On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 04:11:58 GMT, "Dan White"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>A. John Kerry was for both of those wars before he was against them.
1. John Kerry had the guts to fight for his country before
realizing that it was not his country he was being asked
to fight for.
2. You are lying about the second war.
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 23:25:39 GMT, "Dan White"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>uh? When you go to that site an audio clip entitled "John Kerry Flip Flop
>Audio, Cut 2." It has nothing to do with the Bush clips. I didn't even
>play those clips. Why don't you have another listen and let me know whether
>I was "lying" about Kerry's support of the war before he was against it.
>This clip was from Meet the Press.
You mean the one where he said that based on what later
proved to be lies about Saddam's activities by Bush and
his fellow propagandists, he said that Saddam should be
held accountable ? Or do you have a nice little spin for
that from your junkie hero ?
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 17:20:28 -0400, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 23:42:42 GMT, "Dan White"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>Really? Explain this one away:
>>
>>http://www.gop.com/News/MultiMedia/VideoPlayer.aspx?ID=907&T=3
>>
>>lol,
>
> What, a GOP site playing a sequence of Bush lies is
> supposed to "explain" anything other than the fact
> that Bush has more problems with truth than PT Barnum ?
> It sure as heck doesn't take much to put one over on
> you, does it ?
Wow, how did Bush get Kerry to say all those things? Bush lies in
Kerry's voice?
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 20:43:40 -0400, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 23:25:39 GMT, "Dan White"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>uh? When you go to that site an audio clip entitled "John Kerry Flip Flop
>>Audio, Cut 2." It has nothing to do with the Bush clips. I didn't even
>>play those clips. Why don't you have another listen and let me know whether
>>I was "lying" about Kerry's support of the war before he was against it.
>>This clip was from Meet the Press.
>
>
> You mean the one where he said that based on what later
> proved to be lies about Saddam's activities by Bush and
> his fellow propagandists, he said that Saddam should be
> held accountable ? Or do you have a nice little spin for
> that from your junkie hero ?
Ah, I see the problem now.
lie = deliberately telling an untruth, as in "I did not have sex with that
woman"
In the case cited above, the problem was not deliberately misleading
people, it was acting on the best available intelligence information that
turned out to be wrong. Using incorrect information when one has no way of
knowing does not equal a lie.
Unfortunately that intelligence information was incorrect. If we had
known that, Saddam and sons could still be happily ensconced in their
little kingdom, sawing peoples' hands off, running them alive through
plastic shredders and committing mass killings while their friends the
French continued to profit from the oil for thugs program.
<http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135652,00.html> (Yeah, I know it's
Fox -- don't worry, there are pictures too)
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 20:23:32 -0700, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 19:44:02 -0700, Mark & Juanita
><[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>
>Uh, this one's for you.
>http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/JamiesHooker.jpg
I guess we're even in the spewed beverage department.
Dang, where's the windex?
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 14:46:40 -0400, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 04:11:58 GMT, "Dan White"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>A. John Kerry was for both of those wars before he was against them.
>
> 2. You are lying about the second war.
So was he, then. You don't _really_ need the details of the quote posted,
do you?
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:36:28 -0400, Renata <[email protected]> wrote:
> And we could have $225 billion more to give folks another tax cut.
Are you saying the money spent on the war just evaporated? Here I thougth
it was, you know, _spent_. You know, to employ people and buy stuff.
Dave Hinz
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> I like much of the Libertarian party, but drug legalization is a deal
> breaker for me.
>
Actually, legalization makes sense. All we did during Prohibition was
make gangsters rich, now we're making another set rich. Legalize it,
pass it out for free or at cost, and the profit goes out of it. All the
drug lords would have to become gun runners or some such. Then we could
start treating the addicts to cure them.
The people who fought the hardest against repeal were the bootleggers.
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 01:50:56 GMT, Dan White <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> VOTE LIBERTARIAN ON NOVEMBER 2, 2004 OR YOU WON'T CHANGE ANYTHING.
>
> I like much of the Libertarian party, but drug legalization is a deal
> breaker for me.
I can overlook some of the problems in a platform if the overall message
is more of a match with my personal point of view than another party's
overall message. But, what stops the Libertarian Party from getting anywhere,
in my opinion, is the lack of _local_ and _state_ elected offices being
run for. If they're running, they're pretty quiet about it. They need to
get those positions in place first, get their people some exposure to
the public, build support that way. Going for the top, without a
foundation to build on, will doom them to the 1 or 2% range forever.
Dave Hinz
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:36:28 -0400, Renata <[email protected]>
> "Excess regulation and government spending destroy jobs and increase
> unemployment. Every regulator we fire results in the creation of over
> 150 new jobs, enough to hire the ex-regulator, the unemployed, and
> the able-bodied poor." -Michael Badnarik
>
> VOTE LIBERTARIAN ON NOVEMBER 2, 2004 OR YOU WON'T CHANGE ANYTHING.
>
I like much of the Libertarian party, but drug legalization is a deal
breaker for me.
dwhite
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 18:38:11 -0400, DamnYankee <[email protected]>
wrote:
>You Sir, are *grossly* misinformed.
You, sir, are in fantasy land.
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 19:44:02 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> calmly ranted:
Uh, this one's for you.
http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/JamiesHooker.jpg
--
"If the promise of the Declaration of Independence is ever to be fulfilled,
it will be the Libertarian Party which fulfills it. If the Constitution is
ever again treated as what it calls itself "The Supreme Law of the Land"
then it will be the Libertarian Party which forces it to be treated that
way. The Republicans and Democrats wont do it. So the future of the
Libertarian Party is tied to the future of America. If we go down, it
goes down with us. If America gets itself back onto the right course,
it will be our hands on the tiller." --Michael Badnarik
"Scott Cramer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dan (Black &) White wrote:
>
> >A. John Kerry was for both of those wars before he was against them.
>
> Four years of G. Walker Bush's tunnel vision seems to have you convinced
> that there is something inherently wrong with changing one's opinion.
>
> Stubbornness is not strength - but it's often stupidity.
>
Scott (Cosmo) Cramer:
C'mon man it was a joke. But since you mentioned it, can't you see that
Kerry's positions have been purely motivated by getting himself moved up
ahead of Dean in the polls? It is pretty well documented. Do you really
think Kerry's change in position was due to some sort of enlightenment?
Politicians in general rely on the electorate's gullibility and lack of time
to research the issues. Kerry's no different.
dwhite
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 19:44:02 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> In the case cited above, the problem was not deliberately misleading
>people, it was acting on the best available intelligence information that
>turned out to be wrong. Using incorrect information when one has no way of
>knowing does not equal a lie.
That's bull. First, the administration put pressure on analysts
to tilt their analyses. Second, by the time Bush started talking
about aluminum tubes to be used for nucular blowguns, that and
sundry other Tales of Fantasy were being discounted by most
level-headed people. In other words, people outside the
administration. The administration, on the other hand, was hell-
bent to kick off a kick-ass war (of course, most of the adminis -
ation has never been in a war, least of all in the military) so they
gave a flying f**k about the lack of any real evidence justifying
an attack on Iraq.
it.
Scott Cramer <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<1098359899.hz0go+Sy4nh87h3b/Vi6iw@teranews>...
> Joke of the day from rec.humor.funny:
>
>
> Q. What's the difference between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War?
>
> A. George W. Bush had a plan to get out of the Vietnam War.
I thought the above was pretty funny so I put it in another NG and got
this one in return......
George W. Bush has a heart attack and dies. He goes to hell, where
the devil is waiting for him. "I don't know what to do here," says the
devil. "You're on my list,but I have no room for you. You definitely
have to stay here, so I'll tell you what I'm going to do. I've got
three folks here who weren't quite as bad as you. I'll let one of them
go, but you have to take their place. I'll even let YOU decide who
leaves." George thought that sounded pretty good, so he agreed. The
devil opened the first room. In it was Richard Nixon and a large pool
of water. He kept diving in and surfacing empty-handed over and over
again. Such was his fate in hell. "No!", George said. "I don't think
so. I'm not a good swimmer and I don't think I could do that all day
long." The devil led him to the next room. In it was Tony Blair with a
sledge hammer and a room full of rocks. All he did was swing that
hammer, time ater time after time. "No, I've got this problem with my
shoulder. I would be in constant agony if all I could do was break
rocks all day," said George. The devil opened a third door. In it,
George saw Bill Clinton, lying on the floor with his arms folded
behind his head, and his legs staked in a spread eagle pose. Bent over
him was Monica Lewinski, doing what she does best. George Bush looked
at this in disbelief for a while and
finally said, "Yeah, I can handle this." The devil smiled and
said.........."OK, Monica, you're free to go!"
[email protected] (dteckie) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> C'mon people does it really matter which clown gets to run this
> country. They already turned the election into a circus. Whoever gets
> into office has no choice but to raise taxes and figure out how to get
> out of Iraq without our heads between our ass like Nam. If we just run
> like Nam it will only reinforce the terrorists and Arabs who believe
> we are evil and that they can kick our buttts and are free to commit
> more terrorrist acts. Afghanistan will fall back to fanatics and
> anything that was accomplished getting will be forgotten history.
> Like Nam it's extremely difficult and costs American lives when the
> enemy has no rules and the our battles are controlled and directed by
> lawyers and politicians ("collatteral damage"). The only difference
> between Nam and Iraq is the enenmy looks different and our soldiers
> can return home proud wearing their uniforms. Not like when we
> returned from Nam and were told not to wear our uniforms going home
> because of protesters(like Kerry ) spitting at you . This year is the
> most difficult decision as to who to vote for
> Which clown will you pick?
I think EVERYBODY agrees we can't just leave without doing everything
possible to fix the situation(s). The question seems to be do we want
to continue following the leader who got us into this crappy situation
to begin with, and will probably get us into even more, crappier
situations.
Sam wrote:
> Scott Cramer <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<1098359899.hz0go+Sy4nh87h3b/Vi6iw@teranews>...
>
>>Joke of the day from rec.humor.funny:
>>
>>
>>Q. What's the difference between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War?
>>
>>A. George W. Bush had a plan to get out of the Vietnam War.
>
>
> I thought the above was pretty funny so I put it in another NG and got
> this one in return......
>
> George W. Bush has a heart attack and dies. He goes to hell, where
> the devil is waiting for him. "I don't know what to do here," says the
> devil. "You're on my list,but I have no room for you. You definitely
> have to stay here, so I'll tell you what I'm going to do. I've got
> three folks here who weren't quite as bad as you. I'll let one of them
> go, but you have to take their place. I'll even let YOU decide who
> leaves." George thought that sounded pretty good, so he agreed. The
> devil opened the first room. In it was Richard Nixon and a large pool
> of water. He kept diving in and surfacing empty-handed over and over
> again. Such was his fate in hell. "No!", George said. "I don't think
> so. I'm not a good swimmer and I don't think I could do that all day
> long." The devil led him to the next room. In it was Tony Blair with a
> sledge hammer and a room full of rocks. All he did was swing that
> hammer, time ater time after time. "No, I've got this problem with my
> shoulder. I would be in constant agony if all I could do was break
> rocks all day," said George. The devil opened a third door. In it,
> George saw Bill Clinton, lying on the floor with his arms folded
> behind his head, and his legs staked in a spread eagle pose. Bent over
> him was Monica Lewinski, doing what she does best. George Bush looked
> at this in disbelief for a while and
> finally said, "Yeah, I can handle this." The devil smiled and
> said.........."OK, Monica, you're free to go!"
ROTFL!!!
GregP wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 03:21:14 GMT, "Dan White"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Are you really arguing that Kerry hasn't changed his position on Iraq? Are
>>you that gullible?
>
>
>
> Bush has changed his position on Eyeraq a hell of a lot more
> than Kerry has. And he's responsible for some 10,000 maimed,
> blinded, crippled, and dead Americans while doing so. So
> why this fetish of yours with Mr. Kerry ? Need to have someone
> else to divert attention from the real problem ?? Or is it that you
> haven't been satisified yet with the amount of blood shed on
> behalf of this administration's fantasies ?
>
You Sir, are *grossly* misinformed.
If you talked to some Iraqis as I do, you'd learn that as of today:
1. more kids are going to school than ever before in Iraq's history
2. more homes have electricity than ever before in Iraq's history
3. more homes have running water than ever before in Iraq's history
4. more Iraqi's are now working than ever before in Iraq's history
Having a cousin (more like my brother; we grew up together) who's
directing special ops, he says the crap you see on TV is *not* what's
happening over there. He says you have 3 groups of nutjobs who are
mostly from other countries that are using religion as an excuse to kill
people (much like our own KKK did in the 20th century). He says all the
Iraqis he met over there are grateful to America but they are impatient
for their own government. He also says the Iraqi men want to preserve
their freedom so badly, that they wait in lines at Police Stations and
Military Stations so they can sign up to help. These are the folks you
mostly hear about getting blown up at police stations by these nutjobs.
Freedom is in the air, and I can guarantee you that the Iraqi people
will not be denied.
GregP wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 19:44:02 -0700, Mark & Juanita
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> Unfortunately that intelligence information was incorrect. If we had
>>known that, Saddam and sons could still be happily ensconced in their
>>little kingdom, sawing peoples' hands off, running them alive through
>>plastic shredders and committing mass killings while their friends the
>>French continued to profit from the oil for thugs program.
>><http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135652,00.html> (Yeah, I know it's
>>Fox -- don't worry, there are pictures too)
>
>
>
> There is torture and murder going on in Iran, North Korea, Indonesia,
> Abu Ghraib, Pakistan, Azerbejan, China, and various and sundry other
> spas and shangrilas on this planet. So don't give me nonsense about
> how Bush invaded Iraq because he cared about Iraqis. He doesn't
> give a damn about most Americans, least of all Iraqis.
>
Not at this degree...nearly 10% of the Iraqi population was exterminated
by Saddam Hussein and nearly every woman was raped by Saddam's kids or
their goons. The Iraqi women I worked with stated one of Saddam's boys
would go to the schools and choose 11 & 12 year olds to rape (to the
horror of the teachers). You'd be singing a different tune if you lived
there and if that girl was your daughter.
Abu Ghraib isn't even in the same class. Degrading? yes. Murder &
Rape? hardly.
The only other brutality of this magnitude is occurring right now in
Sudan; again, the Muslims are the predators. And what is Kofi Annan and
the UN doing??? They're scrambling to save face because of the Oil for
Food Bribery scandel with Saddam Hussein.
Wake up, Man!
"DamnYankee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> To hear their stories would send chills up your spine...it's beyond all
> understanding that human beings could do all the things that this regime
> had done - it's very Hitler-esque.
>
> So no matter what your opinions are of the war, understand that an evil
> man is done raping and murdering - and that will soon meet his maker and
> have to answer for all that he's done to his fellow human beings.
Thank God somebody with some insight and common sense is here to put things
in perspective.
dwhite
"GregP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 23:25:39 GMT, "Dan White"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >uh? When you go to that site an audio clip entitled "John Kerry Flip
Flop
> >Audio, Cut 2." It has nothing to do with the Bush clips. I didn't even
> >play those clips. Why don't you have another listen and let me know
whether
> >I was "lying" about Kerry's support of the war before he was against it.
> >This clip was from Meet the Press.
>
>
> You mean the one where he said that based on what later
> proved to be lies about Saddam's activities by Bush and
> his fellow propagandists, he said that Saddam should be
> held accountable ? Or do you have a nice little spin for
> that from your junkie hero ?
Are you really arguing that Kerry hasn't changed his position on Iraq? Are
you that gullible? How about the interview, when asked point blank,
"Knowing what we now know about Iraq and it's lack of WMDs, knowing all of
what we know now, do you still think it was the right thing to do in going
into Iraq?" Kerry answered, "Yes." Now apparently you are not aware of
this little exchange which has been downplayed ever since he said it about 3
months ago. If you can hear this sound clip will you finally drop this
ridiculous position that Kerry isn't a lying opportunist? (Somehow I doubt
it). Are you conveniently forgetting this one?
dwhite
"GregP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 04:11:58 GMT, "Dan White"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >A. John Kerry was for both of those wars before he was against them.
>
> 1. John Kerry had the guts to fight for his country before
> realizing that it was not his country he was being asked
> to fight for.
>
> 2. You are lying about the second war.
Really? Explain this one away:
http://www.gop.com/News/MultiMedia/VideoPlayer.aspx?ID=907&T=3
lol,
dwhite
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 23:07:11 -0500, "Henry St.Pierre"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote in news:2u8foeF288c5tU1@uni-
>berlin.de:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] says...
>>>
>>> I like much of the Libertarian party, but drug legalization is a deal
>>> breaker for me.
>>>
>> Actually, legalization makes sense. All we did during Prohibition was
>> make gangsters rich, now we're making another set rich. Legalize it,
>> pass it out for free or at cost, and the profit goes out of it. All the
>> drug lords would have to become gun runners or some such. Then we could
>> start treating the addicts to cure them.
>>
>> The people who fought the hardest against repeal were the bootleggers.
>>
>
>What makes you think addicts want to be treated or cured?
I've known several. all of them know they have to stop or die. most of
them want to live.
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 02:49:41 GMT, "Dan White"
<[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>> Please rethink that stance, Dan. It's time for a BIG change.
>>
>
>Well despite what some probably think I do believe in reevaluating things
>from time to time. It would take a lot for me on this one though. I
>completely understand the benefits of legalization but I believe the risk is
>way too high. These drugs are too deadly to be laying around like loaded
>guns for kids to take up, and at such cheap prices you know cocaine, etc.
>would be easy to find.
Just as children should be schooled in the proper use of a firearm
if one is available in the home, they should be taught to stay out
of harmful chemicals, whether they be under the kitchen sink or on
Mom or Dad's dresser. That takes parental control, as it should.
>I haven't followed the model in Holland very closely but I recall they had
>some major problems with it.
That may continue to be a problem in ADDICT's homes, but legality
of substances has nothing to do with it.
--
"Given the low level of competence among politicians,
every American should become a Libertarian."
-- Charley Reese, Alameda Times-Star (California), June 17, 2003
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 22:30:55 GMT, "Dan White"
<[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> I can overlook some of the problems in a platform if the overall message
>> is more of a match with my personal point of view than another party's
>> overall message. But, what stops the Libertarian Party from getting
>anywhere,
>> in my opinion, is the lack of _local_ and _state_ elected offices being
>> run for. If they're running, they're pretty quiet about it. They need to
>> get those positions in place first, get their people some exposure to
>> the public, build support that way. Going for the top, without a
>> foundation to build on, will doom them to the 1 or 2% range forever.
Just because Dave overlooks the fact that there are nearly SIX HUNDRED
Libertarians serving us in local office doesn't mean you have to.
http://www.lp.org/organization/officials.php A truly -major- problem
is that the Libertarians don't feed at the public trough, so they
don't accept the millions of tax dollars (which ARE used by the greedy
bastards in the other parties) to get elected. That limits their
visibility. The second is that the two other parties don't want the
Libertarians to become elected. Think how much money is at stake for
them to lose if Libertarians take over and end their feeding frenzy!
A perfect example is the media blackout regarding two Presidential
candidates being ARRESTED for trying to join the last debate. I still
haven't gotten over that one. My country is as full of propaganda and
restrained freedoms now as the Communist countries my father warned me
about while I was in school. And the Shrub wants more. That truly and
deeply saddens me.
>That's a good point...hadn't thought of that before. The drug thing is
>still a deal breaker though, kind of like the democrat litmus test on
>abortion for judges.
That's a false fear which you really should overcome, Dan.
Some dialog on that: http://badnarik.org/plans_warondrugs.php
I really like Michael Badnarik's take on most issues.
The time for change is NOW. Vote or forever hold your peace.
--
"Given the low level of competence among politicians,
every American should become a Libertarian."
-- Charley Reese, Alameda Times-Star (California), June 17, 2003
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 22:46:36 -0700, bridger wrote:
>>What makes you think addicts want to be treated or cured?
>
>
> I've known several. all of them know they have to stop or die. most of
> them want to live.
I have a sibling who's been doing junk for close to 50 years, he cares not
what happens to himself or anyone else who get between him and his drugs.
He will lie, steal and resort to violence if necessary to get his stuff.
He's been on the cure more times than I can remember, never lasting more
than a few weeks at best. Why he is still alive is a mystery.
-Doug
--
"It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among
[my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between
political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person,
the hatred they bore to his political opinions." --Thomas Jefferson
"GregP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 23:42:42 GMT, "Dan White"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >Really? Explain this one away:
> >
> >http://www.gop.com/News/MultiMedia/VideoPlayer.aspx?ID=907&T=3
> >
> >lol,
>
> What, a GOP site playing a sequence of Bush lies is
> supposed to "explain" anything other than the fact
> that Bush has more problems with truth than PT Barnum ?
> It sure as heck doesn't take much to put one over on
> you, does it ?
Huh? When you go to that site an audio clip entitled "John Kerry Flip Flop
Audio, Cut 2." It has nothing to do with the Bush clips. I didn't even
play those clips. Why don't you have another listen and let me know whether
I was "lying" about Kerry's support of the war before he was against it.
This clip was from Meet the Press.
dwhite
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 20:43:40 -0400, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 23:25:39 GMT, "Dan White"
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>uh? When you go to that site an audio clip entitled "John Kerry Flip Flop
>>>Audio, Cut 2." It has nothing to do with the Bush clips. I didn't even
>>>play those clips. Why don't you have another listen and let me know whether
>>>I was "lying" about Kerry's support of the war before he was against it.
>>>This clip was from Meet the Press.
>>
>>
>>You mean the one where he said that based on what later
>>proved to be lies about Saddam's activities by Bush and
>>his fellow propagandists, he said that Saddam should be
>>held accountable ? Or do you have a nice little spin for
>>that from your junkie hero ?
>
>
>
> Ah, I see the problem now.
> lie = deliberately telling an untruth, as in "I did not have sex with that
> woman"
>
> In the case cited above, the problem was not deliberately misleading
> people, it was acting on the best available intelligence information that
> turned out to be wrong. Using incorrect information when one has no way of
> knowing does not equal a lie.
>
> Unfortunately that intelligence information was incorrect. If we had
> known that, Saddam and sons could still be happily ensconced in their
> little kingdom, sawing peoples' hands off, running them alive through
> plastic shredders and committing mass killings while their friends the
> French continued to profit from the oil for thugs program.
> <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135652,00.html> (Yeah, I know it's
> Fox -- don't worry, there are pictures too)
>
I work with a couple of Iraqi women at a hospital in Detroit and they've
tearfully shared this with me:
1. Nearly every woman in Iraq has been raped by Saddam's boys or their
goons...and the rape occurs in their house in front of the husband and
kids at gunpoint.
2. Nearly every household has had a child, parent, or parent sibling
murdered by Saddam, his sons, or their goons.
3. If a parent spoke out about Saddam or the regime, then one of the
kids was taken out in the street, made to kneel down and was shot in the
back of the head in front of family.
4. If #3 didn't shut the family up, then a woodchipper was placed in the
town squares and the father would be fed feet first into the
woodchipper, screaming until there was no more.
5. The Iraqis figured nearly 2 million of their own has been killed by
Saddam, his sons, or their goons since his rise to power
Now, I don't know about some people's morals, but I know that if I look
out across the street and see a man and his two sons raping a neighbor,
killing a neighbor, or killing on of their kids, I'm not turning a blind
eye to it and walk back into my house and say it's "their" problem...I'm
going to do something about it.
These Iraqi women and their families are GRATEFUL that the U.S. took him
out - as are their families who still live in Baghdad. They are apalled
when they watch the nightly news and see how some Americans like John
Kerry felt we shouldn't have been there and don't care how many hundreds
of Iraqis would've continued to have been slaughtered each week.
To hear their stories would send chills up your spine...it's beyond all
understanding that human beings could do all the things that this regime
had done - it's very Hitler-esque.
So no matter what your opinions are of the war, understand that an evil
man is done raping and murdering - and that will soon meet his maker and
have to answer for all that he's done to his fellow human beings.
Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote in news:2u8foeF288c5tU1@uni-
berlin.de:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> I like much of the Libertarian party, but drug legalization is a deal
>> breaker for me.
>>
> Actually, legalization makes sense. All we did during Prohibition was
> make gangsters rich, now we're making another set rich. Legalize it,
> pass it out for free or at cost, and the profit goes out of it. All the
> drug lords would have to become gun runners or some such. Then we could
> start treating the addicts to cure them.
>
> The people who fought the hardest against repeal were the bootleggers.
>
What makes you think addicts want to be treated or cured?
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> >
> > I like much of the Libertarian party, but drug legalization is a deal
> > breaker for me.
> >
> Actually, legalization makes sense. All we did during Prohibition was
> make gangsters rich, now we're making another set rich.
apples and oranges.
dwhite
Wait. Now the justification for attacking Iraq is that is creates
jobs? Geeze, just think about the job statistics if we hadn't gone
and attacked them.
Renata
On 26 Oct 2004 18:52:37 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:36:28 -0400, Renata <[email protected]> wrote:
>> And we could have $225 billion more to give folks another tax cut.
>
>Are you saying the money spent on the war just evaporated? Here I thougth
>it was, you know, _spent_. You know, to employ people and buy stuff.
>
>Dave Hinz
I got rid of cross posting because I don't read those other groups and
prefer to know if someone other than you is misstating my position.
"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > "Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> > I snipped all the stuff about Bush lying
>
> Because you cannot refute it.
Been there and you just don't buy it. I really don't care anymore that you
don't get it. You have your opinion and I believe it to be wrong. Doesn't
mean I am right, but in my opinion from what I know I believe I am.
>
> > and flip flopping as much as Kerry.....
>
> Interesting that you would write that considering *I* didn't write
> anything about Bush or Kerry flip flopping.
I said that naturally because it is a FACT that Kerry reverses himself on
many issues. If you dispute that then you need help. You said Kerry
doesn't flip flop any more than Bush. It is a fact that Kerry changes
positions and therefore you are saying that Bush does so as well.
>
> > Bush out polls Kerry by a mile ...
>
> So is that your new standard for determing truth? Polls?
You snipped the context of that so much that I didn't even think I said it.
You said that Kerry and Bush flip flopped the same amount while we were
discussing foreign policy. I believe that a poll that shows Bush to be far
favored over Kerry on this issue indicates that Bush is more clear and
direct on his positions. Polls don't tell us everything but they are
usually reasonably close.
dwhite
C'mon people does it really matter which clown gets to run this
country. They already turned the election into a circus. Whoever gets
into office has no choice but to raise taxes and figure out how to get
out of Iraq without our heads between our ass like Nam. If we just run
like Nam it will only reinforce the terrorists and Arabs who believe
we are evil and that they can kick our buttts and are free to commit
more terrorrist acts. Afghanistan will fall back to fanatics and
anything that was accomplished getting will be forgotten history.
Like Nam it's extremely difficult and costs American lives when the
enemy has no rules and the our battles are controlled and directed by
lawyers and politicians ("collatteral damage"). The only difference
between Nam and Iraq is the enenmy looks different and our soldiers
can return home proud wearing their uniforms. Not like when we
returned from Nam and were told not to wear our uniforms going home
because of protesters(like Kerry ) spitting at you . This year is the
most difficult decision as to who to vote for
Which clown will you pick?
Scott Cramer <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<1098359899.hz0go+Sy4nh87h3b/Vi6iw@teranews>...
> Joke of the day from rec.humor.funny:
>
>
> Q. What's the difference between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War?
>
> A. George W. Bush had a plan to get out of the Vietnam War.
dteckie responds:
> Not like when we
>returned from Nam and were told not to wear our uniforms going home
>because of protesters(like Kerry ) spitting at you . This year is the
>most difficult decision as to who to vote for
>Which clown will you pick?
Oddly enough, Kerry wasn't, and isn't, noted for spitting on homecoming
military. You may not like what he had to say--and you probably should look it
up and read it before total condemning it--but he had a right to say it. After
all, that's supposedly part of the reason our troops fight, to support freedom
of speech.
Just as oddly, from the years of '64 through '75, the ONLY incident I saw of
civilian disprespect to vets was a televised event I still wonder about.
The situation, though, was far more complex than it has been presented here and
elsewhere in the past few months. There's too much love of the catchprhase and
buzzword in U. S. politics to allow anyone not alive and present during the era
in question to really do a decent job of judging, whether judging the public or
the conduct of the war, though the latter, unfortunately run by politicians and
political generals like Westmoreland ("Light At The End of The Tunnel"),
produced ill feelings that still are raw after 30 years. For the most part, our
troops did a superb job, fighting with one hand tied behind their backs in a
war for which they were never trained, but the politicians finally screwed them
over. As will happen again.
Charlie Self
"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary." Thomas Paine
"Glen" wrote in message
> Maybe I came home at a bad time, '72. I still vividly remember people
> calling me baby-killer and shouting other insults as I walked across NY
> Port Authority in uniform. While I do not personally blame Kerry for
> this, after all, I didn't see him there, I do believe much of his "free
> speech" (while still a reservist) helped contribute to this attitude.
Same experience ... bussed from SEATAC to Ft Lewis, round eyed women, hair
in rollers, kids in the station wagon heading for the supermarket,
Cronkite's picture staring out of the boob tubes in the windows of the homes
as they speed past the bus window, a warm and cozy scene, with NO smell of
cordite or burning shit in the air, but almost as much hate directed toward
you as you left behind.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/04/04
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> "Charlie Self" wrote in message
>
>> There's too much love of the catchprhase and
>> buzzword in U. S. politics to
>
> <snip>
>
> If you can't get it on a bumper sticker, it's probably too tough to
> grasp for many these days.
>
> <snip>
>> political generals like Westmoreland ("Light At The End of The
>> Tunnel"), produced ill feelings that still are raw after 30 years.
>
> If there was justice in this world, Westmoreland would have been
> courtmartialed along with Calley.
>
>>For the most part, our
>> troops did a superb job, fighting with one hand tied behind their
>> backs in
> a
>> war for which they were never trained,
> <snip>
>
> With all due respect, Charlie ... that is load of bullshit and is what
> typically happens when we leave the analysis of those times to the
> Monday morning quarterbacks. It is perpetuating a myth that was
> created by the anti-war crowd/media at the time as an excuse for the
> shortcomings of the politics involved. ALL units I served with _in the
> field_, including an ARVN Ranger outfit, were SUPERBLY trained for the
> job, and they were certainly not the exception. I can also say
> unequivocally that no unit I saw, or was associated with, in 13 months
> of field duty ever lost an engagement with the enemy, of any type ...
> and we were continuously "engaged".
>
> To infer otherwise is not only wrong, but disrespectful in its blatant
> condescension, to those who fought ... IMNSHO.
>
>> but the politicians finally screwed them
>> over. As will happen again.
>
> ... but you're dead right about the f^%$# politicians.
>
Yup.
Charlie Self wrote:
> dteckie responds:
>
>
>>Not like when we
>>returned from Nam and were told not to wear our uniforms going home
>>because of protesters(like Kerry ) spitting at you . This year is the
>>most difficult decision as to who to vote for
>>Which clown will you pick?
>
>
> Oddly enough, Kerry wasn't, and isn't, noted for spitting on homecoming
> military. You may not like what he had to say--and you probably should look it
> up and read it before total condemning it--but he had a right to say it. After
> all, that's supposedly part of the reason our troops fight, to support freedom
> of speech.
>
> Just as oddly, from the years of '64 through '75, the ONLY incident I saw of
> civilian disprespect to vets was a televised event I still wonder about.
>
Maybe I came home at a bad time, '72. I still vividly remember people
calling me baby-killer and shouting other insults as I walked across NY
Port Authority in uniform. While I do not personally blame Kerry for
this, after all, I didn't see him there, I do believe much of his "free
speech" (while still a reservist) helped contribute to this attitude.
Glen
Glen responds:
>Maybe I came home at a bad time, '72. I still vividly remember people
>calling me baby-killer and shouting other insults as I walked across NY
>Port Authority in uniform. While I do not personally blame Kerry for
>this, after all, I didn't see him there, I do believe much of his "free
>speech" (while still a reservist) helped contribute to this attitude.
You came home after Lt. Wm. Calley. He and his men were baby killers and the
brush unfortunately tarred a lot of good troops along with them. It wasn't
people like Kerry, vets trying to stop the war and keep other Americans from
dying, who created the problem. It was people like Calley and others who wore
necklaces of ears taken from killed Cong.
Charlie Self
"Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a
pleasure." Ambrose Bierce
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 20:25:19 -0600, Robert Galloway
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Give me examples of veteran's organizations rejecting Viet Nam vets.
>Nice cliché' but didn't happen unless you're talking about Kerry types
>with long hair and an endless harangue against the US Government and the
>US military.
>
>bob g.
You "proved" it with your post, boychik: that's right, there were
all sorts of Vietnam vets with long hair, a lot of them were black,
and some were against the war. And the old-time vet organizations
had a hard time dealing with them. People like yoiu have very
short-term memories and would much prefer to latch on to a
Rush Limbaugh one-liner to "explain" everything for you: it's
easier on the brain that way.
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Charlie Self" wrote in message
>
> > There's too much love of the catchprhase and
> > buzzword in U. S. politics to
>
> <snip>
>
> If you can't get it on a bumper sticker, it's probably too tough to grasp
> for many these days.
>
> <snip>
> > political generals like Westmoreland ("Light At The End of The Tunnel"),
> > produced ill feelings that still are raw after 30 years.
>
> If there was justice in this world, Westmoreland would have been
> courtmartialed along with Calley.
>
> >For the most part, our
> > troops did a superb job, fighting with one hand tied behind their backs in
> a
> > war for which they were never trained,
> <snip>
>
> With all due respect, Charlie ... that is load of bullshit and is what
> typically happens when we leave the analysis of those times to the Monday
> morning quarterbacks. It is perpetuating a myth that was created by the
> anti-war crowd/media at the time as an excuse for the shortcomings of the
> politics involved. ALL units I served with _in the field_, including an ARVN
> Ranger outfit, were SUPERBLY trained for the job, and they were certainly
> not the exception. I can also say unequivocally that no unit I saw, or was
> associated with, in 13 months of field duty ever lost an engagement with the
> enemy, of any type ... and we were continuously "engaged".
>
> To infer otherwise is not only wrong, but disrespectful in its blatant
> condescension, to those who fought ... IMNSHO.
>
> > but the politicians finally screwed them
> > over. As will happen again.
>
> ... but you're dead right about the f^%$# politicians.
Well said Swingman!!!!!! Hua!!!!!
"Charlie Self" wrote in message
> There's too much love of the catchprhase and
> buzzword in U. S. politics to
<snip>
If you can't get it on a bumper sticker, it's probably too tough to grasp
for many these days.
<snip>
> political generals like Westmoreland ("Light At The End of The Tunnel"),
> produced ill feelings that still are raw after 30 years.
If there was justice in this world, Westmoreland would have been
courtmartialed along with Calley.
>For the most part, our
> troops did a superb job, fighting with one hand tied behind their backs in
a
> war for which they were never trained,
<snip>
With all due respect, Charlie ... that is load of bullshit and is what
typically happens when we leave the analysis of those times to the Monday
morning quarterbacks. It is perpetuating a myth that was created by the
anti-war crowd/media at the time as an excuse for the shortcomings of the
politics involved. ALL units I served with _in the field_, including an ARVN
Ranger outfit, were SUPERBLY trained for the job, and they were certainly
not the exception. I can also say unequivocally that no unit I saw, or was
associated with, in 13 months of field duty ever lost an engagement with the
enemy, of any type ... and we were continuously "engaged".
To infer otherwise is not only wrong, but disrespectful in its blatant
condescension, to those who fought ... IMNSHO.
> but the politicians finally screwed them
> over. As will happen again.
... but you're dead right about the f^%$# politicians.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/04/04
Swingman responds:
>>For the most part, our
>> troops did a superb job, fighting with one hand tied behind their backs in
>a
>> war for which they were never trained,
><snip>
>
>With all due respect, Charlie ... that is load of bullshit and is what
>typically happens when we leave the analysis of those times to the Monday
>morning quarterbacks. It is perpetuating a myth that was created by the
>anti-war crowd/media at the time as an excuse for the shortcomings of the
>politics involved. ALL units I served with _in the field_, including an ARVN
>Ranger outfit, were SUPERBLY trained for the job, and they were certainly
>not the exception. I can also say unequivocally that no unit I saw, or was
>associated with, in 13 months of field duty ever lost an engagement with the
>enemy, of any type ... and we were continuously "engaged".
>
>To infer otherwise is not only wrong, but disrespectful in its blatant
>condescension, to those who fought ... IMNSHO.
My understanding, quite possibly faulty because of the relatively small
sampling, is that the Vietnamese situation was one helluva lot different when
the first troops arrived in the mid-60s (first acknowledged troops) than they
had been led to expect, the equipment was basically Korean War era, and so were
many of the tactics. Given the level of general training in weapons handling
and movement, it wouldn't have taken the guys I knew long to train themselves
if someone in country wasn't ready to do the job.
And I mean no disrespect to anyone who served in 'Nam, nor do I mean to
condescend to them.
Charlie Self
"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary." Thomas Paine
"Charlie Self" wrote in message
> And I mean no disrespect to anyone who served in 'Nam, nor do I mean to
> condescend to them.
I know full well that you, of all folks, didn't mean to. Obviously your
comment about "raw nerves" remains as valid as it ever was. ;>)
Nowhere but in a combat zone is the difference between strategy and tactics
so evident. Strategy is the realm of generals and politicians. The tactics
used by those with bullets flying past were, for the most part, far above
the flawed strategy that put them there.
Too many confuse the two in all wars, but moreso in (mis)analyzing that
particular one.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/04/04
Give me examples of veteran's organizations rejecting Viet Nam vets.
Nice cliché' but didn't happen unless you're talking about Kerry types
with long hair and an endless harangue against the US Government and the
US military.
bob g.
GregP wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 12:16:58 GMT, Glen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Maybe I came home at a bad time, '72. I still vividly remember people
>>calling me baby-killer and shouting other insults as I walked across NY
>>Port Authority in uniform. While I do not personally blame Kerry for
>>this, after all, I didn't see him there, I do believe much of his "free
>>speech" (while still a reservist) helped contribute to this attitude.
>>
>>Glen
>
>
> In Buffalo, some of the most extreme anti-war protesters were Vietnam
> vets, and that was true in other places as well. And now that the
> neocons have rewritten history again, making Kerry rather than
> Clinton the Number One Bad Guy during the Viet war, we have
> conveniently forgotten that it was Good Republican Businessmen
> who wouldn't hire returning vets, and Good Republican veterans
> groups who didn't want Viet vets in their units, and Good Upstanding
> pentagon bureaucrats who denied that Agent Orange damaged
> anyone.
Robert Galloway writes:
>
>Give me examples of veteran's organizations rejecting Viet Nam vets.
>Nice cliché' but didn't happen unless you're talking about Kerry types
>with long hair and an endless harangue against the US Government and the
>US military.
Truism, not cliche. And I'll be a buck you don't see the contradiction in your
statement, do you?
Charlie Self
"Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a
pleasure." Ambrose Bierce
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 12:16:58 GMT, Glen <[email protected]> wrote:
>Maybe I came home at a bad time, '72. I still vividly remember people
>calling me baby-killer and shouting other insults as I walked across NY
>Port Authority in uniform. While I do not personally blame Kerry for
>this, after all, I didn't see him there, I do believe much of his "free
>speech" (while still a reservist) helped contribute to this attitude.
>
>Glen
In Buffalo, some of the most extreme anti-war protesters were Vietnam
vets, and that was true in other places as well. And now that the
neocons have rewritten history again, making Kerry rather than
Clinton the Number One Bad Guy during the Viet war, we have
conveniently forgotten that it was Good Republican Businessmen
who wouldn't hire returning vets, and Good Republican veterans
groups who didn't want Viet vets in their units, and Good Upstanding
pentagon bureaucrats who denied that Agent Orange damaged
anyone.
"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > I got rid of cross posting because I don't read those other groups and
> > prefer to know if someone other than you is misstating my position.
> >
>
> Posted my reply in alt.politics.bush and alt.politics.kerry becuase this
> is off-topic for this newsgroup.
>
Thank you. I begged off politics here until you responsed to some things I
wrote a pretty long time ago. Unfortunately I won't see your reply. I hope
you made some good points. :)
dwhite
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<1098585770.N9t6SaBupyb4R28/sHgliQ@teranews>...
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 20:43:40 -0400, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Ah, I see the problem now.
> lie = deliberately telling an untruth, as in "I did not have sex with that
> woman"
Yes, though there are sneakier ways to lie such as by taking documents
that are known to be forgeries and submitting them to the IAEA as though
they were genuine.
Don't be confused by the fact that Bush/Blair weren't respnsible for the
forgery. If they didn't know the documents were forged they were being
lied to by their subordinates.
Don't be confused by the fact that some are sticking to the story
despite the fact that the documents were exposed as forgeries. They
do NOT dispute that the documents were forged, rather they argue
that they have other, independent sources to support the story.
That's fine with me, but lets keep in mind that these are the same
folks who foisted the forged documents on us in the first place.
"I wouldn't lie to you AGAIN." isn't very reassurring.
Then there is misrepresentation of fact like the Medusa 81 missles
and the 'fermenters' which look a lot more like chemical reactors
for generating hydrogen.
>
> In the case cited above, the problem was not deliberately misleading
> people, it was acting on the best available intelligence information that
> turned out to be wrong. Using incorrect information when one has no way of
> knowing does not equal a lie.
Wrong. The best available inteligence was from HUMINT on the ground in
Iraq:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4122113/
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2004/inspectionsiraq20040202.html
Bush ignored the best intelligence available in order to proceed
with the invasion he had planned all along.
It is one thing to argue that the pre-2003 intel showed cause for
concern, though there remains the troublesome problem that the CIA
had concluded that Saddam Hussein was not an imminent danger. But
Bush stuck with the invasion plan after that intel was disproven.
The obvious conclusion is that his motivation was not the intel
in question.
--
FF
"Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>
> Are you really arguing that Kerry hasn't changed his position on Iraq? Are
> you that gullible?
He's changed his positiotn about as much as Bush has.
Befor the invasion Bush was declaring that "The dictator of Iraq
will be disarmed." Shotly after the invasion he declared that
the dictator fo Iraq ahs been disarmed. Then somone finally got
though to him that the dictrator of Iraq was unarmed so he's
been puting the emphaisis on his other reasons since.
> How about the interview, when asked point blank,
> "Knowing what we now know about Iraq and it's lack of WMDs, knowing all of
> what we know now, do you still think it was the right thing to do in going
> into Iraq?" Kerry answered, "Yes." Now apparently you are not aware of
> this little exchange which has been downplayed ever since he said it about 3
> months ago.
AFAIK he still insists he would have invaded Iraq. He does not contend
that he would have invaded Iraq in April 2003. He contends that he
would have invaded with more international support, and more and
better equipped American troops and a plan for winning the peace.
Contrary to what you seem to think Kerry has not admitted that the
invasion itself was a mistake, he argues that Bush botched the
execution.
--
FF
"Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>
> I snipped all the stuff about Bush lying
Because you cannot refute it.
> and flip flopping as much as Kerry.....
Interesting that you would write that considering *I* didn't write
anything about Bush or Kerry flip flopping.
> Bush out polls Kerry by a mile ...
So is that your new standard for determing truth? Polls?
--
FF
Fred the Red Shirt responds:
>>
>> I snipped all the stuff about Bush lying
>
>Because you cannot refute it.
>
>> and flip flopping as much as Kerry.....
>
>Interesting that you would write that considering *I* didn't write
>anything about Bush or Kerry flip flopping.
>
>> Bush out polls Kerry by a mile ...
>
>So is that your new standard for determing truth? Polls?
>
If so, he needs some new polls. Last I read, it was neck and neck,
unfortunately. WIth a little good fortune (for the U.S.), Kerry will pull ahead
today and win tomorrow.
Charlie Self
"Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a
pleasure." Ambrose Bierce
"Charlie Self" wrote in message
> If so, he needs some new polls. Last I read, it was neck and neck,
> unfortunately. WIth a little good fortune (for the U.S.), Kerry will pull
ahead
> today and win tomorrow.
I am seriously getting to where I really no longer give a damn ... never
noticed that much difference with either party in power anyway.
Nonetheless, duty called and I walked to my local polling precinct this
morning, in the rain ... got there around 6:30 and was about a hundred back
in line. Last week it would have been dark, but DST has even the birds
screwed up. The mood was more somber than I ever recall in any election line
... maybe it was just the pre-coffee, early hour.
One lady, talking loudly on her cell phone in the relative quiet of the
line, asked whoever she was talking to how they were going to vote. I
thought the election judges were going to jump out of their skin as they
descended upon her en masse and shushed her. Come to think of it, that is
the only place I've been in years that I didn't hear at least one cell phone
ring. There was no getting away from the boob tube, though. They had an
obviously official one blaring out a pre-recorded tape in three languages
... I still can't fathom the Vietnamese language ... sounds like parrot
mutterings.
Looking around me, I imagined that I could tell you the political persuasion
of everyone in line ... probably not all that fantastical, either. Took
exactly 24 minutes to make it though the line and "cast" my ballot once the
polls opened. Speaking of casting, we have eSlate here in Harris County and
it sure seems to be the way to do it .. as long as no one is hacking the
backside, that is. I'd think even a Broward County Floridian would have a
hard time screwing it up.
Whichever way it goes, and Iraq notwithstanding, we need a plan for
addressing this Islamic fundamentalist hatred head-on ... it's not going
away. Everyone seems to be waiting for tomorrow. I for one can't wait until
Feb1, 2005 ... the crap will hopefully be well over by then.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/04/04
"Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> I got rid of cross posting because I don't read those other groups and
> prefer to know if someone other than you is misstating my position.
>
Posted my reply in alt.politics.bush and alt.politics.kerry becuase this
is off-topic for this newsgroup.
--
FF
"Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> >
>
> Thank you. I begged off politics here until you responsed to some things I
> wrote a pretty long time ago. Unfortunately I won't see your reply. I hope
> you made some good points. :)
>
No worries, I'll email you...
--
FF
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<1098575906.2633YdARSFGQxLGzeMGUpQ@teranews>...
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 17:20:28 -0400, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 23:42:42 GMT, "Dan White"
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>Really? Explain this one away:
> >>
> >>http://www.gop.com/News/MultiMedia/VideoPlayer.aspx?ID=907&T=3
> >>
> >>lol,
> >
> > What, a GOP site playing a sequence of Bush lies is
> > supposed to "explain" anything other than the fact
> > that Bush has more problems with truth than PT Barnum ?
> > It sure as heck doesn't take much to put one over on
> > you, does it ?
>
> Wow, how did Bush get Kerry to say all those things? Bush lies in
> Kerry's voice?
You don't consider it a lie to present someone's statements out-of-context?
How about laying claim to a statement actually made by one's opponenet--
e.g. the 'trifecta' claim?
--
FF
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 21:15:01 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 20:23:32 -0700, Larry Jaques
><novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 19:44:02 -0700, Mark & Juanita
>><[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>>
>>Uh, this one's for you.
>>http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/JamiesHooker.jpg
>
> I guess we're even in the spewed beverage department.
I'm happy that you enjoyed her. <wink>
> Dang, where's the windex?
Here ya go. <hand>
--
"Excess regulation and government spending destroy jobs and increase
unemployment. Every regulator we fire results in the creation of over
150 new jobs, enough to hire the ex-regulator, the unemployed, and
the able-bodied poor." -Michael Badnarik
VOTE LIBERTARIAN ON NOVEMBER 2, 2004 OR YOU WON'T CHANGE ANYTHING.
On 26 Oct 2004 18:52:37 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:36:28 -0400, Renata <[email protected]> wrote:
>> And we could have $225 billion more to give folks another tax cut.
>
>Are you saying the money spent on the war just evaporated? Here I thougth
>it was, you know, _spent_. You know, to employ people and buy stuff.
New Reason for Invading Iraq: it's a job creation program.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On 31 Oct 2004 14:48:56 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Wars do tend to create jobs, but those jobs are used to make items that are
> >>what one might call short-term in durability--munitions, armored vehicles,
> >>unarmored military vehicles, materiel that gets expended in a hurry. And once
> >>the war is over, the jobs are, too, these days.
> >
> >
> > You're right, and this is the source of the majority of
> > the "jobs created" under Bush.
>
> No, it's not. Do you ever read *anything* besides DNC talking points?
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>
> Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
> by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
> You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
>
>
I suspect that he also reads the US Communist Party's talking points as well.
http://www.cpusa.org
--
Al Reid
A government big enough to give you everything you want...
is big enough to take away everything you have."
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Al Reid responds:
>
> >"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> In article <[email protected]>, GregP
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >On 31 Oct 2004 14:48:56 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>Wars do tend to create jobs, but those jobs are used to make items that
> >are
> >> >>what one might call short-term in durability--munitions, armored
> >vehicles,
> >> >>unarmored military vehicles, materiel that gets expended in a hurry. And
> >once
> >> >>the war is over, the jobs are, too, these days.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > You're right, and this is the source of the majority of
> >> > the "jobs created" under Bush.
> >>
> >> No, it's not. Do you ever read *anything* besides DNC talking points?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Regards,
> >> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
> >>
> >> Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
> >> by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
> >> You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I suspect that he also reads the US Communist Party's talking points as well.
> >
> >http://www.cpusa.org
> >
> >
> >--
> >Al Reid
> >
> >A government big enough to give you everything you want...
> > is big enough to take away everything you have."
> >
>
> You know, somewhere, somehow it used to be possible to disagree politically
> without that kind of rabid insult. About the only good part of all this
> political acrimony is the fact that I'll come out of it without having to read
> anything from a series of complete and total assholes.
>
> Charlie Self
> "Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a
> pleasure." Ambrose Bierce
>
Anyone who disagrees with you is an asshole? You're too funny, Charlie.
Al Reid responds:
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, GregP
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On 31 Oct 2004 14:48:56 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>Wars do tend to create jobs, but those jobs are used to make items that
>are
>> >>what one might call short-term in durability--munitions, armored
>vehicles,
>> >>unarmored military vehicles, materiel that gets expended in a hurry. And
>once
>> >>the war is over, the jobs are, too, these days.
>> >
>> >
>> > You're right, and this is the source of the majority of
>> > the "jobs created" under Bush.
>>
>> No, it's not. Do you ever read *anything* besides DNC talking points?
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>>
>> Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
>> by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
>> You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
>>
>>
>
>I suspect that he also reads the US Communist Party's talking points as well.
>
>http://www.cpusa.org
>
>
>--
>Al Reid
>
>A government big enough to give you everything you want...
> is big enough to take away everything you have."
>
You know, somewhere, somehow it used to be possible to disagree politically
without that kind of rabid insult. About the only good part of all this
political acrimony is the fact that I'll come out of it without having to read
anything from a series of complete and total assholes.
Charlie Self
"Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a
pleasure." Ambrose Bierce
"Jim Kirby"
> (Doug Miller)
> > GregP
> > >(Doug Miller)
> > >>No, it's not. Do you ever read *anything* besides DNC talking points?
> > > No, I haven't:
> > I didn't think so. It shows.
> Interesting parsing of what was obvious a mis-typed reply. Should we similarly
> parse everything that George W says. Oh wait, I forgot - we do. Its a source
> of so much frivolity.
That's the "rope a dope" strategery. Works every time.
GregP notes:
>On 26 Oct 2004 18:52:37 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:36:28 -0400, Renata <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> And we could have $225 billion more to give folks another tax cut.
>>
>>Are you saying the money spent on the war just evaporated? Here I thougth
>>it was, you know, _spent_. You know, to employ people and buy stuff.
>
>
> New Reason for Invading Iraq: it's a job creation program.
Wars do tend to create jobs, but those jobs are used to make items that are
what one might call short-term in durability--munitions, armored vehicles,
unarmored military vehicles, materiel that gets expended in a hurry. And once
the war is over, the jobs are, too, these days.
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]>, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 13:32:14 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>No, it's not. Do you ever read *anything* besides DNC talking points?
> >
> >
> > No, I haven't:
>
> I didn't think so. It shows.
Interesting parsing of what was obvious a mis-typed reply. Should we similarly
parse everything that George W says. Oh wait, I forgot - we do. Its a source
of so much frivolity.
JK
In article <[email protected]>, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 13:32:14 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
>>
>>No, it's not. Do you ever read *anything* besides DNC talking points?
>
>
> No, I haven't:
I didn't think so. It shows.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
On 31 Oct 2004 14:48:56 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>
>Wars do tend to create jobs, but those jobs are used to make items that are
>what one might call short-term in durability--munitions, armored vehicles,
>unarmored military vehicles, materiel that gets expended in a hurry. And once
>the war is over, the jobs are, too, these days.
You're right, and this is the source of the majority of
the "jobs created" under Bush.
GregP writes:
>On 31 Oct 2004 14:48:56 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Wars do tend to create jobs, but those jobs are used to make items that are
>>what one might call short-term in durability--munitions, armored vehicles,
>>unarmored military vehicles, materiel that gets expended in a hurry. And
>once
>>the war is over, the jobs are, too, these days.
>
>
> You're right, and this is the source of the majority of
> the "jobs created" under Bush.
Probably the majority are in the 900,000 jobs he created in "the public sector"
while as a true Christian conservative he was shrinking government, deficits
and all that.
We got another level of annoyance in TSA, an outfit that fails every test it is
given, so he can say his adminstration is "protecting the public".
Charlie Self
"Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a
pleasure." Ambrose Bierce
On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 13:32:14 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>
>No, it's not. Do you ever read *anything* besides DNC talking points?
No, I haven't: I didn't even know there were any. But I've listened
to Limbaugh and some clown named Mark Lavin(spell? anyway,
pretty funny, in a goebbels sort of way), and I've spent a fair
amount of time on Bush, NRA, and other neocon wacko sites.
It's enlightening, in a very close-minded sort of way :-)
In article <[email protected]>, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 31 Oct 2004 14:48:56 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Wars do tend to create jobs, but those jobs are used to make items that are
>>what one might call short-term in durability--munitions, armored vehicles,
>>unarmored military vehicles, materiel that gets expended in a hurry. And once
>>the war is over, the jobs are, too, these days.
>
>
> You're right, and this is the source of the majority of
> the "jobs created" under Bush.
No, it's not. Do you ever read *anything* besides DNC talking points?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
It's perhaps a gentler rape of current taxpayers and a rather more
stringent attack on future generations (note the plural).
Renata
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:25:40 -0700, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:36:28 -0400, Renata <[email protected]>
>calmly ranted:
>
>>And we could have $225 billion more to give folks another tax cut.
>
>There's no such thing as a "tax cut". It's merely a "gentler rape
>of the taxpayer" which happens. That's why I want reps and dems
>less involved in our government.
"Scott Cramer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1098359899.hz0go+Sy4nh87h3b/Vi6iw@teranews...
> Joke of the day from rec.humor.funny:
>
>
> Q. What's the difference between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War?
>
I have my own answer to that one:
A. John Kerry was for both of those wars before he was against them.
dwhite
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> These drugs are too deadly to be laying around like loaded
> guns for kids to take up, and at such cheap prices you know cocaine, etc.
> would be easy to find.
>
One solution I've seen suggested is that addicts would have to register
and could get only so much and only from a pharmacy. They would also
have to attend rehab classes.
That might avoid a lot of the "cheap drugs laying around" but there
will, as always, be those who figure out how to beat the system.
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 01:50:56 GMT, "Dan White"
<[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:36:28 -0400, Renata <[email protected]>
>
>> "Excess regulation and government spending destroy jobs and increase
>> unemployment. Every regulator we fire results in the creation of over
>> 150 new jobs, enough to hire the ex-regulator, the unemployed, and
>> the able-bodied poor." -Michael Badnarik
>>
>> VOTE LIBERTARIAN ON NOVEMBER 2, 2004 OR YOU WON'T CHANGE ANYTHING.
>>
>
>I like much of the Libertarian party, but drug legalization is a deal
>breaker for me.
That's too bad, because it's a monetary breaker for the country.
Our laws are keeping the prices up, which keeps all the dealers
in business. They'd go find some other illegal business if it
weren't for our lameass attempts at interdiction. SWAG: 1/10 of
the funds being spent on interdiction (or taxes on legal drugs)
would safely pay for drug rehab for those who want/need it while
taking the glamour out of the illegality of the drug trade. The
end effect would be fewer, not more, drug addicted people. To
prove the concept, look at alcohol. See how Prohibition actually
caused a rise in its use.
Please rethink that stance, Dan. It's time for a BIG change.
--
"Excess regulation and government spending destroy jobs and increase
unemployment. Every regulator we fire results in the creation of over
150 new jobs, enough to hire the ex-regulator, the unemployed, and
the able-bodied poor." -Michael Badnarik
VOTE LIBERTARIAN ON NOVEMBER 2, 2004 OR YOU WON'T CHANGE ANYTHING.
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 01:50:56 GMT, "Dan White"
> <[email protected]> calmly ranted:
> >I like much of the Libertarian party, but drug legalization is a deal
> >breaker for me.
>
> That's too bad, because it's a monetary breaker for the country.
> Our laws are keeping the prices up, which keeps all the dealers
> in business. They'd go find some other illegal business if it
> weren't for our lameass attempts at interdiction. SWAG: 1/10 of
> the funds being spent on interdiction (or taxes on legal drugs)
> would safely pay for drug rehab for those who want/need it while
> taking the glamour out of the illegality of the drug trade. The
> end effect would be fewer, not more, drug addicted people. To
> prove the concept, look at alcohol. See how Prohibition actually
> caused a rise in its use.
>
> Please rethink that stance, Dan. It's time for a BIG change.
>
Well despite what some probably think I do believe in reevaluating things
from time to time. It would take a lot for me on this one though. I
completely understand the benefits of legalization but I believe the risk is
way too high. These drugs are too deadly to be laying around like loaded
guns for kids to take up, and at such cheap prices you know cocaine, etc.
would be easy to find.
I haven't followed the model in Holland very closely but I recall they had
some major problems with it.
dwhite
"Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>
> Yes, I think it would be literally rampant. Look at the underage drinking
> epidemic. Now you've got kids on cocaine acting 10 times more zoned out
> than with alcohol, and probably causing serious brain damage in the process.
>
I think you'll find (or maybe better you won't that one of the problems
with cocaine is that it doesn't "zone out" the user, there is strong
rendency toward aggressive behaviour. Kids on coke are probably more
likely to get into violent confrontations, high speed chases etc, than
on alcohol. But let's not understimate the toxicity of alcohol. Alcohol
does brain damage and acute alcohol poinsoning kills the vicitm just
as dead as acute cocaine poisoning.
--
FF
Fred the Red Shirt notes:
>I think you'll find (or maybe better you won't that one of the problems
>with cocaine is that it doesn't "zone out" the user, there is strong
>rendency toward aggressive behaviour. Kids on coke are probably more
>likely to get into violent confrontations, high speed chases etc, than
>on alcohol. But let's not understimate the toxicity of alcohol. Alcohol
>does brain damage and acute alcohol poinsoning kills the vicitm just
>as dead as acute cocaine poisoning.
I read somewhere, sometime, that each drink kills something like 10,000 brain
cells. The brain is a marvelous mechanism, and the above may be en exxageration
(or on the low side, I don't really know), but I have noted there seem to be
more drinking relating deaths among youngsters lately. Swilling an entire fifth
or quart of whiskey is a fast way to meet your local undertaker. I don't know
if it is just more publicity, but when I was younger, I think I heard of
exactly NO incidents of someone under 21 dying from alcohol poisoning
(ingestion in one sitting at least).
Lots more sharp edges out there for today's kids, or so it seems.
Charlie Self
"Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a
pleasure." Ambrose Bierce
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > These drugs are too deadly to be laying around like loaded
> > guns for kids to take up, and at such cheap prices you know cocaine,
etc.
> > would be easy to find.
> >
> One solution I've seen suggested is that addicts would have to register
> and could get only so much and only from a pharmacy. They would also
> have to attend rehab classes.
>
> That might avoid a lot of the "cheap drugs laying around" but there
> will, as always, be those who figure out how to beat the system.
Yes, I think it would be literally rampant. Look at the underage drinking
epidemic. Now you've got kids on cocaine acting 10 times more zoned out
than with alcohol, and probably causing serious brain damage in the process.
dwhite
"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> >
> > Yes, I think it would be literally rampant. Look at the underage
drinking
> > epidemic. Now you've got kids on cocaine acting 10 times more zoned out
> > than with alcohol, and probably causing serious brain damage in the
process.
> >
>
> I think you'll find (or maybe better you won't that one of the problems
> with cocaine is that it doesn't "zone out" the user, there is strong
> rendency toward aggressive behaviour. Kids on coke are probably more
> likely to get into violent confrontations, high speed chases etc, than
> on alcohol. But let's not understimate the toxicity of alcohol. Alcohol
> does brain damage and acute alcohol poinsoning kills the vicitm just
> as dead as acute cocaine poisoning.
>
Well zoned out was the wrong image to give. I was just trying to be brief.
We all know what alcohol can do, but I think comparing the potential risk of
recreational alcohol use to recreational cocaine use is like comparing
firecrackers to mortar rounds.
dwhite
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:36:28 -0400, Renata <[email protected]>
calmly ranted:
>And we could have $225 billion more to give folks another tax cut.
There's no such thing as a "tax cut". It's merely a "gentler rape
of the taxpayer" which happens. That's why I want reps and dems
less involved in our government.
--
"Excess regulation and government spending destroy jobs and increase
unemployment. Every regulator we fire results in the creation of over
150 new jobs, enough to hire the ex-regulator, the unemployed, and
the able-bodied poor." -Michael Badnarik
VOTE LIBERTARIAN ON NOVEMBER 2, 2004 OR YOU WON'T CHANGE ANYTHING.
Larry Jaques states:
>>And we could have $225 billion more to give folks another tax cut.
>
>There's no such thing as a "tax cut". It's merely a "gentler rape
>of the taxpayer" which happens. That's why I want reps and dems
>less involved in our government.
>
It's a dream, but that's all it is.
Charlie Self
"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary." Thomas Paine
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 19:44:02 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Unfortunately that intelligence information was incorrect. If we had
>known that, Saddam and sons could still be happily ensconced in their
>little kingdom, sawing peoples' hands off, running them alive through
>plastic shredders and committing mass killings while their friends the
>French continued to profit from the oil for thugs program.
><http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135652,00.html> (Yeah, I know it's
>Fox -- don't worry, there are pictures too)
There is torture and murder going on in Iran, North Korea, Indonesia,
Abu Ghraib, Pakistan, Azerbejan, China, and various and sundry other
spas and shangrilas on this planet. So don't give me nonsense about
how Bush invaded Iraq because he cared about Iraqis. He doesn't
give a damn about most Americans, least of all Iraqis.
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:59:40 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Wow, how did Bush get Kerry to say all those things? Bush lies in
>Kerry's voice?
He doesn't need Kerry's voic, he lies quite well
with his own.
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 23:42:42 GMT, "Dan White"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Really? Explain this one away:
>
>http://www.gop.com/News/MultiMedia/VideoPlayer.aspx?ID=907&T=3
>
>lol,
What, a GOP site playing a sequence of Bush lies is
supposed to "explain" anything other than the fact
that Bush has more problems with truth than PT Barnum ?
It sure as heck doesn't take much to put one over on
you, does it ?
And we could have $225 billion more to give folks another tax cut.
Renata
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 19:44:02 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
-snip-
>
> Unfortunately that intelligence information was incorrect. If we had
>known that, Saddam and sons could still be happily ensconced in their
>little kingdom, sawing peoples' hands off, running them alive through
>plastic shredders and committing mass killings while their friends the
>French continued to profit from the oil for thugs program.
><http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135652,00.html> (Yeah, I know it's
>Fox -- don't worry, there are pictures too)
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 03:21:14 GMT, "Dan White"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Are you really arguing that Kerry hasn't changed his position on Iraq? Are
>you that gullible?
Bush has changed his position on Eyeraq a hell of a lot more
than Kerry has. And he's responsible for some 10,000 maimed,
blinded, crippled, and dead Americans while doing so. So
why this fetish of yours with Mr. Kerry ? Need to have someone
else to divert attention from the real problem ?? Or is it that you
haven't been satisified yet with the amount of blood shed on
behalf of this administration's fantasies ?
"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
I snipped all the stuff about Bush lying and flip flopping as much as Kerry.
You're just going to have to get over that Fred. Nobody's really buying it.
Bush out polls Kerry by a mile when it comes to protecting the country.
>
> Contrary to what you seem to think Kerry has not admitted that the
> invasion itself was a mistake, he argues that Bush botched the
> execution.
>
"Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" - John Kerry, says all you need to
know. Please don't bother spinning that statement into something it isn't.
thanks,
dwhite
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 01:50:56 GMT, Dan White <[email protected]>
wrote:
> > "Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> VOTE LIBERTARIAN ON NOVEMBER 2, 2004 OR YOU WON'T CHANGE ANYTHING.
> >
> > I like much of the Libertarian party, but drug legalization is a deal
> > breaker for me.
>
> I can overlook some of the problems in a platform if the overall message
> is more of a match with my personal point of view than another party's
> overall message. But, what stops the Libertarian Party from getting
anywhere,
> in my opinion, is the lack of _local_ and _state_ elected offices being
> run for. If they're running, they're pretty quiet about it. They need to
> get those positions in place first, get their people some exposure to
> the public, build support that way. Going for the top, without a
> foundation to build on, will doom them to the 1 or 2% range forever.
>
That's a good point...hadn't thought of that before. The drug thing is
still a deal breaker though, kind of like the democrat litmus test on
abortion for judges.
dwhite