.
and most of all, you are never going to be wrong. your sources
unimpeachable. your statements, gospel. youve already proven this. you
never addressed my question about how the people of the us would react if
the same situation was upon them. you asked your question instead. all
ready to apply all of the above tactics to 'defeat' me. when george gave
examples you pushed them aside with a wave of your all knowing all seeing
hand. in short, you arent worthy of my time.
so im not going there. if you dont think the united states has used
military force and financial support to control which governments were put
into power in the hands of those they wanted, i will never convince you. if
you dont think our government manipulates language to suit its needs, i cant
change that view.
peace
randy
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > > I like it. I like it alot. However it will never happen. Hell,
people
> > > don't even have to be living to cast votes in this country.
> >
> > We practically invented that here in Chicago.
> >
> > todd
> >
> I lived in Chicago in the late '50s. We got a new police
> commisioner. He told everyone to just throw away their parking
> tickets until he got things straightened out, the money was all
> getting siphoned off before it got to the city treasury anyway.
>
> The cops in Cicero spent all their time protecting the homes of
> mob bosses.
>
> And I got thrown out of (as in physically deposited on the
> sidewalk) a steelworkers union meeting for asking when we got to
> see a financial statement.
>
> I also sat on the roof of our 3rd floor walkup in Rogers Park
> and watched Echo go over.
>
> Those were the "good old days" for no other reason than that
> most of my life was still ahead of me :-).
>
> --
> Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
Well, things are a lot different now. Richard Daley is the mayor of Chicago
and the last town president of Cicero, Betty Loren-Maltese, was sent to the
federal pen for 8 years for "a mob-related scheme that swindled the
corruption-plagued suburb of of $12 million in insurance premiums".
Errr......well, at least one thing has changed...the Echo satellite fell out
of orbit in 1968.
todd
todd
"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "p_j" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:1gcfmtg.9s0wojyq0jpcN%[email protected]...
> > todd <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > take it one step further. say russia and china came in to help
> > > overthrow
> > > > > > the president on the basis that he never won a valid election.
> hell
> > > the
> > > > > US
> > > > > > interferes with other countries all the time because the
> 'elections
> > > were
> > > > > > tampered with'.
> > > > >
> > > > > Name a country we have tampered with that held elections that the
UN
> > > > > recognized.
> > > >
> > > > What's the question? I don't get the UN recognized part.
> > >
> > > I'm asking you to back up your statement that the US has interfered in
> > > another country after elections we didn't like. I'm trying to draw a
> > > distinction between a legitimate election and one in, say, Zimbabwe,
> where
> > > Mugabe wins reelection, but is not recognized by the US and the EU.
So,
> > > other than a place like Zimbabwe, where most of the world believes the
> > > election was rigged, name a country that we interfered with. Is this
a
> > > difficult question? I'm trying to get you to support your statement.
> >
> > Its not my statement, but if you want to find a history of the US
> > interfering in elections, that's not hard. Obviously you won't get
> > recent history because it is secret and citizens are not allowed to know
> > what crimes their government commits.
> >
> > Why don't you make some effort? Educate yourself on why in the 70's
> > restrictions were put on the CIA. Don't read Taliban/RNC news sources if
> > you are interested in the truth (obviously).
>
> Damn, even another poster gave a try at pointing out Haiti. It was wrong,
> but at least he tried.
>
> todd
the all knowing todd has spoken
<gong>
randy
"Phillip Hallam-Baker"
> And the relevance to woodworking would be what?
>
> Ah yes, Dufus is dumber than a post and the Canadians club baby seals to
death.
>
> Perhaps someone from up north could tell us whether they allow the use
> of aluminium bats or whether they follow the major league rules and
> require the use of wooden bats.
>
> Perhaps one of the right wing Republicans on the list could post a
> template for a turning a Canadian seal killing club on a lathe. They
> could modify the pattern they use for making clubs for trolls.
So now you'd like to tell Canadians how to run their country?
And you probably don't want the US to be the world's police either, do you?
Club away Canadians!
Can we start clubbing liberals? I'll use aluminum! To hell with the Major
league rules.
--
********************************************************************
I think there is only one quality worse than hardness of heart and that is
softness of head.
Theodore Roosevelt
The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on a level with
the man who loves other women as much as he loves his own wife.
Theodore Roosevelt
The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is the
most brutal wrongdoer.
Theodore Roosevelt
"Paul Kierstead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:pmkierst-8D2D93.18435514042004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
> Yes, I do understand, really. I am really proud of America. Electing
> Dubya is indeed most unpleasant and must be a great cross to bear. We
> would never have the stomach for it.
>
> Come to think of it, Dubya must be the leader of the free world. The
> great and all-seeing president rules us all and we shall all bow before
> him.
>
> No wait, he isn't our leader. I guess we aren't free.
Yeah, just about what I expected. It's fine, joke all you want. The truth
is that someone has to stand up and wipe out the terrorist threat that the
world faces. It is sad indeed how Canada turned it's back on her old ally.
France, sure we expected that. Germany, we expect that too. Russia, well
duh! But we all thought that Canada could be counted on. Well Canada has
sure shown her colors in this one. Don't give it another thought. We'll
do what needs to be done with or without you. We don't even ask for thanks
when our soldiers and our real allies soldiers are dying on the battlefield
at this very minute to protect the freedoms that you and I both enjoy.
Your American friend
Frank
BTW, if Canada is attacked by anyone, who do you think is going to be the
first one there to help?
It hurts me deeply that you dislike my signature.
Bill
--
********************************************************************
I think there is only one quality worse than hardness of heart and that is
softness of head.
Theodore Roosevelt
The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on a level with
the man who loves other women as much as he loves his own wife.
Theodore Roosevelt
The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is the
most brutal wrongdoer.
Theodore Roosevelt
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>
> For weeks, Bill, I've tried to ignore your quotes from the most
> jingoistic president we've had - even worse than the present
> one.
>
> > I think there is only one quality worse than hardness of heart and that
is
> > softness of head.
> > Theodore Roosevelt
> >
> Now there's a nice meaningless quote - everyone can apply it to
> those they disagree with. You can apply it to me and I can
> apply it to you. Of course, I'm right :-).
>
> > The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on a level
with
> > the man who loves other women as much as he loves his own wife.
> > Theodore Roosevelt
> >
> My country right or wrong? Love it or leave it? Nationalism
> has been the excuse for almost as many wars as religion has.
>
> > The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is
the
> > most brutal wrongdoer.
> > Theodore Roosevelt
> >
> Wow! Not only his country, but "all of humanity". Classed with
> McVeigh et al. Let's lynch all the Quakers!
>
> If you've absolutely got to quote a politician, how about
> Jefferson?
>
> --
> Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
In article <1gccxe0.18ubhrq159qvugN%[email protected]>,
[email protected] (p_j) wrote:
> "The Bush family fortune came from the Third Reich." - John Loftus,
> former Justice Department Nazi war crimes investigator
But the more significant truth of their treason (which funded the
killing of two cousins and an uncle of mine at the Battle of the Bulge)
is that their "Third Reich" fortune was gained in their role as
intermediary for the Roman Catholic Church (whose Croatian and Vatican
priesthood later facilitated, with their CIA's oversight, Operation
Ratline) and its correspondent banker, Rockefeller (whose father had
earlier built Standard Oil's monopoly through murder and arson) whose
Council on Foreign Relations lied to us about our need to go to Rome's
Vietnam after its CIA had murdered JFK for ordering us out.
Prescott Bus(c)h, whose father-in-law was a Rockefeller lieutenant,
began funding the author of "I Paid Hitler," papal baron and fellow
"Knight of Malta," Fritz "The Rockefeller of Germany" Thyssen, only
after the Roman Catholic Council of Bishops at Fulda withdrew their
threat of excommunication against those Germans who would vote for the
Nazi Party...ensuring Hitler's election.
N.B. All posers, Nazis, mental midgets, traitors, and "old women:"
please killfile this post.
--
Doors - Locks - Weatherstripping
POB 250121 Atlanta GA 30325
404/626-2840
> > I guess this is what I don't understand. We have dismantled terrorist
> > networks and continue to capture/kill terrorists by our actions in Iraq.
>
> There seems to be a tendency to lump anyone who is fighting the occupation
> as a terrorist. Let's do a role reversal here. If Russia or China invaded
> the US and you and your friends decided to fight back and defend yourself
> against the occupiers, would that make you a terrorist? Insurgent?
Evildoer?
> Deadender? Bush loyalist?
take it one step further. say russia and china came in to help overthrow
the president on the basis that he never won a valid election. hell the US
interferes with other countries all the time because the 'elections were
tampered with'. i dont think it would have been entirely unreasonable for
the UN or someone to come in and say 'these elections are invalid and we are
going to use force to prevent you from seizing the government of the united
states.'
what would you call the people who were glad someone was stepping in? what
would you call the people who wanted george to remain president? what would
you call the people who came in to straighten things out?
it all depends on what side you are on.
the way we've bombed the hell out of iraq for the last decade, littering the
country with radioactive material, killing civilians, etc... who can blame
a few of them for being pissed off and getting revenge. and i think thats
all most of this 'uprising' really is no matter what the shurb calls it.
the simple truth is that we arent going to leave until iraq has 'elected'
the government we want them to elect. any other party trying to seize power
will be immediately catagorized and dealt with.
randy
> It's not like he would have been prepped for
questions about our failings on 9/11
Can I sell you a nice used Harbor Freight band saw?????????
--
Rumpty
"Doug" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sorry, I know this is a WW cite, but I can't help just throwing this
> out there (I'm not the first to defile this cite with political
> musings).
>
> I feel really at ease after hearing W. speak last night. He was
> intelligent, well informed, and clearly on top of the game. I'm so
> proud that we elected Mr. Bush as the leader of the free world. He's
> a model for other leaders! I guess I'm a little disappointed that he
> was unable to come up with something that he would have done
> differently now that he's had a chance to reflect upon 9/11. Let's be
> fair here though. He's only had a few years to think about it, and
> I'm sure he really didn't expect anyone to ask him anything so out of
> left field anyway. It's not like he would have been prepped for
> questions about our failings on 9/11. That hasn't been in the news
> lately or anything. He got the important stuff right. I say, "4 more
> years" Yahoo, go W.!!!!
WELCOME BACK p_j!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hey all of you guys out there reading the OT post I can already tell you
where it is headed with p_j. It all the fault of the rich!!! Doesn't matter
what the discussion is, somewhere some place it is going to be the evil rich
for everything!!! (just wanted to save everyone the time of waiting for the
climacting ending). Have a great Smedley day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"p_j" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1gcala4.1tyybdc1eb0o3zN%[email protected]...
> Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > You really don't get it,,huh?
> >
> > Remember the building that was blown up in Oklahoma up by an American?
Did
> > you think that we should have had another civil war because of that.
You go
> > after the governments that pose a threat.
>
> Which would leave Iraq out.
>
> --
>
> Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley
> Butler, USMC.
>
> "War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as
> something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a
> small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the
> benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.
>
> ...
>
> "I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil
> interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the
> National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping
> of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall
> Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua
> for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I
> brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in
> 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way
> unmolested."