http://www.stash-boxes.com/ From some of the posts on here, I'm sure a
few of you could use something like this. Or, maybe already are. LMAO
JOAT
I find the best approach is to take life as it comes.
- Death
Life just ain't life without good music. - JOAT
Web Page Update 13 Oct 2003.
Some tunes I like.
http://community-2.webtv.net/Jakofalltrades/SOMETUNESILIKE/
Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > [email protected] (T.) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > > http://www.stash-boxes.com/ From some of the posts on here, I'm sure a
> > > few of you could use something like this. Or, maybe already are. LMAO
> > >
> > > JOAT
> > > I find the best approach is to take life as it comes.
> > > - Death
> > >
> > > Life just ain't life without good music. - JOAT
> > > Web Page Update 13 Oct 2003.
> > > Some tunes I like.
> > > http://community-2.webtv.net/Jakofalltrades/SOMETUNESILIKE/
> >
> > Watch out! Tommy Chong is sitting in jail for the very same thing.
> > Rush isn't. Go figure.
> >
>
> ... let's see, Tommy Chong was selling these things, Rush wasn't. Go
> figure.
... however, Rusty was trafficking 30,000 OxyContin a year, and Chong
was dealing zip. Nothing to figure.
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:35:20 -0400, Trent© wrote:
> Bottom line...we STILL can't afford health care coverage. But we're
> gonna appropriate billions to go overseas. So it looks like we DO
> have the money after all. lol
Errr, you didn't notice that congress recently allotted close to a half
trillion dollars for the down payment on a spanky new drug coverage plan
for all our seniors? This amounted to 5 times what's being requested for
the Iraq thing and was done in spite of the existing deficit.
-Doug
Thu, Oct 16, 2003, 1:07am (EDT-3) cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com
(Dr.=A0Rev.=A0Chuck,=A0M.D.=A0P.A.) says:
.. however, Rusty was trafficking 30,000 OxyContin a year, and Chong
was dealing zip. Nothing to figure.
According to this, the DEA got 55 sellers of drug paraphanalia off
the streets. Must have been really dengerous people. I guess.
Otherwise the DEA wouldn't have bothered. Right? They'd have been out
tracking down cocaine dealers and smugglers. Right?
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/9/11/203112/968
Safe busts for the DEA, and they know 55 is more than 1. According
to the way they used to keep score, and probably still do, a bust for
paraphanalia is just as big a score as a bust for a ton of dope. Now
they can say they made 55 drug-related busts, and don't bother people
with the minor details.
A few years ago, a big thing about the DEA taking license numbers
outside of lawn and garden shops, of people buying grow lamps. Get
their address, then a warrent, and stage a middle of the night raid, to
catch the dangerous druggies, growing one or two merryguano plants in
their closets. Major stink raised when they raided a respected college
professor at about 3AM, and his crop of orchids in his basement. A one
plant bust counted as big as a thousand, and a lot less chance of
getting shot at. Their bust ratings shot up quite rapidly that way.
Made 'em look gooooood. Don't know if they're still doing that or not.
JOAT
Drink coffee. Do stupid things faster, with more energy.
Life just ain't life without good music. - JOAT
Web Page Update 13 Oct 2003.
Some tunes I like.
http://community-2.webtv.net/Jakofalltrades/SOMETUNESILIKE/
In article <[email protected]>, Doug
Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
> Errr, you didn't notice that congress recently allotted close to a half
> trillion dollars for the down payment on a spanky new drug coverage plan
> for all our seniors?
Is that the one that's buying all the drugs from up here in
Canuckistan? Way to go, US Congress!!!!
djb
--
There are no socks in my email address.
"Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati"
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 01:55:40 +0000, Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Doug
> Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Errr, you didn't notice that congress recently allotted close to a half
>> trillion dollars for the down payment on a spanky new drug coverage plan
>> for all our seniors?
>
> Is that the one that's buying all the drugs from up here in
> Canuckistan? Way to go, US Congress!!!!
>
Congress save money? Surely you jest.
-Doug
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 23:58:16 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>Where's that money gonna come from?
>
>From our pockets, that's where. Ain't NOTHIN' free.
You don't think we're spendin' the money NOW?...or at least most of
it?
What do YOUR hospitals do in Indiana...when someone comes into the
emergency room...and has no health coverage? lol And I don't see
Canada and other like countries goin' bankrupt.
Get real. I think your clue train just got derailed.
Bottom line...we STILL can't afford health care coverage. But we're
gonna appropriate billions to go overseas. So it looks like we DO
have the money after all. lol
Last post by me on this.
Have a nice week...
Trent
Certified breast self-exam subcontractor.
todd wrote:
>
> > Dude & Dudette,
> > My original point was that Tommy Chong is (was) selling, uh, "artistic
> > water pipes" to persons of majority age through a legal internet
> > business. Rush Limbaugh was buying illegal prescription drugs
> > literally by the thousands, and because he's rich and a celebrity that
> > today's population takes note of, he can "buy" a prison term by
> > confessing to the police and checking himself into 30 days of rehab.
> > For you see, it's not whether you were actually selling drugs. It's
> > that you had enough drugs in your possession to become the local
> > street pharmacist. Never mind the fact that the guy is an ADDICT, and
> > he is in DENIAL about his condition, which any recovering addict can
> > tell you, provided that they've heard his 'farewell.' If I (or y'all,
> > I would imagine) were to be arrested under similar conditions, it
> > would be a hop over possession, a skip past possession with intent to
> > distribute, and a jump right into trafficking. The man gonna let
> > YOU check into Betty Ford for a month to make that black mark go away?
> >
> > I'm not trying to start a flame war here, I'm just pointing out--ah,
> > hell. Go ahead. Flame away. I'm off my soapbox.
> >
> > -Phil Crow
>
> Just a couple points of clarification.
>
> 1. Rush hasn't been arrested of any crime. I think it's safe to say he
> hasn't confessed anything.
> 2. As far as we know, the police never found any drugs on his premises. I
> saw an interview with a former US attorney that says it's gonna be plenty
> hard to prove a case without the police finding drugs themselves.
>
> The way some people talk, you'd think he drowned a young woman in a car.
When was *that*?
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 09:45:20 -0700, Larry Blanchard
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> >says...
> >>
... snip
> If I may add to the list...
>
> We didn't have a couple of measly billion dollars to provide free
> health care for everyone.
If you think that only "a couple measly billion dollars" would provide
universal health care for everyone you are truly clueless.
The first bill for Medicare prescription drug benefits for seniors was
$480 billion, and a short time later, $30 billion more was added. ...
and this number will be low. Medicare has wound up costing 7 times what
it was initially estimated to cost. The Breuax-Frist II bill was
estimated to cost $300 billion over 10 years. Historically, estimates
for "entitlement" programs are never even close to their actual costs
because these programs don't take into account the change in peoples'
behavior that results from these programs.
>
> But we seem to be coming up with the money to keep the war going...and
> also the rebuild.
>
Seems a worthy investment -- engage the terrorists on their home turf
rather than taking them on in ones and twos as they make it into our
country while scores of their compatriots train unharrassed abroad.
Look how tenacious they have been in Afghanistan even after the Taliban
has been brought down. You have any illusions that negotiating with the
Taliban would have reduced the terror threat? These folks are not
rational, reasoning, civilized people -- they want you dead, they want
anyone who does not embrace their radical ideal of Islam dead or
converted -- period. So no, I see no problem with supporting a means of
making sure that they can't achieve their objectives.
> Too bad George didn't at least READ about Nam.
>
>
> Have a nice week...
>
> Trent
>
> Certified breast self-exam subcontractor.
>
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 01:37:15 +0000, Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Larry
> Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Why is it worse for Saddam to do it than all the other
>> Islamic states in the region?
>
> I read an interasting commentary a couple of weeks ago... The jist was:
>
> Complete the sentence "The world would be a better place if the USA had
> NOT removed Saddam because..."
>
> Any takers?
According to Babs Bush, there's a "sorry group" of nine trying to find an
answer.
-Doug
Mark & Juanita responds:
>
> Seems a worthy investment -- engage the terrorists on their home turf
>rather than taking them on in ones and twos as they make it into our
>country while scores of their compatriots train unharrassed abroad.
Except that the terrorists hated Saddas almost as much as Bush seems to. THere
is no evidence whatsoever that Iraq was supporting terrorists. But, then,
Saudi...15 of 19 of the scum in the 9/11 debacle were Saudis.
>Look how tenacious they have been in Afghanistan even after the Taliban
>has been brought down. You have any illusions that negotiating with the
>Taliban would have reduced the terror threat?
Apples & oranges.
Charlie Self
"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
In article <[email protected]>, Larry
Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> Why is it worse for Saddam to do it than all the other
> Islamic states in the region?
I read an interasting commentary a couple of weeks ago... The jist was:
Complete the sentence "The world would be a better place if the USA had
NOT removed Saddam because..."
Any takers?
djb
--
There are no socks in my email address.
"Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati"
In article <[email protected]>, Doug
Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
> According to Babs Bush, there's a "sorry group" of nine trying to find an
> answer.
That would be Ted K and his immediate circle of friends? Those guys
crack me up...
djb
--
There are no socks in my email address.
"Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati"
In article <[email protected]>, Trent©
<[email protected]> wrote:
--snippage--
Your alleged "facts" are wrong. Read something other than the LA or NY
Times.
djb
--
There are no socks in my email address.
"Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati"
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>
>Actually, the gas used on the Kurds was of the type used by Iran and not
>Iraq. But then you aren't really interested in the truth are you.
The truth is that it was Saddam who gassed them.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 01:37:15 GMT, Dave Balderstone
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, Larry
> >Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Why is it worse for Saddam to do it than all the other
> >> Islamic states in the region?
> >
> >I read an interasting commentary a couple of weeks ago... The jist was:
> >
> >Complete the sentence "The world would be a better place if the USA had
> >NOT removed Saddam because..."
> >
> >Any takers?
> >
> >djb
>
... snip of attempted "answers"
>
> Have a nice week...
>
> Trent
There ya' go Doug, somebody actually tried. Don't ask the next silly
question, I'm thinkin' he'll try that one too.
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 08:48:18 -0700, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> And neither is allowing Abu Nidal to live in Baghdad. Saddam had no idea he
>> was there.
>>
> That one I hadn't heard. Care to show documented evidence that he was
> there, that Saddam knew it, and that Saddam did nothing about it?
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/08/19/mideast.nidal/
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/08/20/nidal020820
http://news.indiainfo.com/2002/08/19/19nidal.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen082002.asp
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 01:57:07 +0000, Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Doug
> Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> According to Babs Bush, there's a "sorry group" of nine trying to find an
>> answer.
>
> That would be Ted K and his immediate circle of friends? Those guys
> crack me up...
>
No, Ted is a former wanna be. These guys are the current crop of wanna
be's.
-Doug
In article <[email protected]>, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> > Most of the citizens there don't WANT us there. Do you think its only
>> > Sadam's followers who are killing our men on a daily basis?
>>
>> Recent polls show that 70% of the Iraq population _does_ want us there,
>> and don't want us to leave until the security situation is in control.
>>
>>
>And just WHO took that poll? Let me guess. Members of the invading
>forces or their press core :-).
>
Gallup. Using Iraqi pollsters.
>Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
Intercepted in Kuwait, on their way to Europe. Don't you pay attention to the
news?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > > And just WHO took that poll? Let me guess. Members of the invading
> > > forces or their press core :-).
> > >
> > > --
> > > Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
> >
> > That pawn of the right wing, Gallup Poll News Service.
> >
> OK, I was wrong. But did they cover the whole country? I wonder what
> the results were in Tikrit :-). How was the poll question phrased?
>
> If the poll was unbiased and accurate I'm pleased.
>
> --
> Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
The poll was taken in Baghdad. The poll was funded and designed by Gallup
itself, so unless Gallup has an agenda, I'd say it was unbiased. If you
want to know the questions they asked, you can subscribe to Gallup and they
will probably tell you.
todd
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > > Most of the citizens there don't WANT us there. Do you think its only
> > > Sadam's followers who are killing our men on a daily basis?
> >
> > Recent polls show that 70% of the Iraq population _does_ want us there,
> > and don't want us to leave until the security situation is in control.
> >
> >
> And just WHO took that poll? Let me guess. Members of the invading
> forces or their press core :-).
>
>
The victor writes the history, it's a tradition.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > > Most of the citizens there don't WANT us there. Do you think its only
> > > Sadam's followers who are killing our men on a daily basis?
> >
> > Recent polls show that 70% of the Iraq population _does_ want us there,
> > and don't want us to leave until the security situation is in control.
> >
> >
> And just WHO took that poll? Let me guess. Members of the invading
> forces or their press core :-).
Jeez, Larry. I think you need more tinfoil under your hat. Answer:
neither. It was Gallup, using Iraqi field personnel.
Something tells me you'd view a poll from this organization as holy writ
if the results were more to your liking.
> Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
Dunno. I hope all the poison gas weapons actually eyeballed by the UN
and not already used to murder thousands of Kurds and tens of thousands
of Iranians were disposed of in the 90s. Along with any other gas,
biological, or nuclear weapon materials the UN didn't find. Don't you?
Abe
--
A numeral would be more efficient than spelling out "ONE" in an email
addy, don't you think?
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> > > > Most of the citizens there don't WANT us there. Do you think its only
> > > > Sadam's followers who are killing our men on a daily basis?
> > >
> > > Recent polls show that 70% of the Iraq population _does_ want us there,
> > > and don't want us to leave until the security situation is in control.
> > >
> > >
> > And just WHO took that poll? Let me guess. Members of the invading
> > forces or their press core :-).
>
> Jeez, Larry. I think you need more tinfoil under your hat. Answer:
> neither. It was Gallup, using Iraqi field personnel.
>
> Something tells me you'd view a poll from this organization as holy writ
> if the results were more to your liking.
>
>
> > Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
>
> Dunno. I hope all the poison gas weapons actually eyeballed by the UN
> and not already used to murder thousands of Kurds and tens of thousands
> of Iranians were disposed of in the 90s. Along with any other gas,
> biological, or nuclear weapon materials the UN didn't find. Don't you?
>
Actually, the gas used on the Kurds was of the type used by Iran and not
Iraq. But then you aren't really interested in the truth are you.
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > > Most of the citizens there don't WANT us there. Do you think its only
> > > Sadam's followers who are killing our men on a daily basis?
> >
> > Recent polls show that 70% of the Iraq population _does_ want us there,
> > and don't want us to leave until the security situation is in control.
> >
> >
> And just WHO took that poll? Let me guess. Members of the invading
> forces or their press core :-).
>
> --
> Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
That pawn of the right wing, Gallup Poll News Service.
todd
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Saddam's public offer of US$25K to the next-of-kin of Palestinian suicide
> bombers isn't support of terrorism, I guess. Direct financial aid isn't
> support.
>
That was support for terrorism against Israel. And while I don't condone
it, on that basis you'd have to go after almost every country in the
region.
> Neither is the terrorist training camp at Salman Pak. You know, the one with
> the airliner there. I'm sure that was really a museum.
>
That was in the northern no-fly zone and Saddam wouldn't have had any
better luck going in there on foot than we're having (and the Soviets
had) going after OBL with air support. Not that I'm saying he would
have.
> And neither is allowing Abu Nidal to live in Baghdad. Saddam had no idea he
> was there.
>
That one I hadn't heard. Care to show documented evidence that he was
there, that Saddam knew it, and that Saddam did nothing about it?
>
> Anyone who thinks that the Saudis -- the ruling family included -- are, or
> ever were, our friends, is hopelessly naive.
>
There we are in total agreement!
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> In article <[email protected]>, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> >[email protected] says...
> >>
> >> Saddam's public offer of US$25K to the next-of-kin of Palestinian suicide
> >> bombers isn't support of terrorism, I guess. Direct financial aid isn't
> >> support.
> >>
> >That was support for terrorism against Israel. And while I don't condone
> >it, on that basis you'd have to go after almost every country in the
> >region.
> >
> Charlie made the blanket claim that there was no evidence that Iraq supported
> terrorism. He didn't specify or exclude any particular countries as targets,
> he just said no evidence that Iraq supported terrorism. And that's false -- as
> you have admitted.
But my counter-claim said that support of the Palestinians was endemic in
the region. Why is it worse for Saddam to do it than all the other
Islamic states in the region?
> Try again. Salman Pak is in the immediate vicinity of Baghdad:
On the training camp I appear to be wrong on its location. My apologies.
But your reference to where where Salmon Pak is gave no proof that it had
been rebuilt after being bombed in the first Gulf war. And all I found
by a Google was rhetoric by both sides, no authoritative news report.
The terrorist camp in Iraq that was definitely operational at the time of
the 2nd Gulf war WAS in the no fly zone.
> You don't get out much, do you? Abu Nidal died in Baghdad last year:
And I guess the reason I'd forgotten about Abu Nidal in Bagdhad was that
he went there to die, not to plan attacks. But I had forgotten, so owe
an apology there also.
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> > Most of the citizens there don't WANT us there. Do you think its only
> > Sadam's followers who are killing our men on a daily basis?
>
> Recent polls show that 70% of the Iraq population _does_ want us there,
> and don't want us to leave until the security situation is in control.
>
>
And just WHO took that poll? Let me guess. Members of the invading
forces or their press core :-).
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> > And just WHO took that poll? Let me guess. Members of the invading
> > forces or their press core :-).
> >
> > --
> > Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
>
> That pawn of the right wing, Gallup Poll News Service.
>
OK, I was wrong. But did they cover the whole country? I wonder what
the results were in Tikrit :-). How was the poll question phrased?
If the poll was unbiased and accurate I'm pleased.
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 01:37:15 GMT, Dave Balderstone
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Complete the sentence "The world would be a better place if the USA had
>NOT removed Saddam because..."
...he was already removed by the coalition in '91
...he was removed by a UN force led by the French and the Germans,
united in their outrage over WMD found by UN inspection teams.
...he's an evil bastard, but that's no more reason to invade his
country than it is for North Korea.
...he still hadn't finished paying for the armaments we sold him for
the last war but one.
.. it didn't leave a Christian fruitcake like Boykin to make
theologically inept statements that the God of Abraham was an idol.
...it didn't leave US GI's sat on their arses in Baghdad, wondering
what the hell to do next.
and my personal favourite;
...it's not worth the damage to the democratic systems of the West, if
we will only agree to support our presidents over this by being told a
pack of lies over non-existent WMD, and that Iraqis had attacked the
WTC.
I rejoice that Saddam has fallen (or will do, when he finally does)
because he deserved it. But Bush and Blair lied and cheated to do it
_their_ way, and I won't forgive them that.
--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods
In article <[email protected]>,
"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Babs Bush
An enabler with some overt gender issues who helped palm off on the
gullible public her JFK-assassinating bigamist of a fake husband. Shades
of Lady Bird...
Who gets the blame for the font of base characters and felons she's
spawned? Whitetrash Clinton?
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 22:31:52 -0400, Trent© wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 01:37:15 GMT, Dave Balderstone
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, Larry
>>Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Why is it worse for Saddam to do it than all the other
>>> Islamic states in the region?
>>
>>I read an interasting commentary a couple of weeks ago... The jist was:
>>
>>Complete the sentence "The world would be a better place if the USA had
>>NOT removed Saddam because..."
>>
>>Any takers?
>>
>>djb
>
> Many of the people who were killed by us would not have been killed by
> Sadam.
>
> Most of the citizens there don't WANT us there. Do you think its only
> Sadam's followers who are killing our men on a daily basis?
Recent polls show that 70% of the Iraq population _does_ want us there,
and don't want us to leave until the security situation is in control.
-Doug
In article <[email protected]>, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>>
>> Saddam's public offer of US$25K to the next-of-kin of Palestinian suicide
>> bombers isn't support of terrorism, I guess. Direct financial aid isn't
>> support.
>>
>That was support for terrorism against Israel. And while I don't condone
>it, on that basis you'd have to go after almost every country in the
>region.
>
Charlie made the blanket claim that there was no evidence that Iraq supported
terrorism. He didn't specify or exclude any particular countries as targets,
he just said no evidence that Iraq supported terrorism. And that's false -- as
you have admitted.
Strike one.
>> Neither is the terrorist training camp at Salman Pak. You know, the one with
>> the airliner there. I'm sure that was really a museum.
>>
>That was in the northern no-fly zone and Saddam wouldn't have had any
>better luck going in there on foot than we're having (and the Soviets
>had) going after OBL with air support. Not that I'm saying he would
>have.
Try again. Salman Pak is in the immediate vicinity of Baghdad:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/salman-pak-east.htm
Strike two.
>> And neither is allowing Abu Nidal to live in Baghdad. Saddam had no idea he
>> was there.
>>
>That one I hadn't heard. Care to show documented evidence that he was
>there, that Saddam knew it, and that Saddam did nothing about it?
You don't get out much, do you? Abu Nidal died in Baghdad last year:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/08/19/mideast.nidal/
Strike three.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 02:34:19 GMT, "Doug Winterburn"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Recent polls show that 70% of the Iraq population _does_ want us there,
That still leaves 30%, and they're heavily armed.
--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote:
>Mark & Juanita responds:
>
>>
>> Seems a worthy investment -- engage the terrorists on their home turf
>>rather than taking them on in ones and twos as they make it into our
>>country while scores of their compatriots train unharrassed abroad.
>
>Except that the terrorists hated Saddas almost as much as Bush seems to. THere
>is no evidence whatsoever that Iraq was supporting terrorists.
Saddam's public offer of US$25K to the next-of-kin of Palestinian suicide
bombers isn't support of terrorism, I guess. Direct financial aid isn't
support.
Neither is the terrorist training camp at Salman Pak. You know, the one with
the airliner there. I'm sure that was really a museum.
And neither is allowing Abu Nidal to live in Baghdad. Saddam had no idea he
was there.
Nope, you're right, there's no evidence that Iraq was supporting terrorists.
"There is none so blind as he who will not see."
>But, then, Saudi...15 of 19 of the scum in the 9/11 debacle were Saudis.
Anyone who thinks that the Saudis -- the ruling family included -- are, or
ever were, our friends, is hopelessly naive.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 01:37:15 GMT, Dave Balderstone
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Larry
>Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Why is it worse for Saddam to do it than all the other
>> Islamic states in the region?
>
>I read an interasting commentary a couple of weeks ago... The jist was:
>
>Complete the sentence "The world would be a better place if the USA had
>NOT removed Saddam because..."
>
>Any takers?
>
>djb
Many of the people who were killed by us would not have been killed by
Sadam.
Most of the citizens there don't WANT us there. Do you think its only
Sadam's followers who are killing our men on a daily basis?
And Sadam isn't removed...he's just moved.
And when we're finally gone, a guy just like him will take over again.
You can't kill all the Sadam's of the world.
Have a nice week...
Trent
Certified breast self-exam subcontractor.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:45:32 -0500, "todd"
><[email protected]> wrote:
><snip>
>
>>
>>The way some people talk, you'd think he drowned a young woman in a car.
>>
>>todd
>>
>
>Rush said that all drug users should go to jail. But wait... Rush
>said he had a "medication dependancy." I guess that makes it okay
>when it's worded that way. Personally, I think the "war on drugs" is
>a total waste at the taxpayer's expense.
Evidently, the politicians didn't learn anything from Prohibition.
I think using drugs is stupid. But if you want to be stupid in the privacy of
your own home, what business is it of mine? Or of society in general? Now if
you get stoned, and then go out and drive on the same public roads that I use,
then it *does* become my business. And there are *already* laws against that.
Getting stoned, in and of itself, doesn't seem to me to cause any demonstrable
harm to society that would justify incarceration of the stoners.
A friend of mine has what I think is the best solution to the drug problem. He
says we should do away with all of the thousands of drug laws, and replace
them with a single one that says, in essence, "Here's a list of the drugs we
don't like. If you're caught with anything on the list, you gotta eat it." The
two principal results seem to me to be the legalization of possession of
personal-use quantities, and an instantaneous death penalty for narcotics
dealers.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> [email protected] (T.) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > http://www.stash-boxes.com/ From some of the posts on here, I'm sure a
> > few of you could use something like this. Or, maybe already are. LMAO
> >
> > JOAT
> > I find the best approach is to take life as it comes.
> > - Death
> >
> > Life just ain't life without good music. - JOAT
> > Web Page Update 13 Oct 2003.
> > Some tunes I like.
> > http://community-2.webtv.net/Jakofalltrades/SOMETUNESILIKE/
>
> Watch out! Tommy Chong is sitting in jail for the very same thing.
> Rush isn't. Go figure.
>
... let's see, Tommy Chong was selling these things, Rush wasn't. Go
figure.
In article <3F8E51AF.7DED@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com>,
cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com says...
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
> >
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> > > [email protected] (T.) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > > > http://www.stash-boxes.com/ From some of the posts on here, I'm sure a
> > > > few of you could use something like this. Or, maybe already are. LMAO
> > > >
> > > > JOAT
> > > > I find the best approach is to take life as it comes.
> > > > - Death
> > > >
> > > > Life just ain't life without good music. - JOAT
> > > > Web Page Update 13 Oct 2003.
> > > > Some tunes I like.
> > > > http://community-2.webtv.net/Jakofalltrades/SOMETUNESILIKE/
> > >
> > > Watch out! Tommy Chong is sitting in jail for the very same thing.
> > > Rush isn't. Go figure.
> > >
> >
> > ... let's see, Tommy Chong was selling these things, Rush wasn't. Go
> > figure.
>
> ... however, Rusty was trafficking 30,000 OxyContin a year, and Chong
> was dealing zip. Nothing to figure.
>
Where do you get that figure? ... and what do you mean "trafficking"?
Are attempting to indicate he was he selling? According to all reports
he was using, which, taking your figures of 30k OC / year = 82.1 per day
= 3.4 per hour. Now, my understanding of this stuff is that if someone
were downing 82 of these things a day, they would have died years ago.
I do believe you kinda overlooked the defense portion of the ole
budget.
Renata
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 02:23:40 GMT, "Doug Winterburn"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 01:57:33 +0000, Abe wrote:
>
>> Trent -- sorry, didn't get the sense of your message the first time
>> around. I still disagree, though. Not sure what the domestic
>> entitlement and other social program cumulative spending figure is, but
>> at a guess it's in the neighborhood of a trillion $$ per year.
>
>Social programs were about 3/4ths of the budget before the extra half
>trillion for senior drugs and the .087 trillion for keeping the war on
>their dirt. These two push up social spending as a percentage of the
>budget above where it was.
>
>-Doug
smart, not dumb for email
In article <3F90FFB6.67F8@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com>,
cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com says...
> todd wrote:
> >
> > > Dude & Dudette,
> > > My original point was that Tommy Chong is (was) selling, uh, "artistic
> > > water pipes" to persons of majority age through a legal internet
> > > business. Rush Limbaugh was buying illegal prescription drugs
> > > literally by the thousands, and because he's rich and a celebrity that
> > > today's population takes note of, he can "buy" a prison term by
> > > confessing to the police and checking himself into 30 days of rehab.
> > > For you see, it's not whether you were actually selling drugs. It's
> > > that you had enough drugs in your possession to become the local
> > > street pharmacist. Never mind the fact that the guy is an ADDICT, and
> > > he is in DENIAL about his condition, which any recovering addict can
> > > tell you, provided that they've heard his 'farewell.' If I (or y'all,
> > > I would imagine) were to be arrested under similar conditions, it
> > > would be a hop over possession, a skip past possession with intent to
> > > distribute, and a jump right into trafficking. The man gonna let
> > > YOU check into Betty Ford for a month to make that black mark go away?
> > >
> > > I'm not trying to start a flame war here, I'm just pointing out--ah,
> > > hell. Go ahead. Flame away. I'm off my soapbox.
> > >
> > > -Phil Crow
> >
> > Just a couple points of clarification.
> >
> > 1. Rush hasn't been arrested of any crime. I think it's safe to say he
> > hasn't confessed anything.
> > 2. As far as we know, the police never found any drugs on his premises. I
> > saw an interview with a former US attorney that says it's gonna be plenty
> > hard to prove a case without the police finding drugs themselves.
> >
> > The way some people talk, you'd think he drowned a young woman in a car.
>
> When was *that*?
1969. And the "he" in that famous case was Ted Kennedy, who was pretty
obviously guilty of manslaughter at the least. I think the point was
just that what some folks consider important misbehavior depends on the
political affiliation of the perpetrator. (Which is a good point,
though I can't tell whether this observation really applies to anybody
in this thread.) In any case, if all Rush did was pop some pills, I
don't see why he should do any jail time at all. Court-mandated rehab,
yes; but addiction is really its own punishment. As long as nobody else
has been hurt, the argument for jail time -- for anybody, celebrity or
otherwise -- seems pretty weak.
As for Tommy Chong -- the whole thing is an embarrassment. He's going
to do serious time for what ought not to be a crime at all.
Abe
--
A numeral would be more efficient than spelling out "ONE" in an email
addy, don't you think?
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
...
> We didn't have a couple of measly billion dollars to provide free
> health care for everyone.
>
ROFL! It would only cost a "couple" of billion if by "free health
care" you mean giving everybody an ace bandage and a bottle of tylenol,
Einstein. Maybe not even that, because you've got to add in the cost of
the bloated government bureaucracy that would be needed to mismanage the
program. True publicly-funded universal health care of any quality
would cost hundreds of times that. Per year.
And what do you mean by "free"? Where do you think the government gets
its revenue -- from the tooth fairy?
Abe
--
A numeral would be more efficient than spelling out "ONE" in an email
addy, don't you think?
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:45:32 -0500, "todd"
<[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>
>
>The way some people talk, you'd think he drowned a young woman in a car.
>
>todd
>
Rush said that all drug users should go to jail. But wait... Rush
said he had a "medication dependancy." I guess that makes it okay
when it's worded that way. Personally, I think the "war on drugs" is
a total waste at the taxpayer's expense.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> Rush said that all drug users should go to jail. But wait... Rush
> said he had a "medication dependancy." I guess that makes it okay
> when it's worded that way. Personally, I think the "war on drugs" is
> a total waste at the taxpayer's expense.
>
Agreed. It seems we learned nothing from Prohibition. Well, maybe some
folks figured out that the best way to get rich is to have your product
declared illegal.
How much would addiction go down if there was little money to be made
pushing drugs?
How much would crime rates go down if addicts could purchase drugs
cheaply?
How much would crime and addiction go down if everyone who wanted one
could get a decent paying job (like the ones we keep exporting)?
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 03:33:47 GMT, Dave Balderstone
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Trent©
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> But, if the drugs are gonna be paid 100% by Congress...not a bad deal.
>> I can't wait!
>
>US Taxpayer's money flowing north to Canada byt the hundreds of
>millions... Bring it on!
>
>But if you really think your congressmen are going to pay for this out
>of their payoff money, you're deluded.
>
>djb
I was being facetious. lol
Have a nice week...
Trent
Certified breast self-exam subcontractor.
[email protected] (T.) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> http://www.stash-boxes.com/ From some of the posts on here, I'm sure a
> few of you could use something like this. Or, maybe already are. LMAO
>
> JOAT
> I find the best approach is to take life as it comes.
> - Death
>
> Life just ain't life without good music. - JOAT
> Web Page Update 13 Oct 2003.
> Some tunes I like.
> http://community-2.webtv.net/Jakofalltrades/SOMETUNESILIKE/
Watch out! Tommy Chong is sitting in jail for the very same thing.
Rush isn't. Go figure.
-Phil Crow
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:18:55 GMT, Abe <[email protected]> wrote:
>> We didn't have a couple of measly billion dollars to provide free
>> health care for everyone.
>>
>
>ROFL! It would only cost a "couple" of billion if by "free health
>care" you mean giving everybody an ace bandage and a bottle of tylenol,
I meant 'couple' figuratively...not literally.
If you want literal amounts...the amount being spent on the war and
the rebuild. We couldn't come up with it for OUR folks...but we seem
to magically have it NOW! lol
Have a nice week...
Trent
Certified breast self-exam subcontractor.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:18:55 GMT, Abe <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> We didn't have a couple of measly billion dollars to provide free
> >> health care for everyone.
> >>
> >
> >ROFL! It would only cost a "couple" of billion if by "free health
> >care" you mean giving everybody an ace bandage and a bottle of tylenol,
>
> I meant 'couple' figuratively...not literally.
>
> If you want literal amounts...the amount being spent on the war and
> the rebuild. We couldn't come up with it for OUR folks...but we seem
> to magically have it NOW! lol
Trent -- sorry, didn't get the sense of your message the first time
around. I still disagree, though. Not sure what the domestic
entitlement and other social program cumulative spending figure is, but
at a guess it's in the neighborhood of a trillion $$ per year. Whatever
it is, we *do* spend a boatload of our tax dollars on our own people.
The question is always: are we taxing and spending enough? You and I
may answer this question differently, but it's false to assert that one
party is in favor of social welfare and the other not. It's a question
of degree, and of the role of coercion (in the form of taxation) in
dealing with problems most of us would agree exist. As for national
security: if the war brings reliable oil supplies for 15 years, kicks
scumbag dictators out of a few middle eastern countries, and tamps down
the crazy islamofascists for a while, a few hundred billion is a cheap
price to pay.
Cheers,
Abe
--
A numeral would be more efficient than spelling out "ONE" in an email
addy, don't you think?
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 04:45:49 GMT, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> If I may add to the list...
>>
>> We didn't have a couple of measly billion dollars to provide free
>> health care for everyone.
>
> If you think that only "a couple measly billion dollars" would provide
>universal health care for everyone you are truly clueless.
What clues? What are you talking about?
> The first bill for Medicare prescription drug benefits for seniors was
>$480 billion, and a short time later, $30 billion more was added. ...
>and this number will be low. Medicare has wound up costing 7 times what
>it was initially estimated to cost.
Medicare is not the issue. But spending that kinda money on OUR
people rather than THEIR people might be the issue.
Maybe when we find all those weapons of mass destruction, we can sell
some of them.
My point was (which you missed)...and still is...
We couldn't afford WHATEVER amount of money for health care for our
citizens. But we sure in hell can afford the money to start and
maintain a war...and then rebuild. A war, BTW, that MANY countries
tried to tell us was simply an act of aggression.
Nah...not even that. It was a chance to settle some unfinished Bush
business!
>> But we seem to be coming up with the money to keep the war going...and
>> also the rebuild.
>>
>
> Seems a worthy investment -- engage the terrorists on their home turf
>rather than taking them on in ones and twos as they make it into our
>country while scores of their compatriots train unharrassed abroad.
Do you really think the terrorists have decided to change the
turf?...just because WE'VE gone overseas? lol
But what have WE done? We've created an ADDITIONAL turf...one we
can't even back out of now without saving face.
In the meantime...on the ORIGINAL turf...college kids are still able
to smuggle weapons (twice) to prove how stupid and inept we still are.
>Look how tenacious they have been in Afghanistan even after the Taliban
>has been brought down. You have any illusions that negotiating with the
>Taliban would have reduced the terror threat?
How can you change topics so quickly? My last post on this with you.
Yer just too weird! lol
Have a nice week...
Trent
Certified breast self-exam subcontractor.
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 01:57:33 +0000, Abe wrote:
> Trent -- sorry, didn't get the sense of your message the first time
> around. I still disagree, though. Not sure what the domestic
> entitlement and other social program cumulative spending figure is, but
> at a guess it's in the neighborhood of a trillion $$ per year.
Social programs were about 3/4ths of the budget before the extra half
trillion for senior drugs and the .087 trillion for keeping the war on
their dirt. These two push up social spending as a percentage of the
budget above where it was.
-Doug
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 04:45:49 GMT, Mark & Juanita
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> If I may add to the list...
> >>
> >> We didn't have a couple of measly billion dollars to provide free
> >> health care for everyone.
> >
> > If you think that only "a couple measly billion dollars" would provide
> >universal health care for everyone you are truly clueless.
>
> What clues? What are you talking about?
>
> > The first bill for Medicare prescription drug benefits for seniors was
> >$480 billion, and a short time later, $30 billion more was added. ...
> >and this number will be low. Medicare has wound up costing 7 times what
> >it was initially estimated to cost.
>
> Medicare is not the issue. But spending that kinda money on OUR
> people rather than THEIR people might be the issue.
>
No, (you really don't get it, do you?) I was pointing out the fact
that a prescription drug benefit in Medicare, only one small piece of US
health care targeted to a specific demographic was going to cost over
500 billion. Now, if that small addition to a subset of the population
was going to cost that much, how much more do you think covering
*everybody* in the US for *everything* is going to cost?
> Maybe when we find all those weapons of mass destruction, we can sell
> some of them.
>
> My point was (which you missed)...and still is...
>
> We couldn't afford WHATEVER amount of money for health care for our
> citizens.
What the heck is Medicare? How about all the other welfare programs
provided by the federal and state entities? How much is enough? Why
aren't you asking the same questions about how much it's going to cost
and when we're going to be done to the welfare programs that have
expended multiple trillions of dollars since the 1960s and I still see
no evidence that those to whom it has been targeted are any better off?
> But we sure in hell can afford the money to start and
> maintain a war...and then rebuild. A war, BTW, that MANY countries
> tried to tell us was simply an act of aggression.
You seem to forget that there was an ongoing war even before the final
invasion. The no-fly zone enforcement was not free and it was tieing up
troops and equipment for years with no progress or end in sight.
>
> Nah...not even that. It was a chance to settle some unfinished Bush
> business!
>
uh, yeah sure, whatever.
> >> But we seem to be coming up with the money to keep the war going...and
> >> also the rebuild.
> >>
> >
> > Seems a worthy investment -- engage the terrorists on their home turf
> >rather than taking them on in ones and twos as they make it into our
> >country while scores of their compatriots train unharrassed abroad.
>
> Do you really think the terrorists have decided to change the
> turf?...just because WE'VE gone overseas? lol
>
Check the news reports, a fair number of those being engaged in Iraq
are foreigners who have come from other places.
> But what have WE done? We've created an ADDITIONAL turf...one we
> can't even back out of now without saving face.
>
> In the meantime...on the ORIGINAL turf...college kids are still able
> to smuggle weapons (twice) to prove how stupid and inept we still are.
>
So, you would prefer a police state such that these kind of things
can't happen? I think engaging the terrorists in their home territories
is more palatable.
> >Look how tenacious they have been in Afghanistan even after the Taliban
> >has been brought down. You have any illusions that negotiating with the
> >Taliban would have reduced the terror threat?
>
> How can you change topics so quickly?
Same topic, different venue. Try to keep up here.
> My last post on this with you.
> Yer just too weird! lol
>
Yeah, whatever. Some of us believe that it might be kind of important
to make sure we have a secure homeland in which to provide benefits to
citizens.
>
> Have a nice week...
>
> Trent
>
> Certified breast self-exam subcontractor.
>
In article <[email protected]>, Trent© <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:18:55 GMT, Abe <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> We didn't have a couple of measly billion dollars to provide free
>>> health care for everyone.
>>>
>>
>>ROFL! It would only cost a "couple" of billion if by "free health
>>care" you mean giving everybody an ace bandage and a bottle of tylenol,
>
>I meant 'couple' figuratively...not literally.
>
>If you want literal amounts...the amount being spent on the war and
>the rebuild. We couldn't come up with it for OUR folks...but we seem
>to magically have it NOW! lol
>
Still not enough. Do the math. Figure maybe three thou a year per person, say.
Multiply by 300 megapeople in the US. I get 900 gigabucks.
Where's that money gonna come from?
<cue sounds of approaching ClueTrain>
From our pockets, that's where. Ain't NOTHIN' free. "Government money" is a
total fiction. It's OUR money. They get it from US. Bad as it is, the system
we have now is a hell of a lot more efficient than a government bureaucracy
taking money from us with one hand and giving part of it back with the other.
<exit ClueTrain, stage left>
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Snip
>
> Where do you get that figure? ... and what do you mean "trafficking"?
> Are attempting to indicate he was he selling? According to all reports
> he was using, which, taking your figures of 30k OC / year = 82.1 per day
> = 3.4 per hour. Now, my understanding of this stuff is that if someone
> were downing 82 of these things a day, they would have died years ago.
Dude & Dudette,
My original point was that Tommy Chong is (was) selling, uh, "artistic
water pipes" to persons of majority age through a legal internet
business. Rush Limbaugh was buying illegal prescription drugs
literally by the thousands, and because he's rich and a celebrity that
today's population takes note of, he can "buy" a prison term by
confessing to the police and checking himself into 30 days of rehab.
For you see, it's not whether you were actually selling drugs. It's
that you had enough drugs in your possession to become the local
street pharmacist. Never mind the fact that the guy is an ADDICT, and
he is in DENIAL about his condition, which any recovering addict can
tell you, provided that they've heard his 'farewell.' If I (or y'all,
I would imagine) were to be arrested under similar conditions, it
would be a hop over possession, a skip past possession with intent to
distribute, and a jump right into trafficking. The man gonna let
YOU check into Betty Ford for a month to make that black mark go away?
I'm not trying to start a flame war here, I'm just pointing out--ah,
hell. Go ahead. Flame away. I'm off my soapbox.
-Phil Crow
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Click on the video of "Commander-in-Chief" Bush sitting on the same soft
> hands he couldn't swear an oath to The Nation with in 1968.
> Tell us you think he's a good and honorable man that wasn't really in on
> the "Pearl Harbor event" needed by the planners of the New American
> Century Project to get us into Iraq's oil, after watching his guilty
> eyes shifting, and that will tell real Americans all we need to know
> about you.
And you. A real patriot that won't reveal his/it's name. Where did you
bleed, asshole? Get a job.
Kindest regards,
Hank
"Bill, that cigar really stinks".
Hillary Rodham Clinton
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Iraq had exactly what to do w/WTC (hint - read George's lips - they
didn't)? I know, I know, those Arabs, they all look alike.
Renata
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 23:00:33 GMT, "Doug Winterburn"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 18:56:11 -0400, Renata wrote:
>
>
>> Nah, we'd rather shovel it over to Haliburton (as long as it's a BIG
>> shovel).
>
>Better than shoveling 3000 bodies and a 2 trillion loss out of another
>WTC pit...
>
>-Doug
[email protected] wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Henry St.Pierre" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Hank
>
>
> Papist
No Dipshit, I'm a Pagan.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
[email protected] wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Henry St.Pierre" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm a Pagan.
>
>
> Raised papist, with ingrained priest-induced "protect Mother
> Church/Anti-Christ" wrinkles on the brain.
Wrong again asshole. You assume because my name appears to be of French
origin that I was raised Roman Catholic. Believe it or not, my dimwitted
friend, all French are not Roman Catholic. I was raised Calvinist. I
never saw too much difference between Jews, Christians or Moslems. They
all believe in the same God, but kill each other because of or in spite
of it. You, I'm sure, are a "Christian". I'm sure Jesus is proud of the
likes of you. Rather be a Pagan. No dipshits there.
Fondest regards you no name coward.
Yours in Wotan,
Hank
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Yours in Wotan,
> Hank
>
>
Naaaah. Mistletoe rules!
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
Iraq cost, what, 47 BILLION for the first SIX MONTHS? The 87 BILLION
is for the next 6 MONTHS.
The 500+ biillion for prescription drugs is over the next decade
(that's 20 groups of 6 months, if you're counting). And, if they were
more logical about it, it could very well be less. (Not to mention
the exhorbitant price of drugs in this country that's really getting
out of hand.)
Nah, we'd rather shovel it over to Haliburton (as long as it's a BIG
shovel).
Renata
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 01:40:41 GMT, "Doug Winterburn"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:35:20 -0400, Trent© wrote:
>
>
>> Bottom line...we STILL can't afford health care coverage. But we're
>> gonna appropriate billions to go overseas. So it looks like we DO
>> have the money after all. lol
>
>Errr, you didn't notice that congress recently allotted close to a half
>trillion dollars for the down payment on a spanky new drug coverage plan
>for all our seniors? This amounted to 5 times what's being requested for
>the Iraq thing and was done in spite of the existing deficit.
>
>-Doug
smart, not dumb for email
In article <[email protected]>,
"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 18:56:11 -0400, Renata wrote:
>
>
> > Nah, we'd rather shovel it over to Haliburton (as long as it's a BIG
> > shovel).
>
> Better than shoveling 3000 bodies and a 2 trillion loss out of another
> WTC pit...
>
> -Doug
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bush-911.htm
Click on the video of "Commander-in-Chief" Bush sitting on the same soft
hands he couldn't swear an oath to The Nation with in 1968.
Tell us you think he's a good and honorable man that wasn't really in on
the "Pearl Harbor event" needed by the planners of the New American
Century Project to get us into Iraq's oil, after watching his guilty
eyes shifting, and that will tell real Americans all we need to know
about you.
In article <[email protected]>,
"Henry St.Pierre" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hank
Papist
In article <[email protected]>,
"Henry St.Pierre" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm a Pagan.
Raised papist, with ingrained priest-induced "protect Mother
Church/Anti-Christ" wrinkles on the brain.
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 09:45:20 -0700, Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>says...
>>
>> Rush said that all drug users should go to jail. But wait... Rush
>> said he had a "medication dependancy." I guess that makes it okay
>> when it's worded that way. Personally, I think the "war on drugs" is
>> a total waste at the taxpayer's expense.
>>
>Agreed. It seems we learned nothing from Prohibition. Well, maybe some
>folks figured out that the best way to get rich is to have your product
>declared illegal.
>
>How much would addiction go down if there was little money to be made
>pushing drugs?
>
>How much would crime rates go down if addicts could purchase drugs
>cheaply?
>
>How much would crime and addiction go down if everyone who wanted one
>could get a decent paying job (like the ones we keep exporting)?
If I may add to the list...
We didn't have a couple of measly billion dollars to provide free
health care for everyone.
But we seem to be coming up with the money to keep the war going...and
also the rebuild.
Too bad George didn't at least READ about Nam.
Have a nice week...
Trent
Certified breast self-exam subcontractor.
In article <[email protected]>, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> We didn't have a couple of measly billion dollars to provide free
>> health care for everyone.
>
> If you think that only "a couple measly billion dollars" would provide
>universal health care for everyone you are truly clueless.
>
Indeed. There's an obvious failure to do some simple math: "couple billion"
(say $3B) divided by almost 300M people in the US = a bit over ten bucks
apiece. That'll buy three bottles of aspirin and a box of Band-Aids.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
> Dude & Dudette,
> My original point was that Tommy Chong is (was) selling, uh, "artistic
> water pipes" to persons of majority age through a legal internet
> business. Rush Limbaugh was buying illegal prescription drugs
> literally by the thousands, and because he's rich and a celebrity that
> today's population takes note of, he can "buy" a prison term by
> confessing to the police and checking himself into 30 days of rehab.
> For you see, it's not whether you were actually selling drugs. It's
> that you had enough drugs in your possession to become the local
> street pharmacist. Never mind the fact that the guy is an ADDICT, and
> he is in DENIAL about his condition, which any recovering addict can
> tell you, provided that they've heard his 'farewell.' If I (or y'all,
> I would imagine) were to be arrested under similar conditions, it
> would be a hop over possession, a skip past possession with intent to
> distribute, and a jump right into trafficking. The man gonna let
> YOU check into Betty Ford for a month to make that black mark go away?
>
> I'm not trying to start a flame war here, I'm just pointing out--ah,
> hell. Go ahead. Flame away. I'm off my soapbox.
>
> -Phil Crow
Just a couple points of clarification.
1. Rush hasn't been arrested of any crime. I think it's safe to say he
hasn't confessed anything.
2. As far as we know, the police never found any drugs on his premises. I
saw an interview with a former US attorney that says it's gonna be plenty
hard to prove a case without the police finding drugs themselves.
The way some people talk, you'd think he drowned a young woman in a car.
todd
In article <[email protected]>, Trent©
<[email protected]> wrote:
> But, if the drugs are gonna be paid 100% by Congress...not a bad deal.
> I can't wait!
US Taxpayer's money flowing north to Canada byt the hundreds of
millions... Bring it on!
But if you really think your congressmen are going to pay for this out
of their payoff money, you're deluded.
djb
--
There are no socks in my email address.
"Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati"
In article <[email protected]>, Trent© <[email protected]> wrote:
>But, if the drugs are gonna be paid 100% by Congress...not a bad deal.
>I can't wait!
You still don't get it, do you? Congress doesn't pay for *anything*.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 01:55:40 GMT, Dave Balderstone
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Doug
>Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Errr, you didn't notice that congress recently allotted close to a half
>> trillion dollars for the down payment on a spanky new drug coverage plan
>> for all our seniors?
>
>Is that the one that's buying all the drugs from up here in
>Canuckistan? Way to go, US Congress!!!!
>
>djb
:)
I lost track on all that...it doesn't interest me. In my area, we can
just get on a bus...take a nice trip to Windsor...gamble at the
casino...and they take all the prescriptions for the seniors and get
them filled while they gamble. Bus trip is free.
But, if the drugs are gonna be paid 100% by Congress...not a bad deal.
I can't wait!
Have a nice week...
Trent
Certified breast self-exam subcontractor.