Discussion:
No Support for our troops
(too old to reply)
White Terror
2005-07-30 14:22:56 UTC
Permalink
I see these signs that ask to support the paid assasins.

Fuck em. They don't get my support.

Most of them joined the military to get the benefits.

I won't support a war that is unjust.

Not the war or it's players.
BibsBro
2005-07-30 14:56:42 UTC
Permalink
"White Terror" <"White Terror"@news.com> wrote in message
news:43MGe.769074$***@fe01.news.easynews.com...
> I see these signs that ask to support the paid assasins.
>
> Fuck em. They don't get my support.
>
> Most of them joined the military to get the benefits.
>
> I won't support a war that is unjust.
>
> Not the war or it's players.


They DON'T want the support of a flaming, turd sucking homosexual like you
anyway!
White Terror
2005-07-30 15:03:31 UTC
Permalink
BibsBro wrote:

> "White Terror" <"White Terror"@news.com> wrote in message
> news:43MGe.769074$***@fe01.news.easynews.com...
>
>>I see these signs that ask to support the paid assasins.
>>
>>Fuck em. They don't get my support.
>>
>>Most of them joined the military to get the benefits.
>>
>>I won't support a war that is unjust.
>>
>>Not the war or it's players.
>
>
>
> They DON'T want the support of a flaming, turd sucking homosexual like you
> anyway!
>
>
>
>
>

To be homophopic is a curse. To be you is a homophobic Bushit.
m***@yahoo.com
2005-07-30 15:19:12 UTC
Permalink
White Terror wrote:
> I see these signs that ask to support the paid assasins.
>
> Fuck em. They don't get my support.
>
> Most of them joined the military to get the benefits.
>
> I won't support a war that is unjust.
>
> Not the war or it's players.

You'll not meet anyone more against the invasion of Iraq than me, but I
really object to your portrayal of people in the military. Some joined
out of a sense of duty, others because of the benefits their recruiter
told them about. All were lied to. They deserve our support, inasmuch
as most our pawns in a game of deceit and destruction far beyond
anything they had in mind. Many learn that they are being used once
they are in Iraq. As it was in Vietnam, some will return thinking that
because they had to go through it, that those who weren't in the
military are against them. Others will undergo a maturing process
where they realize they were lied to, and will join the ranks of those
opposing the war.

We can't let the Bush Administration do what the Nixon Administration
did to divert attention from the war itself, and that was to make the
war about the soldiers, and a test of loyalty about them, while
portraying those against the war as against their service men and
woman. In 1969, Nixon, with the help of H. Ross Perot dreamed up the
whole MIA/POW issue(selling wristbands with the names of those missing
as if they all were POWS)to make that the focal point of the war,
instead of the irrationality and immorality of the war on the
Vietnamese itself. It was very successful, making large numbers of
Americans think that was what the war was about. Fortunately, many
Vets came back home from Nam knowing how wrong it was, and joined the
ranks of the antiwar movement, thus helping to end the war. We can't
let those diversionary tactics happen again, now that there are
disillusioned Iraq War Vets returning and a vibrant, yet fledgling Iraq
Vets antiwar movement to welcome them.

By stating your opposition to people in the military just because they
are in the military, you play into the hands of those making this war,
and become a pawn yourself.
f***@yahoo.com
2005-07-30 16:32:52 UTC
Permalink
I support our brothers and sisters in the military. The vast majority
are serving their country with honor and do so at great personal risk.
They may support or not support the war, but they serve nonetheless.

Even if they did join for certain benefits like a salary or medical
care, their benefits stink especially given the steep price many
soldiers have to pay in risking their lives.
m***@yahoo.com
2005-07-30 16:50:02 UTC
Permalink
***@yahoo.com wrote:
> I support our brothers and sisters in the military. The vast majority
> are serving their country with honor and do so at great personal risk.
> They may support or not support the war, but they serve nonetheless.
>
> Even if they did join for certain benefits like a salary or medical
> care, their benefits stink especially given the steep price many
> soldiers have to pay in risking their lives.

Agreed. It's not their fault that they are being used as mercenaries.
White Terror
2005-07-30 16:56:34 UTC
Permalink
***@yahoo.com wrote:
> ***@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>I support our brothers and sisters in the military. The vast majority
>>are serving their country with honor and do so at great personal risk.
>>They may support or not support the war, but they serve nonetheless.
>>
>>Even if they did join for certain benefits like a salary or medical
>>care, their benefits stink especially given the steep price many
>>soldiers have to pay in risking their lives.
>
>
> Agreed. It's not their fault that they are being used as mercenaries.
>

I will support them once the draft is reiinstated and Bush's daughter's
are among them.
m***@yahoo.com
2005-07-30 16:50:02 UTC
Permalink
***@yahoo.com wrote:
> I support our brothers and sisters in the military. The vast majority
> are serving their country with honor and do so at great personal risk.
> They may support or not support the war, but they serve nonetheless.
>
> Even if they did join for certain benefits like a salary or medical
> care, their benefits stink especially given the steep price many
> soldiers have to pay in risking their lives.

Agreed. It's not their fault that they are being used as mercenaries.
Chek
2005-07-30 19:25:39 UTC
Permalink
<***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:***@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> White Terror wrote:
>> I see these signs that ask to support the paid assasins.
>>
>> Fuck em. They don't get my support.
>>
>> Most of them joined the military to get the benefits.
>>
>> I won't support a war that is unjust.
>>
>> Not the war or it's players.
>
> You'll not meet anyone more against the invasion of Iraq
> than me, but I
> really object to your portrayal of people in the military.
> Some joined
> out of a sense of duty, others because of the benefits
> their recruiter
> told them about. All were lied to. They deserve our
> support, inasmuch
> as most our pawns in a game of deceit and destruction far
> beyond
> anything they had in mind. Many learn that they are being
> used once
> they are in Iraq. As it was in Vietnam, some will return
> thinking that
> because they had to go through it, that those who weren't
> in the
> military are against them. Others will undergo a maturing
> process
> where they realize they were lied to, and will join the
> ranks of those
> opposing the war.
>
> We can't let the Bush Administration do what the Nixon
> Administration
> did to divert attention from the war itself, and that was
> to make the
> war about the soldiers, and a test of loyalty about them,
> while
> portraying those against the war as against their service
> men and
> woman. In 1969, Nixon, with the help of H. Ross Perot
> dreamed up the
> whole MIA/POW issue(selling wristbands with the names of
> those missing
> as if they all were POWS)to make that the focal point of
> the war,
> instead of the irrationality and immorality of the war on
> the
> Vietnamese itself. It was very successful, making large
> numbers of
> Americans think that was what the war was about.
> Fortunately, many
> Vets came back home from Nam knowing how wrong it was, and
> joined the
> ranks of the antiwar movement, thus helping to end the
> war. We can't
> let those diversionary tactics happen again, now that
> there are
> disillusioned Iraq War Vets returning and a vibrant, yet
> fledgling Iraq
> Vets antiwar movement to welcome them.
>
> By stating your opposition to people in the military just
> because they
> are in the military, you play into the hands of those
> making this war,
> and become a pawn yourself.
>

I've never fully understood this stance.
Does it mean you have to support what the Military did at
Ohio State?
Do you have to be completely behind the Military at My Lai?

And if an insane runaway junta presents a false fait
accompli and the troops are
there before the truth of the situation emerges, you have to
be behind that too?

Agreed the military are only the foot soldiers doing the
dirty work and
it's the political leadership that has to be changed, but
nevertheless
how are they 'supportable'?
m***@yahoo.com
2005-07-30 19:47:29 UTC
Permalink
Chek wrote:
> <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:***@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > White Terror wrote:
> >> I see these signs that ask to support the paid assasins.
> >>
> >> Fuck em. They don't get my support.
> >>
> >> Most of them joined the military to get the benefits.
> >>
> >> I won't support a war that is unjust.
> >>
> >> Not the war or it's players.
> >
> > You'll not meet anyone more against the invasion of Iraq
> > than me, but I
> > really object to your portrayal of people in the military.
> > Some joined
> > out of a sense of duty, others because of the benefits
> > their recruiter
> > told them about. All were lied to. They deserve our
> > support, inasmuch
> > as most our pawns in a game of deceit and destruction far
> > beyond
> > anything they had in mind. Many learn that they are being
> > used once
> > they are in Iraq. As it was in Vietnam, some will return
> > thinking that
> > because they had to go through it, that those who weren't
> > in the
> > military are against them. Others will undergo a maturing
> > process
> > where they realize they were lied to, and will join the
> > ranks of those
> > opposing the war.
> >
> > We can't let the Bush Administration do what the Nixon
> > Administration
> > did to divert attention from the war itself, and that was
> > to make the
> > war about the soldiers, and a test of loyalty about them,
> > while
> > portraying those against the war as against their service
> > men and
> > woman. In 1969, Nixon, with the help of H. Ross Perot
> > dreamed up the
> > whole MIA/POW issue(selling wristbands with the names of
> > those missing
> > as if they all were POWS)to make that the focal point of
> > the war,
> > instead of the irrationality and immorality of the war on
> > the
> > Vietnamese itself. It was very successful, making large
> > numbers of
> > Americans think that was what the war was about.
> > Fortunately, many
> > Vets came back home from Nam knowing how wrong it was, and
> > joined the
> > ranks of the antiwar movement, thus helping to end the
> > war. We can't
> > let those diversionary tactics happen again, now that
> > there are
> > disillusioned Iraq War Vets returning and a vibrant, yet
> > fledgling Iraq
> > Vets antiwar movement to welcome them.
> >
> > By stating your opposition to people in the military just
> > because they
> > are in the military, you play into the hands of those
> > making this war,
> > and become a pawn yourself.
> >
>
> I've never fully understood this stance.
> Does it mean you have to support what the Military did at
> Ohio State?
> Do you have to be completely behind the Military at My Lai?
>
> And if an insane runaway junta presents a false fait
> accompli and the troops are
> there before the truth of the situation emerges, you have to
> be behind that too?
>
> Agreed the military are only the foot soldiers doing the
> dirty work and
> it's the political leadership that has to be changed, but
> nevertheless
> how are they 'supportable'?


I understand exactly what you mean, and I am often troubled by that.
For me, it always comes down to what is the attitude of the soldier
after experiencing the lies, the horror of seeing his friends killed,
the terror of being wounded, and the gut-wrenching effect of killing
innocents. If they come back to the war with that gung-ho,
hey-you-sat-on-your-asses-drinking-beer-while-I-was-a-real-man-killing-the-enemy
attitude, I know they are lost, and in my book, not being able to
recognize how wrong that belief is makes them as complicit as the folks
using them as pawns. On the other hand, after being through all those
experiences, they come away realizing how terrible war is, and how
terribly wrong it was for the US to be pursuing that war, then I have
nothing but the utmost respect for their maturity, and the difficulty
it took to realize that against all the lies they've been told. Those
are the soldiers who come back, and try to stop the war from continuing.
f***@yahoo.com
2005-07-31 12:11:41 UTC
Permalink
Marcus,

Sounds like you are a Kerry supporter.

I am probably in the minority here, but I don't think the war in
Iraq or Afghanistan is as immoral or wrong as others here probably do.
I do think mistakes have been made and some innocents have been killed
which is very sad.

I certainly will not shed one tear over Saddam Hussein, his
family, his government or his supporters. I have no pity for the
Taliban, Osama Bin Laden or their followers. I say hunt down as many as
possible. Kill them, maim them or put them in jail.

To me, if an American or British soldier came home and said "I
killed that mofo Arab who blew up a bus full of people going to work in
London" or "I shot that Muslim fanatic who shot up an Israeli school
killing 10 children" I would shake his hand and pat him on the back.

Well, I guess I am just weird.
White Terror
2005-07-31 14:13:19 UTC
Permalink
***@yahoo.com wrote:
> Marcus,
>
> Sounds like you are a Kerry supporter.
>
> I am probably in the minority here, but I don't think the war in
> Iraq or Afghanistan is as immoral or wrong as others here probably do.
> I do think mistakes have been made and some innocents have been killed
> which is very sad.
>
> I certainly will not shed one tear over Saddam Hussein, his
> family, his government or his supporters. I have no pity for the
> Taliban, Osama Bin Laden or their followers. I say hunt down as many as
> possible. Kill them, maim them or put them in jail.
>
> To me, if an American or British soldier came home and said "I
> killed that mofo Arab who blew up a bus full of people going to work in
> London" or "I shot that Muslim fanatic who shot up an Israeli school
> killing 10 children" I would shake his hand and pat him on the back.
>
> Well, I guess I am just weird.
>

One man's murderer is another's hero.


I'd say:

Why death
Why love
broken aroow
White Terror

You'd probably pat General Custer on the back for slaying those savages too.

It's all perception.

I believe we have no business sticking our nose where it don't belong.

Holdiing up pictures of blown up innocents is a political win.

Like kissiing babies it's emotitonal all win.

But rarely holds truth of of the basics in any side of the story.
m***@yahoo.com
2005-07-31 14:18:30 UTC
Permalink
***@yahoo.com wrote:
> Marcus,
>
> Sounds like you are a Kerry supporter.
>
That might be the most unkind statement anyone has ever made to me on
this ng.
White Terror
2005-07-31 14:27:27 UTC
Permalink
***@yahoo.com wrote:

> ***@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>Marcus,
>>
>> Sounds like you are a Kerry supporter.
>>
>
> That might be the most unkind statement anyone has ever made to me on
> this ng.
>


Automatically if one is anti-bush, anti-war then one must be a leftist
pro-Ted Kennedy Kerry supporter.

One coouldn't just be inclined to believe Bush is simply a puppet moron.
Morgul, the friendly Drelb
2005-07-31 14:47:07 UTC
Permalink
Dancin Bear wrote:

"Automatically if one is anti-bush, anti-war then one must be a
leftist
pro-Ted Kennedy Kerry supporter. "


This is such a ridiculous statement it hurts my brain to look at it.
White Terror
2005-07-31 14:48:53 UTC
Permalink
Morgul, the friendly Drelb wrote:

> Dancin Bear wrote:
>
> "Automatically if one is anti-bush, anti-war then one must be a
> leftist
> pro-Ted Kennedy Kerry supporter. "
>
>
> This is such a ridiculous statement it hurts my brain to look at it.
>

And I always thought, No brain, No pain.
m***@yahoo.com
2005-07-31 14:58:10 UTC
Permalink
White Terror wrote:
> Morgul, the friendly Drelb wrote:
>
> > Dancin Bear wrote:
> >
> > "Automatically if one is anti-bush, anti-war then one must be a
> > leftist
> > pro-Ted Kennedy Kerry supporter. "
> >
> >
I haven't voted for a Democratic candidate for president since 1992,
and unless they stop allowing themselves to be controlled by the same
monied-interests who also support the Republicans, I have intention to
vote for a Democrat for president again.
White Terror
2005-07-31 15:01:13 UTC
Permalink
***@yahoo.com wrote:

> White Terror wrote:
>
>>Morgul, the friendly Drelb wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Dancin Bear wrote:
>>>
>>>"Automatically if one is anti-bush, anti-war then one must be a
>>>leftist
>>>pro-Ted Kennedy Kerry supporter. "
>>>
>>>
>
> I haven't voted for a Democratic candidate for president since 1992,
> and unless they stop allowing themselves to be controlled by the same
> monied-interests who also support the Republicans, I have intention to
> vote for a Democrat for president again.
>


I think you need another cup.
m***@yahoo.com
2005-07-31 16:15:03 UTC
Permalink
***@yahoo.com wrote:
> White Terror wrote:
> > Morgul, the friendly Drelb wrote:
> >
> > > Dancin Bear wrote:
> > >
> > > "Automatically if one is anti-bush, anti-war then one must be a
> > > leftist
> > > pro-Ted Kennedy Kerry supporter. "
> > >
> > >
> I haven't voted for a Democratic candidate for president since 1992,
> and unless they stop allowing themselves to be controlled by the same
> monied-interests who also support the Republicans, I have*intention to
> vote for a Democrat for president again.

*no
f***@yahoo.com
2005-08-01 08:54:30 UTC
Permalink
Dear White Terror:

Are you the same as Dancing Bear?
f***@yahoo.com
2005-08-01 08:53:23 UTC
Permalink
Dear Marcus,

I am so so sorry. I did not mean it as an insult. It is just
that your positiion sounds just like Kerry.
m***@yahoo.com
2005-08-01 12:05:17 UTC
Permalink
***@yahoo.com wrote:
> Dear Marcus,
>
> I am so so sorry. I did not mean it as an insult. It is just
> that your positiion sounds just like Kerry.

Kerry wanted to send more troops to Iraq, and be tougher than Bush.
Somehow, liberal Democrats proclaimed him the "peace candidate".

Go figure.
Dale Houstman
2005-08-01 13:19:35 UTC
Permalink
***@yahoo.com wrote:
> ***@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>Dear Marcus,
>>
>> I am so so sorry. I did not mean it as an insult. It is just
>>that your positiion sounds just like Kerry.
>
>
> Kerry wanted to send more troops to Iraq, and be tougher than Bush.
> Somehow, liberal Democrats proclaimed him the "peace candidate".
>
> Go figure.
>

They did it in hopes of fooling those "peace voters" long enough to get
them to vote for that cardboard cut-out. It didn't work very well, so -
of course - they'll try it again next time, just on the off-chance that
doing something else might be worse. That's niche politics: hold on to
what you've got (by hook and crook) and try to lie subtly enough to draw
in the few percentage points usually needed to make the difference. Then
get into office and conduct business as usual, with a few saluatory
tosses of cheap trinkets to the disappointed, to keep them in a wavering
line for the next election. Compelling stuff that. No wonder people
decide not voting is the best option available.

Kerry was the usual schtick-meister. most politicans today run on
trivial "management issues." Thus, Kerry was not against the "idea" of
the war only the way it was being managed (like you might not be against
the random DDT-dusting of a daycare center, only the way the wind blew).
It's a sad sight for those of us who want real change. But it is getting
to be an old story, although maybe not one we'll be proud of telling our
grand-children when they ask us where America went.

dmh
m***@yahoo.com
2005-08-01 14:49:07 UTC
Permalink
Dale Houstman wrote:
> ***@yahoo.com wrote:
> > ***@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >>Dear Marcus,
> >>
> >> I am so so sorry. I did not mean it as an insult. It is just
> >>that your positiion sounds just like Kerry.
> >
> >
> > Kerry wanted to send more troops to Iraq, and be tougher than Bush.
> > Somehow, liberal Democrats proclaimed him the "peace candidate".
> >
> > Go figure.
> >
>
> They did it in hopes of fooling those "peace voters" long enough to get
> them to vote for that cardboard cut-out. It didn't work very well, so -
> of course - they'll try it again next time, just on the off-chance that
> doing something else might be worse. That's niche politics: hold on to
> what you've got (by hook and crook) and try to lie subtly enough to draw
> in the few percentage points usually needed to make the difference. Then
> get into office and conduct business as usual, with a few saluatory
> tosses of cheap trinkets to the disappointed, to keep them in a wavering
> line for the next election. Compelling stuff that. No wonder people
> decide not voting is the best option available.
>
> Kerry was the usual schtick-meister. most politicans today run on
> trivial "management issues." Thus, Kerry was not against the "idea" of
> the war only the way it was being managed (like you might not be against
> the random DDT-dusting of a daycare center, only the way the wind blew).
> It's a sad sight for those of us who want real change. But it is getting
> to be an old story, although maybe not one we'll be proud of telling our
> grand-children when they ask us where America went.
>
> dmh

You have hit the proverbial nail on the head.
Dale Houstman
2005-08-01 15:43:09 UTC
Permalink
***@yahoo.com wrote:
> Dale Houstman wrote:
>
>>***@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>***@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dear Marcus,
>>>>
>>>> I am so so sorry. I did not mean it as an insult. It is just
>>>>that your positiion sounds just like Kerry.
>>>
>>>
>>>Kerry wanted to send more troops to Iraq, and be tougher than Bush.
>>>Somehow, liberal Democrats proclaimed him the "peace candidate".
>>>
>>>Go figure.
>>>
>>
>>They did it in hopes of fooling those "peace voters" long enough to get
>>them to vote for that cardboard cut-out. It didn't work very well, so -
>>of course - they'll try it again next time, just on the off-chance that
>>doing something else might be worse. That's niche politics: hold on to
>>what you've got (by hook and crook) and try to lie subtly enough to draw
>>in the few percentage points usually needed to make the difference. Then
>>get into office and conduct business as usual, with a few saluatory
>>tosses of cheap trinkets to the disappointed, to keep them in a wavering
>>line for the next election. Compelling stuff that. No wonder people
>>decide not voting is the best option available.
>>
>>Kerry was the usual schtick-meister. most politicans today run on
>>trivial "management issues." Thus, Kerry was not against the "idea" of
>>the war only the way it was being managed (like you might not be against
>>the random DDT-dusting of a daycare center, only the way the wind blew).
>>It's a sad sight for those of us who want real change. But it is getting
>>to be an old story, although maybe not one we'll be proud of telling our
>>grand-children when they ask us where America went.
>>
>>dmh
>
>
> You have hit the proverbial nail on the head.
>

In a few more years, America will begin producing all nails without
heads, to save both metal and having to hit those nailheads at all.

dmh
shadow crying
2005-08-01 14:16:16 UTC
Permalink
<***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:***@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> ***@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Dear Marcus,
>>
>> I am so so sorry. I did not mean it as an insult. It is just
>> that your positiion sounds just like Kerry.
>
> Kerry wanted to send more troops to Iraq, and be tougher than Bush.
> Somehow, liberal Democrats proclaimed him the "peace candidate".
>
> Go figure.

He was all over the place since he couldn't take a position and stick with
it. He was (as usual) a terrible candidate. Democrats have no toes left
from constantly shooting themselves in the foot.

Still...the Bush corruption and arrogance wasn't there. He still would have
been a better president. And Nader? Faw. No way.
>
BibsBro
2005-08-01 23:31:44 UTC
Permalink
"shadow crying" <***@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:***@individual.net...
>
> <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:***@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > ***@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> Dear Marcus,
> >>
> >> I am so so sorry. I did not mean it as an insult. It is just
> >> that your positiion sounds just like Kerry.
> >
> > Kerry wanted to send more troops to Iraq, and be tougher than Bush.
> > Somehow, liberal Democrats proclaimed him the "peace candidate".
> >
> > Go figure.
>
> He was all over the place since he couldn't take a position and stick with
> it. He was (as usual) a terrible candidate. Democrats have no toes left
> from constantly shooting themselves in the foot.
>
> Still...the Bush corruption and arrogance wasn't there. He still would
have
> been a better president. And Nader? Faw. No way.
> >
>

I think you guys will be whining for years to come. I agree Kerry was a
terrible candidate. He took both sides of every issue and has been a phony
for years. He talks about higher taxes for the wealthy, but he avoids them
for himself.

Al Gore was even more of an embarassment. What kind of candidate would
publicly try to reinvent himself late in his campaign? The guy is in his
fifties and he's still trying to "find himself"?!!

Howard Dean makes outrageous statements that his own party won't support.
Hillary has huge negative support....

At least George W. Bush is comfortable with himself, and does not constantly
change his positions to satisfy the liberal media and polls. Americans
recognize this as leadership.

BibsBro

Former Democrat

in Taxachusetts
m***@hotmail.com
2005-08-02 02:51:16 UTC
Permalink
BibsBro wrote:


At least George W. Bush is comfortable with himself, and does not
constantly
> change his positions to satisfy the liberal media and polls. Americans
> recognize this as leadership.


Thank you for the biggest laugh I've had all day.
Chocolate Jesus
2005-08-02 03:55:41 UTC
Permalink
<***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> BibsBro wrote:
>
>
> At least George W. Bush is comfortable with himself, and does not
> constantly
> > change his positions to satisfy the liberal media and polls. Americans
> > recognize this as leadership.
>
>
> Thank you for the biggest laugh I've had all day.

Oh yeah, that was a howler alright.

I'm still chuckling about that one......:)
Morgul, the friendly Drelb
2005-08-02 04:22:31 UTC
Permalink
Yep. Bush drove straight into a brick wall and didn't blink. THAT'S
courage. ☺
shadow crying
2005-08-02 04:53:53 UTC
Permalink
"Morgul, the friendly Drelb" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:***@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Yep. Bush drove straight into a brick wall and didn't blink. THAT'S
courage. ?

No. Bush made a bunch of kids drive fatally into a brick wall. And he DOES
feel it was courageous.
Dale Houstman
2005-08-02 09:12:54 UTC
Permalink
Morgul, the friendly Drelb wrote:
> Yep. Bush drove straight into a brick wall and didn't blink. THAT'S
> courage. ☺
>

George's life is one slow, continuous blink broken now and then by a
pious burp.

dmh
f***@yahoo.com
2005-08-02 09:30:38 UTC
Permalink
Sadly, I must agree with many of the comments here about George Bush.
However, many seem to forget some of the very positive things he has
done.

After all, he was President when 4 American planes were hijacked on
September 11, 2001 and when two were flown into the Twin Towers,
another crashed in Pennsylvania and the last crashed into the Pentagon.
There is no question in my mind that the hijackers had intended to kill
as many American government officials as possible (probably including
the President). He had been president just a few months, and inherited
the worst or one of the worst disasters in American history, including
a threat to his own life.

I think President Bush showed remarkable courage and leadership during
this terrible time, and his administrations's ability to name the prime
suspect (Bin Laden) and his immediate efforts to hunt him down were
commendable. I also applaud the war in Afghanistan.

I think when the Bush administration started to take aim at Iraq under
false pretenses is when he started to slip . . . .
Chocolate Jesus
2005-08-02 09:40:42 UTC
Permalink
<***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:***@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Sadly, I must agree with many of the comments here about George Bush.
> However, many seem to forget some of the very positive things he has
> done.
>
> After all, he was President when 4 American planes were hijacked on
> September 11, 2001 and when two were flown into the Twin Towers,

Yeah, and he sat there like a bunny in the headlights reading to a
kindergarten book to small children while his country was under attack.


> I think President Bush showed remarkable courage and leadership during
> this terrible time

Fuck off, you pathetic cunt.
BibsBro
2005-08-02 11:44:37 UTC
Permalink
"Chocolate Jesus" <***@church.com> wrote in message
news:dcnf3v$3jq$***@pita.alt.net...
>
> <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:***@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Sadly, I must agree with many of the comments here about George Bush.
> > However, many seem to forget some of the very positive things he has
> > done.
> >
> > After all, he was President when 4 American planes were hijacked on
> > September 11, 2001 and when two were flown into the Twin Towers,
>
> Yeah, and he sat there like a bunny in the headlights reading to a
> kindergarten book to small children while his country was under attack.
>
>
> > I think President Bush showed remarkable courage and leadership during
> > this terrible time
>
> Fuck off, you pathetic cunt.
>

Fudgeboy showing his liberal tolerance and compassion again! LOL!!!
f***@yahoo.com
2005-08-02 14:56:37 UTC
Permalink
Dear Bibsbro,

I agree with much of your posts. But I prefer not to label people
liberal or conservative or Republican or Democrat at a time of crisis
like this.
poisoned rose
2005-08-02 17:45:16 UTC
Permalink
***@yahoo.com wrote:

> Dear Bibsbro,
>
> I agree with much of your posts. But I prefer not to label people
> liberal or conservative or Republican or Democrat at a time of crisis
> like this.

I really find it repugnant, the way so many of Usenet's bombastic
right-wing bullies aim generalized character smears at the
opposition through makeshift "slur" words like "Dems" and "libs."
It reads to me just like reading "Spics," "Nips," "Micks," etc.
from someone else. The same sort of bigoted hatespeak.
f***@yahoo.com
2005-08-02 20:27:02 UTC
Permalink
Dear Poisoned,

Your point is well taken, although I don't think the words
Democrat, liberals, etc. are always used as slurs. Some people use them
as slurs.

My point is that all this "name calling" is so sad and done at
a very unfortunate time. There is a sizeable group of Muslim fanatics
out there who want to destroy the Western world, and we seem to be
helping them in their cause by fighting bitterly amongst ourselves.
BibsBro
2005-08-02 22:40:41 UTC
Permalink
<***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:***@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Poisoned,
>
> Your point is well taken, although I don't think the words
> Democrat, liberals, etc. are always used as slurs. Some people use them
> as slurs.
>
> My point is that all this "name calling" is so sad and done at
> a very unfortunate time. There is a sizeable group of Muslim fanatics
> out there who want to destroy the Western world, and we seem to be
> helping them in their cause by fighting bitterly amongst ourselves.
>

You are a wise man! We should be united. The terrorists only become
encouraged by bickering amongst their enemies.


But my use of the words "liberal" and "Democrat" were not meant as slurs.

BibsBro
amos
2005-08-02 23:14:13 UTC
Permalink
"BibsBro" <***@webtv.net-nospam> wrote in message
news:***@news.supernews.com...
>
>
>
> <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:***@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > Dear Poisoned,
> >
> > Your point is well taken, although I don't think the words
> > Democrat, liberals, etc. are always used as slurs. Some people use them
> > as slurs.
> >
> > My point is that all this "name calling" is so sad and done at
> > a very unfortunate time. There is a sizeable group of Muslim fanatics
> > out there who want to destroy the Western world, and we seem to be
> > helping them in their cause by fighting bitterly amongst ourselves.
> >
>
> You are a wise man! We should be united. The terrorists only become
> encouraged by bickering amongst their enemies.
>
>
> But my use of the words "liberal" and "Democrat" were not meant as slurs.
>
LOFL!!! RIGHT!
gofab.com
2005-08-02 21:59:53 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 17:45:16 GMT, in article
<prose34981-***@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com>, poisoned rose
stated:
>
>***@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Dear Bibsbro,
>>
>> I agree with much of your posts. But I prefer not to label people
>> liberal or conservative or Republican or Democrat at a time of crisis
>> like this.
>
>I really find it repugnant, the way so many of Usenet's bombastic
>right-wing bullies aim generalized character smears at the
>opposition through makeshift "slur" words like "Dems" and "libs."
>It reads to me just like reading "Spics," "Nips," "Micks," etc.
>from someone else. The same sort of bigoted hatespeak.


Implausible, but an amusing try, nonetheless.
amos
2005-08-02 22:25:25 UTC
Permalink
"gofab.com" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
news:***@drn.newsguy.com...
> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 17:45:16 GMT, in article
> <prose34981-***@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
poisoned rose
> stated:
> >
> >***@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Bibsbro,
> >>
> >> I agree with much of your posts. But I prefer not to label people
> >> liberal or conservative or Republican or Democrat at a time of crisis
> >> like this.
> >
> >I really find it repugnant, the way so many of Usenet's bombastic
> >right-wing bullies aim generalized character smears at the
> >opposition through makeshift "slur" words like "Dems" and "libs."
> >It reads to me just like reading "Spics," "Nips," "Micks," etc.
> >from someone else. The same sort of bigoted hatespeak.
>
>
> Implausible, but an amusing try, nonetheless.

Nothing implausible about it. It's a daily occurence, something you
unsurprisingly shut your eyes to.

Oh yes, it goes the other way too, no one is dull enough to pretend it
doesn't.

But it's the very reason why was asked 9 months ago what in the hell the
right was so angry about...they won? They're still hurling inprecations.
Must be the limbaughzation of GOP politics.
>
gofab.com
2005-08-02 22:51:44 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 15:25:25 -0700, in article <***@individual.net>,
amos stated:
>
>
>"gofab.com" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:***@drn.newsguy.com...
>> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 17:45:16 GMT, in article
>> <prose34981-***@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
>poisoned rose
>> stated:
>> >
>> >***@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> Dear Bibsbro,
>> >>
>> >> I agree with much of your posts. But I prefer not to label people
>> >> liberal or conservative or Republican or Democrat at a time of crisis
>> >> like this.
>> >
>> >I really find it repugnant, the way so many of Usenet's bombastic
>> >right-wing bullies aim generalized character smears at the
>> >opposition through makeshift "slur" words like "Dems" and "libs."
>> >It reads to me just like reading "Spics," "Nips," "Micks," etc.
>> >from someone else. The same sort of bigoted hatespeak.
>>
>>
>> Implausible, but an amusing try, nonetheless.
>
>Nothing implausible about it. It's a daily occurence, something you
>unsurprisingly shut your eyes to.
>
>Oh yes, it goes the other way too, no one is dull enough to pretend it
>doesn't.
>


You missed my point. You're right that the smears go on all the time. And
you're right that it goes the other way too. What I stated as being implausible
was the notion that the term "libs" or the like is "the same sort of bigoted
hatespeak" as a racist term like "spics." That's utterly ridiculous, or do you
really care to debate that point?


>But it's the very reason why was asked 9 months ago what in the hell the
>right was so angry about...they won? They're still hurling inprecations.
>Must be the limbaughzation of GOP politics.


I'm sure there's anger on both sides, but the left were the ones with

* Howard Dean

* Al Sharpton and Al Gore

* "Re-defeat Bush"

* "Buck Fush"

* moveon.org

* Fahrenheit 9/11

and other charming political rhetoric.

The Republican campaign had its angry moments, but at least the entire campaign
wasn't based on a negative, vituperative premise (i.e., don't vote for Kerry
because he's Kerry, vote for him because he's not Bush). I would go so far to
say that it was the extreme negativity of the left that ultimately gave Bush his
edge in '04 -- swing voters, I'd guess, ultimately are skeptical types who don't
warm to having the President so nakedly and relentlessly bashed. Bush isn't
Nixon.

As for what the right is so angry about, we could start with blatant Democrat
obstructionism in Congress. What can be more antidemocratic than using
antiquated procedural rules to block the will of a majority of the country's
elected representatives?

The left, on the other hand, lost big, and so their continued anger needs no
further justification. One would hope that they learn that anger and negativity
is not the way to win, though. They seem to be heading toward nominating
Hillary, the angriest woman in the world, having managed to find the one
candidate who could be more divisive than W (and Democrats don't have the
numbers to win by dividing).
amos
2005-08-02 23:20:36 UTC
Permalink
"gofab.com" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
news:***@drn.newsguy.com...
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 15:25:25 -0700, in article
<***@individual.net>,
> amos stated:
> >
> >
> >"gofab.com" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:***@drn.newsguy.com...
> >> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 17:45:16 GMT, in article
> >> <prose34981-***@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
> >poisoned rose
> >> stated:
> >> >
> >> >***@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Dear Bibsbro,
> >> >>
> >> >> I agree with much of your posts. But I prefer not to label
people
> >> >> liberal or conservative or Republican or Democrat at a time of
crisis
> >> >> like this.
> >> >
> >> >I really find it repugnant, the way so many of Usenet's bombastic
> >> >right-wing bullies aim generalized character smears at the
> >> >opposition through makeshift "slur" words like "Dems" and "libs."
> >> >It reads to me just like reading "Spics," "Nips," "Micks," etc.
> >> >from someone else. The same sort of bigoted hatespeak.
> >>
> >>
> >> Implausible, but an amusing try, nonetheless.
> >
> >Nothing implausible about it. It's a daily occurence, something you
> >unsurprisingly shut your eyes to.
> >
> >Oh yes, it goes the other way too, no one is dull enough to pretend it
> >doesn't.
> >
>
>
> You missed my point. You're right that the smears go on all the time.
And
> you're right that it goes the other way too. What I stated as being
implausible
> was the notion that the term "libs" or the like is "the same sort of
bigoted
> hatespeak" as a racist term like "spics." That's utterly ridiculous, or
do you
> really care to debate that point?

No. I did miss your point, although some like Jones and Iben are indeed
using the words left and liberal as curse words. Surely you see that?
>
>
> >But it's the very reason why was asked 9 months ago what in the hell the
> >right was so angry about...they won? They're still hurling inprecations.
> >Must be the limbaughzation of GOP politics.
>
>
> I'm sure there's anger on both sides, but the left were the ones with
>
> * Howard Dean
>
> * Al Sharpton and Al Gore
>
> * "Re-defeat Bush"
>
> * "Buck Fush"
>
> * moveon.org
>
> * Fahrenheit 9/11
>
> and other charming political rhetoric.

Oh come on. That is a raindrop in the ocean. I am not going to enumerate
all the right side of this love fest but this is an embarrasing paucity of
muckraking by neo-con standards.

>
> The Republican campaign had its angry moments, but at least the entire
campaign
> wasn't based on a negative, vituperative premise

Bullshit. Again, -very- selective in your sensory input.

(i.e., don't vote for Kerry
> because he's Kerry, vote for him because he's not Bush). I would go so
far to
> say that it was the extreme negativity of the left that ultimately gave
Bush his
> edge in '04 -- swing voters, I'd guess, ultimately are skeptical types who
don't
> warm to having the President so nakedly and relentlessly bashed. Bush
isn't
> Nixon.

He is. Oh, he is. And no, it was not left negativity that swung it for
Bush.
>
> As for what the right is so angry about, we could start with blatant
Democrat
> obstructionism in Congress. What can be more antidemocratic than using
> antiquated procedural rules to block the will of a majority of the
country's
> elected representatives?

remember Newt Gingrich? Nuff said. How can you unashamedly claim that the
Demos are worse than the GOP when they both play by the same corrupt rules?
>
> The left, on the other hand, lost big, and so their continued anger needs
no
> further justification.

Anger mainly from disbelief that a known moron could waltz back into the
white house.

One would hope that they learn that anger and negativity
> is not the way to win, though.

No, apparently attacking is. Wherever GOP money doesn't work.

They seem to be heading toward nominating
> Hillary, the angriest woman in the world, having managed to find the one
> candidate who could be more divisive than W (and Democrats don't have the
> numbers to win by dividing).

Hilary is an idiot and should never, EVER run for President. Has nothing to
do with anger and everything to do with major polarization. She was hated
when her hubby was in office for cryin out loud. Why the hell would anyone
like her better now? (They don't.)


>
Chocolate Jesus
2005-08-02 23:33:04 UTC
Permalink
"amos" <***@indiana.gpu.gov> wrote in message
news:***@individual.net...
>
> "gofab.com" <***@aol.com> wrote in message

> >
> > As for what the right is so angry about, we could start with blatant
> Democrat
> > obstructionism in Congress. What can be more antidemocratic than using
> > antiquated procedural rules to block the will of a majority of the
> country's
> > elected representatives?
>
> remember Newt Gingrich? Nuff said. How can you unashamedly claim that
the
> Demos are worse than the GOP when they both play by the same corrupt
rules?

Its called hypocrisy.

Gofab is world champion at it.......;)
BibsBro
2005-08-02 23:28:30 UTC
Permalink
"gofab.com" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
news:***@drn.newsguy.com...
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 15:25:25 -0700, in article
<***@individual.net>,
> amos stated:
> >
> >
> >"gofab.com" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:***@drn.newsguy.com...
> >> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 17:45:16 GMT, in article
> >> <prose34981-***@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
> >poisoned rose
> >> stated:
> >> >
> >> >***@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Dear Bibsbro,
> >> >>
> >> >> I agree with much of your posts. But I prefer not to label
people
> >> >> liberal or conservative or Republican or Democrat at a time of
crisis
> >> >> like this.
> >> >
> >> >I really find it repugnant, the way so many of Usenet's bombastic
> >> >right-wing bullies aim generalized character smears at the
> >> >opposition through makeshift "slur" words like "Dems" and "libs."
> >> >It reads to me just like reading "Spics," "Nips," "Micks," etc.
> >> >from someone else. The same sort of bigoted hatespeak.
> >>
> >>
> >> Implausible, but an amusing try, nonetheless.
> >
> >Nothing implausible about it. It's a daily occurence, something you
> >unsurprisingly shut your eyes to.
> >
> >Oh yes, it goes the other way too, no one is dull enough to pretend it
> >doesn't.
> >
>
>
> You missed my point. You're right that the smears go on all the time.
And
> you're right that it goes the other way too. What I stated as being
implausible
> was the notion that the term "libs" or the like is "the same sort of
bigoted
> hatespeak" as a racist term like "spics." That's utterly ridiculous, or
do you
> really care to debate that point?
>
>
> >But it's the very reason why was asked 9 months ago what in the hell the
> >right was so angry about...they won? They're still hurling inprecations.
> >Must be the limbaughzation of GOP politics.
>
>
> I'm sure there's anger on both sides, but the left were the ones with
>
> * Howard Dean
>
> * Al Sharpton and Al Gore
>
> * "Re-defeat Bush"
>
> * "Buck Fush"
>
> * moveon.org
>
> * Fahrenheit 9/11
>
> and other charming political rhetoric.
>
> The Republican campaign had its angry moments, but at least the entire
campaign
> wasn't based on a negative, vituperative premise (i.e., don't vote for
Kerry
> because he's Kerry, vote for him because he's not Bush). I would go so
far to
> say that it was the extreme negativity of the left that ultimately gave
Bush his
> edge in '04 -- swing voters, I'd guess, ultimately are skeptical types who
don't
> warm to having the President so nakedly and relentlessly bashed. Bush
isn't
> Nixon.
>
> As for what the right is so angry about, we could start with blatant
Democrat
> obstructionism in Congress. What can be more antidemocratic than using
> antiquated procedural rules to block the will of a majority of the
country's
> elected representatives?
>
> The left, on the other hand, lost big, and so their continued anger needs
no
> further justification. One would hope that they learn that anger and
negativity
> is not the way to win, though. They seem to be heading toward nominating
> Hillary, the angriest woman in the world, having managed to find the one
> candidate who could be more divisive than W (and Democrats don't have the
> numbers to win by dividing).
>

True! The most vocal left wingers gave Bush the edge with their hate speech.
I'm glad they're not on my side.

BibsBro
poisoned rose
2005-08-02 23:31:35 UTC
Permalink
gofab.com <***@aol.com> wrote:

> You missed my point. You're right that the smears go on all the time. And
> you're right that it goes the other way too. What I stated as being
> implausible
> was the notion that the term "libs" or the like is "the same sort of bigoted
> hatespeak" as a racist term like "spics." That's utterly ridiculous, or do
> you
> really care to debate that point?

Just read a few:

http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=%22you+libs%22&start=0&scori
ng=d&

I'm glad that you're one of the rare "musical explorers" of the
newsgroup but, when it comes to politics, you have that same
stonefaced, stonewalling talking-points mentality which so
frequently gives me the creeps about the opposition. Brrrr.
Chocolate Jesus
2005-08-02 23:30:57 UTC
Permalink
"gofab.com" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
news:***@drn.newsguy.com...

> I'm sure there's anger on both sides, but the left were the ones with
>
> * Howard Dean
>
> * Al Sharpton and Al Gore
>
> * "Re-defeat Bush"
>
> * "Buck Fush"
>
> * moveon.org
>
> * Fahrenheit 9/11
>
> and other charming political rhetoric.

Hey asshole, dont tell me you conveniently forgot the mother of all
"politcal rhetoric", the laughably titled "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth".

>
BibsBro
2005-08-03 00:05:58 UTC
Permalink
"Chocolate Jesus" <***@church.com> wrote in message
news:dcp11s$o52$***@pita.alt.net...
>
> "gofab.com" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:***@drn.newsguy.com...
>
> > I'm sure there's anger on both sides, but the left were the ones with
> >
> > * Howard Dean
> >
> > * Al Sharpton and Al Gore
> >
> > * "Re-defeat Bush"
> >
> > * "Buck Fush"
> >
> > * moveon.org
> >
> > * Fahrenheit 9/11
> >
> > and other charming political rhetoric.
>
> Hey asshole, dont tell me you conveniently forgot the mother of all
> "politcal rhetoric", the laughably titled "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth".
>
> >
>

Hey Fudgie, don't you ever anything good to say about any world leaders? I
haven't seen anything positive from you about anything.

BibsBro
Chocolate Jesus
2005-08-03 00:48:10 UTC
Permalink
"BibsBro" <***@webtv.net-nospam> wrote in message
news:***@news.supernews.com...
>
>
>
> "Chocolate Jesus" <***@church.com> wrote in message
> news:dcp11s$o52$***@pita.alt.net...
> >
> > "gofab.com" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:***@drn.newsguy.com...
> >
> > > I'm sure there's anger on both sides, but the left were the ones with
> > >
> > > * Howard Dean
> > >
> > > * Al Sharpton and Al Gore
> > >
> > > * "Re-defeat Bush"
> > >
> > > * "Buck Fush"
> > >
> > > * moveon.org
> > >
> > > * Fahrenheit 9/11
> > >
> > > and other charming political rhetoric.
> >
> > Hey asshole, dont tell me you conveniently forgot the mother of all
> > "politcal rhetoric", the laughably titled "Swift Boat Veterans for
Truth".
> >
> > >
> >
>
> Hey Fudgie, don't you ever anything good to say about any world leaders?

Sure.

It's just that George Bush ain't one of them.


>I haven't seen anything positive from you about anything.

Sure you have.

For example, I encouraged you to go sign up for the army and put your money
where your big mouth is.

To date, you havent considered that .

I wonder why.;)
BibsBro
2005-08-03 01:06:29 UTC
Permalink
"Chocolate Jesus" <***@church.com> wrote in message
news:dcp4d0$7e9$***@pita.alt.net...
>
> "BibsBro" <***@webtv.net-nospam> wrote in message
> news:***@news.supernews.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > "Chocolate Jesus" <***@church.com> wrote in message
> > news:dcp11s$o52$***@pita.alt.net...
> > >
> > > "gofab.com" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:***@drn.newsguy.com...
> > >
> > > > I'm sure there's anger on both sides, but the left were the ones
with
> > > >
> > > > * Howard Dean
> > > >
> > > > * Al Sharpton and Al Gore
> > > >
> > > > * "Re-defeat Bush"
> > > >
> > > > * "Buck Fush"
> > > >
> > > > * moveon.org
> > > >
> > > > * Fahrenheit 9/11
> > > >
> > > > and other charming political rhetoric.
> > >
> > > Hey asshole, dont tell me you conveniently forgot the mother of all
> > > "politcal rhetoric", the laughably titled "Swift Boat Veterans for
> Truth".
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > Hey Fudgie, don't you ever anything good to say about any world leaders?
>
> Sure.
>
> It's just that George Bush ain't one of them.
>
>
> >I haven't seen anything positive from you about anything.
>
> Sure you have.
>
> For example, I encouraged you to go sign up for the army and put your
money
> where your big mouth is.
>
> To date, you havent considered that .
>
> I wonder why.;)
>

No, Fudgie you still haven't said anything positive about anyone.

I am too old for the army, but I have great respect the young men and women
who do serve America and our allies. I appreciate their great sacrifices
and would never betray them. I believe they are the best people in the
world.

I work in the defense industry and do the best I can to make sure my work
will help them do theirs.

BibsBro
Chocolate Jesus
2005-08-03 01:09:18 UTC
Permalink
"BibsBro" <***@webtv.net-nospam> wrote in message
news:***@news.supernews.com...

> I am too old for the army,

Not any more pal. They've upped the enlistment age because they need more
idiots to go and get shot to pieces for Bush's war for oil.

Now go talk to your local enlistment officer"

http://www.goarmy.com/contact/how_to_join.jsp?hmref=cs







> I work in the defense industry and do the best I can to make sure my work
> will help them do theirs.


LOL!
BibsBro
2005-08-03 01:22:09 UTC
Permalink
"Chocolate Jesus" <***@church.com> wrote in message
news:dcp5gf$c5n$***@pita.alt.net...
>
> "BibsBro" <***@webtv.net-nospam> wrote in message
> news:***@news.supernews.com...
>
> > I am too old for the army,
>
> Not any more pal. They've upped the enlistment age because they need more
> idiots to go and get shot to pieces for Bush's war for oil.
>
> Now go talk to your local enlistment officer"
>
> http://www.goarmy.com/contact/how_to_join.jsp?hmref=cs
>
>

No Fudgie, I'm still too old and getting older.


>
> > I work in the defense industry and do the best I can to make sure my
work
> > will help them do theirs.
>
>
> LOL!
>

So what good have you done to make the world better?
Chocolate Jesus
2005-08-03 03:16:54 UTC
Permalink
"BibsBro" <***@webtv.net-nospam> wrote in message
news:***@news.supernews.com...
>
>
> "Chocolate Jesus" <***@church.com> wrote in message
> news:dcp5gf$c5n$***@pita.alt.net...
> >
> > "BibsBro" <***@webtv.net-nospam> wrote in message
> > news:***@news.supernews.com...
> >
> > > I am too old for the army,
> >
> > Not any more pal. They've upped the enlistment age because they need
more
> > idiots to go and get shot to pieces for Bush's war for oil.
> >
> > Now go talk to your local enlistment officer"
> >
> > http://www.goarmy.com/contact/how_to_join.jsp?hmref=cs
> >
> >
>
> No Fudgie, I'm still too old and getting older.
>
>
> >
> > > I work in the defense industry and do the best I can to make sure my
> work
> > > will help them do theirs.
> >
> >
> > LOL!
> >
>
> So what good have you done to make the world better?

LOL!
>
>
BibsBro
2005-08-03 01:41:31 UTC
Permalink
"Chocolate Jesus" <***@church.com> wrote in message
news:dcp5gf$c5n$***@pita.alt.net...
>
> "BibsBro" <***@webtv.net-nospam> wrote in message
> news:***@news.supernews.com...
>
> > I am too old for the army,
>
> Not any more pal. They've upped the enlistment age because they need more
> idiots to go and get shot to pieces for Bush's war for oil.
>
> Now go talk to your local enlistment officer"
>
> http://www.goarmy.com/contact/how_to_join.jsp?hmref=cs
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I work in the defense industry and do the best I can to make sure my
work
> > will help them do theirs.
>
>
> LOL!
>
>

Hey Fudgeboy! I found a group willing to recruit you!

http://www.AlQueda.com/suicidebombers/how_to_join
Chocolate Jesus
2005-08-03 03:18:22 UTC
Permalink
"BibsBro" <***@webtv.net-nospam> wrote in message
news:***@news.supernews.com...
>
>
>
> "Chocolate Jesus" <***@church.com> wrote in message
> news:dcp5gf$c5n$***@pita.alt.net...
> >
> > "BibsBro" <***@webtv.net-nospam> wrote in message
> > news:***@news.supernews.com...
> >
> > > I am too old for the army,
> >
> > Not any more pal. They've upped the enlistment age because they need
more
> > idiots to go and get shot to pieces for Bush's war for oil.
> >
> > Now go talk to your local enlistment officer"
> >
> > http://www.goarmy.com/contact/how_to_join.jsp?hmref=cs
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > I work in the defense industry and do the best I can to make sure my
> work
> > > will help them do theirs.
> >
> >
> > LOL!
> >
> >
>
> Hey Fudgeboy! I found a group willing to recruit you!
>
> http://www.AlQueda.com/suicidebombers/how_to_join
>
>
Chocolate Jesus
2005-08-02 23:38:27 UTC
Permalink
"gofab.com" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
news:***@drn.newsguy.com...
> Bush isn't Nixon.

Agreed.

Nixon had a brain function that rose above Nascar, beer and pretzels.
Dale Houstman
2005-08-03 01:31:33 UTC
Permalink
Chocolate Jesus wrote:
> "gofab.com" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:***@drn.newsguy.com...
>
>> Bush isn't Nixon.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
> Nixon had a brain function that rose above Nascar, beer and pretzels.
>
>
>

In other words, Nixon was both smart and corrupt, while Bush barely
manages to be corrupt. He even leaves that heavy lifting up to the real
men who surround him like flies on shit.

dmh
Chocolate Jesus
2005-08-02 21:45:19 UTC
Permalink
"BibsBro" <***@webtv.net-nospam> wrote in message
news:***@news.supernews.com...
>
>
>
> "Chocolate Jesus" <***@church.com> wrote in message
> news:dcnf3v$3jq$***@pita.alt.net...
> >
> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:***@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > Sadly, I must agree with many of the comments here about George Bush.
> > > However, many seem to forget some of the very positive things he has
> > > done.
> > >
> > > After all, he was President when 4 American planes were hijacked on
> > > September 11, 2001 and when two were flown into the Twin Towers,
> >
> > Yeah, and he sat there like a bunny in the headlights reading to a
> > kindergarten book to small children while his country was under attack.
> >
> >
> > > I think President Bush showed remarkable courage and leadership during
> > > this terrible time
> >
> > Fuck off, you pathetic cunt.
> >
>
> Fudgeboy showing his liberal tole<snip>

LOL!

Stop whining like a schoolgirl and go sign-up for the army, big mouth.
BibsBro
2005-08-02 11:42:55 UTC
Permalink
<***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:***@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Sadly, I must agree with many of the comments here about George Bush.
> However, many seem to forget some of the very positive things he has
> done.
>
> After all, he was President when 4 American planes were hijacked on
> September 11, 2001 and when two were flown into the Twin Towers,
> another crashed in Pennsylvania and the last crashed into the Pentagon.
> There is no question in my mind that the hijackers had intended to kill
> as many American government officials as possible (probably including
> the President). He had been president just a few months, and inherited
> the worst or one of the worst disasters in American history, including
> a threat to his own life.
>
> I think President Bush showed remarkable courage and leadership during
> this terrible time, and his administrations's ability to name the prime
> suspect (Bin Laden) and his immediate efforts to hunt him down were
> commendable. I also applaud the war in Afghanistan.
>
> I think when the Bush administration started to take aim at Iraq under
> false pretenses is when he started to slip . . . .


Why do liberals insist on saying Bush lied about Iraq? Clinton, Kennedy, and
Kerry all made statements that Saddam must be removed. The United Nations
and other countries believed Iraq had weapons on mass destruction. Saddam
had even used them on his own people. Saddam did not fully cooperate with
U.N. inspectors, and stalled as much as he could. We could not afford to let
Saddam arm the terrorists. Saddam is responsible for the Iraq war, no one
else.

Bush accomplished what others only talked about. How could Kerry vote to
send troops into Iraq and then turn against them? They deserve 100% of our
support!

Democrats have too many complaints and no solutions.


BibsBro
shadow crying
2005-08-02 13:57:58 UTC
Permalink
"BibsBro" <***@webtv.net-nospam> wrote in message
news:***@news.supernews.com...
>
>
>
> <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:***@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Sadly, I must agree with many of the comments here about George Bush.
>> However, many seem to forget some of the very positive things he has
>> done.
>>
>> After all, he was President when 4 American planes were hijacked on
>> September 11, 2001 and when two were flown into the Twin Towers,
>> another crashed in Pennsylvania and the last crashed into the Pentagon.
>> There is no question in my mind that the hijackers had intended to kill
>> as many American government officials as possible (probably including
>> the President). He had been president just a few months, and inherited
>> the worst or one of the worst disasters in American history, including
>> a threat to his own life.
>>
>> I think President Bush showed remarkable courage and leadership during
>> this terrible time, and his administrations's ability to name the prime
>> suspect (Bin Laden) and his immediate efforts to hunt him down were
>> commendable. I also applaud the war in Afghanistan.
>>
>> I think when the Bush administration started to take aim at Iraq under
>> false pretenses is when he started to slip . . . .
>
>
> Why do liberals insist on saying Bush lied about Iraq? Clinton, Kennedy,
> and
> Kerry all made statements that Saddam must be removed. The United Nations
> and other countries believed Iraq had weapons on mass destruction. Saddam
> had even used them on his own people. Saddam did not fully cooperate with
> U.N. inspectors, and stalled as much as he could. We could not afford to
> let
> Saddam arm the terrorists. Saddam is responsible for the Iraq war, no one
> else.
>
> Bush accomplished what others only talked about. How could Kerry vote to
> send troops into Iraq and then turn against them? They deserve 100% of our
> support!
>
> Democrats have too many complaints and no solutions.
>
>
Right.
UsurperTom
2005-08-02 15:42:15 UTC
Permalink
BibsBro wrote:

> Why do liberals insist on saying Bush lied about Iraq? Clinton, Kennedy, and
Kerry all made statements that Saddam must be removed. The United
Nations and other countries believed Iraq had weapons on mass
destruction. Saddam had even used them on his own people. Saddam did
not fully cooperate with U.N. inspectors, and stalled as much as he
could. We could not afford to let Saddam arm the terrorists. Saddam is
responsible for the Iraq war, no one else.

Not only that, but even Bill Clinton said that Saddam had ties to al
Qaeda. The Clinton administration defended bombing the aspirin factory
in Sudan on the grounds that al Qaeda was working with Iraqi scientists
to produce chemical weapons there. The Clinton Justice Department's
1998 indictment of Osama bin Laden mentioned that bin Laden worked with
the government of Iraq.
Tom
Dale Houstman
2005-08-02 21:31:10 UTC
Permalink
UsurperTom wrote:
> BibsBro wrote:
>
>
>>Why do liberals insist on saying Bush lied about Iraq? Clinton, Kennedy, and
>
> Kerry all made statements that Saddam must be removed. The United
> Nations and other countries believed Iraq had weapons on mass
> destruction. Saddam had even used them on his own people. Saddam did
> not fully cooperate with U.N. inspectors, and stalled as much as he
> could. We could not afford to let Saddam arm the terrorists. Saddam is
> responsible for the Iraq war, no one else.
>
> Not only that, but even Bill Clinton said that Saddam had ties to al
> Qaeda. The Clinton administration defended bombing the aspirin factory
> in Sudan on the grounds that al Qaeda was working with Iraqi scientists
> to produce chemical weapons there. The Clinton Justice Department's
> 1998 indictment of Osama bin Laden mentioned that bin Laden worked with
> the government of Iraq.
> Tom
>

no one says those other idiots didn't lie ALSO. Saying they lied doesn't
absolve Bush of lying, and his lies have led us deeper into a shithole
than the others, so it's viciously worse.

Your statement - furthermore - is not accurate: Saddam DID cooperate
with the inspectors. There has never been any proof (quite the contrary)
that Iraq supported or armed terrorists (although there is lots of proof
the U.S. did). Clinton's stupdidities on this subject are irrelevant to
the question of whether or not Bush and co. lied.

dmh
BibsBro
2005-08-02 22:57:19 UTC
Permalink
"Dale Houstman" <***@skypoint.com> wrote in message
news:***@skypoint.com...
>
>
> UsurperTom wrote:
> > BibsBro wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Why do liberals insist on saying Bush lied about Iraq? Clinton, Kennedy,
and
> >
> > Kerry all made statements that Saddam must be removed. The United
> > Nations and other countries believed Iraq had weapons on mass
> > destruction. Saddam had even used them on his own people. Saddam did
> > not fully cooperate with U.N. inspectors, and stalled as much as he
> > could. We could not afford to let Saddam arm the terrorists. Saddam is
> > responsible for the Iraq war, no one else.
> >
> > Not only that, but even Bill Clinton said that Saddam had ties to al
> > Qaeda. The Clinton administration defended bombing the aspirin factory
> > in Sudan on the grounds that al Qaeda was working with Iraqi scientists
> > to produce chemical weapons there. The Clinton Justice Department's
> > 1998 indictment of Osama bin Laden mentioned that bin Laden worked with
> > the government of Iraq.
> > Tom
> >
>
> no one says those other idiots didn't lie ALSO. Saying they lied doesn't
> absolve Bush of lying, and his lies have led us deeper into a shithole
> than the others, so it's viciously worse.

So you say its all a big conspiracy? Everyone is lying except Saddam? Why
would both political parties who hardly agree on anything, agree that Saddam
had to go?
Iraq is not a shithole. They are a new democracy that is fighting
terrorists. We are fighting the same enemy. Other Arab countries are now
moving towards democracy. This is good!

Saddam did support terrorists, he had training camps, he terrorized the
Kurds, and he paid the families of homicide bombers money if they blew up
Jews. Why should we trust him?

BibsBro


> Your statement - furthermore - is not accurate: Saddam DID cooperate
> with the inspectors. There has never been any proof (quite the contrary)
> that Iraq supported or armed terrorists (although there is lots of proof
> the U.S. did). Clinton's stupdidities on this subject are irrelevant to
> the question of whether or not Bush and co. lied.
>
> dmh
>
amos
2005-08-02 23:22:11 UTC
Permalink
"BibsBro" <***@webtv.net-nospam> wrote in message
news:***@news.supernews.com...
>
>
>
> "Dale Houstman" <***@skypoint.com> wrote in message
> news:***@skypoint.com...
> >
> >
> > UsurperTom wrote:
> > > BibsBro wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Why do liberals insist on saying Bush lied about Iraq? Clinton,
Kennedy,
> and
> > >
> > > Kerry all made statements that Saddam must be removed. The United
> > > Nations and other countries believed Iraq had weapons on mass
> > > destruction. Saddam had even used them on his own people. Saddam did
> > > not fully cooperate with U.N. inspectors, and stalled as much as he
> > > could. We could not afford to let Saddam arm the terrorists. Saddam is
> > > responsible for the Iraq war, no one else.
> > >
> > > Not only that, but even Bill Clinton said that Saddam had ties to al
> > > Qaeda. The Clinton administration defended bombing the aspirin
factory
> > > in Sudan on the grounds that al Qaeda was working with Iraqi
scientists
> > > to produce chemical weapons there. The Clinton Justice Department's
> > > 1998 indictment of Osama bin Laden mentioned that bin Laden worked
with
> > > the government of Iraq.
> > > Tom
> > >
> >
> > no one says those other idiots didn't lie ALSO. Saying they lied doesn't
> > absolve Bush of lying, and his lies have led us deeper into a shithole
> > than the others, so it's viciously worse.
>
> So you say its all a big conspiracy? Everyone is lying except Saddam? Why
> would both political parties who hardly agree on anything, agree that
Saddam
> had to go?
> Iraq is not a shithole. They are a new democracy that is fighting
> terrorists. We are fighting the same enemy. Other Arab countries are now
> moving towards democracy. This is good!

OMG. It gives me shivers that is so embarassing.
>
> Saddam did support terrorists, he had training camps, he terrorized the
> Kurds, and he paid the families of homicide bombers money if they blew up
> Jews. Why should we trust him?
>

You're hopeless. You've swallowed the party line hook line and sinker.
Nothing worth talking about here any more.

(Try using your own mind sometime. You may find it a refreshing change.)
BibsBro
2005-08-02 23:45:17 UTC
Permalink
"amos" <***@indiana.gpu.gov> wrote in message
news:***@individual.net...
>
> "BibsBro" <***@webtv.net-nospam> wrote in message
> news:***@news.supernews.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > "Dale Houstman" <***@skypoint.com> wrote in message
> > news:***@skypoint.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > UsurperTom wrote:
> > > > BibsBro wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>Why do liberals insist on saying Bush lied about Iraq? Clinton,
> Kennedy,
> > and
> > > >
> > > > Kerry all made statements that Saddam must be removed. The United
> > > > Nations and other countries believed Iraq had weapons on mass
> > > > destruction. Saddam had even used them on his own people. Saddam did
> > > > not fully cooperate with U.N. inspectors, and stalled as much as he
> > > > could. We could not afford to let Saddam arm the terrorists. Saddam
is
> > > > responsible for the Iraq war, no one else.
> > > >
> > > > Not only that, but even Bill Clinton said that Saddam had ties to al
> > > > Qaeda. The Clinton administration defended bombing the aspirin
> factory
> > > > in Sudan on the grounds that al Qaeda was working with Iraqi
> scientists
> > > > to produce chemical weapons there. The Clinton Justice Department's
> > > > 1998 indictment of Osama bin Laden mentioned that bin Laden worked
> with
> > > > the government of Iraq.
> > > > Tom
> > > >
> > >
> > > no one says those other idiots didn't lie ALSO. Saying they lied
doesn't
> > > absolve Bush of lying, and his lies have led us deeper into a shithole
> > > than the others, so it's viciously worse.
> >
> > So you say its all a big conspiracy? Everyone is lying except Saddam?
Why
> > would both political parties who hardly agree on anything, agree that
> Saddam
> > had to go?
> > Iraq is not a shithole. They are a new democracy that is fighting
> > terrorists. We are fighting the same enemy. Other Arab countries are now
> > moving towards democracy. This is good!
>
> OMG. It gives me shivers that is so embarassing.

Arab Democracies are not good? What do you prefer?


> > Saddam did support terrorists, he had training camps, he terrorized the
> > Kurds, and he paid the families of homicide bombers money if they blew
up
> > Jews. Why should we trust him?
>>
> You're hopeless. You've swallowed the party line hook line and sinker.
> Nothing worth talking about here any more.

I don't blindly support the Republican party. I disagree on several issues.
The war on terror is not one of them.

> (Try using your own mind sometime. You may find it a refreshing change.)
>
UsurperTom
2005-08-03 05:41:40 UTC
Permalink
Dale Houstman wrote:

> no one says those other idiots didn't lie ALSO. Saying they lied doesn't
absolve Bush of lying

There are some in this newsgroup who absolve Clinton of blame. At
least you're consistent as indicated by your support for Ralph Nader.
There is one infamous poster here who hates Bush with a passion, but
takes everything Clinton says as gospel. BTW I believe now as I did
then that Clinton acted in good faith when he used force in Sudan and
Iraq. There are those on the right who wouldn't give Clinton credit if
he discovered a cure for cancer and there are those on the left who
wouldn't give Bush credit if he discovered a cure for cancer.
f***@yahoo.com
2005-08-03 10:42:01 UTC
Permalink
I do agree that the claimed reasons for invading Iraq (i.e. weapons of
mass destruction) turned out to be an embarrassment and, to an extent,
damaged the American reputation in the eyes of the world.

On the other hand, I believe any reasonable person would agree that in
the long run, Iraq and the entire Middle East will be a much better
place now that Saddam is gone. The man, along with his sons, was a
muderous, raping, stealing butcher. Some of us here forget about the
mass graves uncovered in Iraq demonstrating that his henchmen killed
tens of thousands of civilians. We forget about the torture chambers
and rape rooms Saddam and his sons established. We forget that Saddam
used illegal weapons to gas the Kurdish opposition, killiing thousands.
We forget about his invasion of Kuwait, his payments to terrorist
organizations, and his surpression of minorities in Iraq.

Nevertheless, the Iraqi people have not forgotten, and when given the
chance, turned out to vote by the millions inspite of an ongoing war
and terrorist threats.
Dale Houstman
2005-08-03 11:11:06 UTC
Permalink
***@yahoo.com wrote:
> I do agree that the claimed reasons for invading Iraq (i.e. weapons of
> mass destruction) turned out to be an embarrassment and, to an extent,
> damaged the American reputation in the eyes of the world.
>
> On the other hand, I believe any reasonable person would agree that in
> the long run, Iraq and the entire Middle East will be a much better
> place now that Saddam is gone.

And you'd be wrong to believe that.
dmh
BibsBro
2005-08-03 11:24:29 UTC
Permalink
"Dale Houstman" <***@skypoint.com> wrote in message
news:***@skypoint.com...
>
>
> ***@yahoo.com wrote:
> > I do agree that the claimed reasons for invading Iraq (i.e. weapons of
> > mass destruction) turned out to be an embarrassment and, to an extent,
> > damaged the American reputation in the eyes of the world.
> >
> > On the other hand, I believe any reasonable person would agree that in
> > the long run, Iraq and the entire Middle East will be a much better
> > place now that Saddam is gone.
>
> And you'd be wrong to believe that.
> dmh
>

The key word was "REASONABLE". He said, "I believe any REASONABLE person
would agree that in the long run, Iraq and the entire Middle East will be a
much better
place now that Saddam is gone."

BibsBro
Chocolate Jesus
2005-08-03 12:01:20 UTC
Permalink
"BibsBro" <***@webtv.net-nospam> wrote in message news:***@news.supernews.com...
>
>
> "Dale Houstman" <***@skypoint.com> wrote in message
> news:***@skypoint.com...
> >
> >
> > ***@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > I do agree that the claimed reasons for invading Iraq (i.e. weapons of
> > > mass destruction) turned out to be an embarrassment and, to an extent,
> > > damaged the American reputation in the eyes of the world.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, I believe any reasonable person would agree that in
> > > the long run, Iraq and the entire Middle East will be a much better
> > > place now that Saddam is gone.
> >
> > And you'd be wrong to believe that.
> > dmh
> >
>
> The key word was "REASONABLE". He said, "I believe any REASONABLE person
> would agree that in the long run, Iraq and the entire Middle East will be a
> much better place now that Saddam is gone."


American journalist shot dead in Iraq
By Reuters, Wednesday August 3, 09:55
Published: August 3 2005 11:08 | Last updated: August 3 2005 11:08

Iraq Bombing Kills 14 U.S. Marines, Interpreter, Military Says
Aug. 3 (Bloomberg) -- Fourteen U.S. Marines and a civilian interpreter were killed and another Marine
wounded in an insurgent attack today west of Baghdad, the military said.
Oil sets records again
Price reaches $62.35 a barrel on worries over world supply, global stability, hurricane forecast.August 3, 2005: 7:09 AM EDT (Reuters)

==

"I'm pleased with the progress" G.W. Bush
White Terror
2005-08-03 14:09:42 UTC
Permalink
BibsBro wrote:

> "Dale Houstman" <***@skypoint.com> wrote in message
> news:***@skypoint.com...
>
>>
>>***@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>I do agree that the claimed reasons for invading Iraq (i.e. weapons of
>>>mass destruction) turned out to be an embarrassment and, to an extent,
>>>damaged the American reputation in the eyes of the world.
>>>
>>>On the other hand, I believe any reasonable person would agree that in
>>>the long run, Iraq and the entire Middle East will be a much better
>>>place now that Saddam is gone.
>>
>>And you'd be wrong to believe that.
>>dmh
>>
>
>
> The key word was "REASONABLE". He said, "I believe any REASONABLE person
> would agree that in the long run, Iraq and the entire Middle East will be a
> much better
> place now that Saddam is gone."
>
> BibsBro
>
>

I'm reasonable enoough to believe it won't be at all until another
Saddam like leader gets in their to rule with another Iron fist.
Hey America!! The Middle East does not have the same belief system the
West has and won't respond too oour so-called freedoms. The only ones
that will respond to that type of freedoom our the ones controlling it
now - Terrorist.
Dale Houstman
2005-08-03 16:13:49 UTC
Permalink
BibsBro wrote:
> "Dale Houstman" <***@skypoint.com> wrote in message
> news:***@skypoint.com...
>
>>
>>***@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>I do agree that the claimed reasons for invading Iraq (i.e. weapons of
>>>mass destruction) turned out to be an embarrassment and, to an extent,
>>>damaged the American reputation in the eyes of the world.
>>>
>>>On the other hand, I believe any reasonable person would agree that in
>>>the long run, Iraq and the entire Middle East will be a much better
>>>place now that Saddam is gone.
>>
>>And you'd be wrong to believe that.
>>dmh
>>
>
>
> The key word was "REASONABLE".

It is easy to win an argument (in your own mind at least) if you are
simply going to define any contrary opinion as unreasonable. And yet,
there are so many "unreasonable" minds out there, and more every day.
There seems to be no reason to say that the world will be a better place
simply because the U.S. got rid of one of its old friends. Economically
(for us and the Iraqui people) the war has been a disaster. Politically
it has been a disaster. And it has only heightened the quantity and
intensity of "terrorist" acitvities, while creating a handy magnet for
those who would have the U.S. hung in effigy.

dmh
f***@yahoo.com
2005-08-03 21:19:50 UTC
Permalink
Dale,

You wrote that "the war has been a disaster. . . . .And it has
only heightened the quantity and intensity of "terrorist" activities .
. ."

Do you really believe that the war in Iraq has somehow
increased terrorist activities?

I don't believe that, not for one second. I believe the
Muslims who support and participate in terrorism are Islamo fascists,
no different than Nazis, bent on "conquoring" the heathen, sinning
West. They see themselves on a holy war and justify their actions by
using their Koran.

Some terrorists may claim they are retaliating for the war in
Iraq. Bull. They want the West to believe that . . . . it is old
divide and conquor again. They hate the Western way of life: "loose
morals"; equality of women; a secular way of life rather than a
religious way of life; free speech; tolerance of diversty; democracy,
etc. These are all things they hate.

If these Muslims fanatics had their way, we would all be bowing
to Allah, our women would be in burkas from head to toe, rock and roll
would be gone, MTV would be gone, our Bill of Rights would be gone,
etc.

This is not a religion based on equality or tolerance. This is
a religion bent on conquest.

How do you suggest we deal with terrorists? Pardon my sarcasm,
but should we hold hands with some Arabs and sing songs like "Give
Peace a Chance?"

Are you buying into the terrorist line that those Muslims who
bombed London were somehow justified because of Great Britain's support
of the war?

My position is hunt every terrorist down, and to the extent
possible, punish every government (including the Saudis, perhaps) that
support them.
f***@yahoo.com
2005-08-03 11:24:01 UTC
Permalink
Dale,

You really believe Saddam was good for Iraq? You would rather
see him back in office? WOW.

I always thought "rmb" dealt with the Beatles; I guess it stands
for "radical muslim board."
White Terror
2005-08-03 14:04:40 UTC
Permalink
***@yahoo.com wrote:

> I do agree that the claimed reasons for invading Iraq (i.e. weapons of
> mass destruction) turned out to be an embarrassment and, to an extent,
> damaged the American reputation in the eyes of the world.
>
> On the other hand, I believe any reasonable person would agree that in
> the long run, Iraq and the entire Middle East will be a much better
> place now that Saddam is gone. The man, along with his sons, was a
> muderous, raping, stealing butcher. Some of us here forget about the
> mass graves uncovered in Iraq demonstrating that his henchmen killed
> tens of thousands of civilians. We forget about the torture chambers
> and rape rooms Saddam and his sons established. We forget that Saddam
> used illegal weapons to gas the Kurdish opposition, killiing thousands.
> We forget about his invasion of Kuwait, his payments to terrorist
> organizations, and his surpression of minorities in Iraq.
>
> Nevertheless, the Iraqi people have not forgotten, and when given the
> chance, turned out to vote by the millions inspite of an ongoing war
> and terrorist threats.
>


FOr what good that did them - Voting. Most of can't read their own name.
The old rule still does so.
BibsBro
2005-08-02 22:45:08 UTC
Permalink
"UsurperTom" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
news:***@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> BibsBro wrote:
>
> > Why do liberals insist on saying Bush lied about Iraq? Clinton, Kennedy,
and
> Kerry all made statements that Saddam must be removed. The United
> Nations and other countries believed Iraq had weapons on mass
> destruction. Saddam had even used them on his own people. Saddam did
> not fully cooperate with U.N. inspectors, and stalled as much as he
> could. We could not afford to let Saddam arm the terrorists. Saddam is
> responsible for the Iraq war, no one else.
>
> Not only that, but even Bill Clinton said that Saddam had ties to al
> Qaeda. The Clinton administration defended bombing the aspirin factory
> in Sudan on the grounds that al Qaeda was working with Iraqi scientists
> to produce chemical weapons there. The Clinton Justice Department's
> 1998 indictment of Osama bin Laden mentioned that bin Laden worked with
> the government of Iraq.
> Tom

That's right Tom. Bill Clinton did recognize Saddam as some one who needed
to be stopped.

BibsBro
Chocolate Jesus
2005-08-02 23:36:09 UTC
Permalink
"BibsBro" <***@webtv.net-nospam> wrote in message
news:***@news.supernews.com...
>
>
> "UsurperTom" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:***@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > BibsBro wrote:
> >
> > > Why do liberals insist on saying Bush lied about Iraq? Clinton,
Kennedy,
> and
> > Kerry all made statements that Saddam must be removed. The United
> > Nations and other countries believed Iraq had weapons on mass
> > destruction. Saddam had even used them on his own people. Saddam did
> > not fully cooperate with U.N. inspectors, and stalled as much as he
> > could. We could not afford to let Saddam arm the terrorists. Saddam is
> > responsible for the Iraq war, no one else.
> >
> > Not only that, but even Bill Clinton said that Saddam had ties to al
> > Qaeda. The Clinton administration defended bombing the aspirin factory
> > in Sudan on the grounds that al Qaeda was working with Iraqi scientists
> > to produce chemical weapons there. The Clinton Justice Department's
> > 1998 indictment of Osama bin Laden mentioned that bin Laden worked with
> > the government of Iraq.
> > Tom
>
> That's right Tom. Bill Clinton did recognize Saddam as some one who
needed
> to be stopped.

From doing what, writing more syrupy romance novels?

Granted thats probably a worthy notion, but hardly worth invading Iraq over.
Of course Bush simply made up a lot of bullshit about WMD and used that to
kill a few thoudand US soldeirs and tens of thyousand of innocent citiznes
of another coutnry. Great work.

Now bibsbro, stop crying like spoilt brat and tell us, are you going to go
enlist in the army or what?




>
> BibsBro
>
>
Chocolate Jesus
2005-08-02 21:44:02 UTC
Permalink
"BibsBro" <***@webtv.net-nospam> wrote in message
news:***@news.supernews.com...
>
>
>
> <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:***@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Sadly, I must agree with many of the comments here about George Bush.
> > However, many seem to forget some of the very positive things he has
> > done.
> >
> > After all, he was President when 4 American planes were hijacked on
> > September 11, 2001 and when two were flown into the Twin Towers,
> > another crashed in Pennsylvania and the last crashed into the Pentagon.
> > There is no question in my mind that the hijackers had intended to kill
> > as many American government officials as possible (probably including
> > the President). He had been president just a few months, and inherited
> > the worst or one of the worst disasters in American history, including
> > a threat to his own life.
> >
> > I think President Bush showed remarkable courage and leadership during
> > this terrible time, and his administrations's ability to name the prime
> > suspect (Bin Laden) and his immediate efforts to hunt him down were
> > commendable. I also applaud the war in Afghanistan.
> >
> > I think when the Bush administration started to take aim at Iraq under
> > false pretenses is when he started to slip . . . .
>
>
> Why do liberals insist on saying Bush lied about Iraq?

Wheres the WMD, you fucking moron?

> Bush accomplished what others only talked about.

Yeah, hes manage to get the US into another quagmire and stir up the islamic
militants across the wortd into bombing just about every capital city.

Great work.



> Democrats have too many complaints and no solutions.

I bet you wake up with a solution in hamd every morning, you fucking wanker.
BibsBro
2005-08-02 23:05:06 UTC
Permalink
"Chocolate Jesus" <***@church.com> wrote in message
news:dcoq15$pgr$***@pita.alt.net...
>
> "BibsBro" <***@webtv.net-nospam> wrote in message
> news:***@news.supernews.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:***@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > Sadly, I must agree with many of the comments here about George Bush.
> > > However, many seem to forget some of the very positive things he has
> > > done.
> > >
> > > After all, he was President when 4 American planes were hijacked on
> > > September 11, 2001 and when two were flown into the Twin Towers,
> > > another crashed in Pennsylvania and the last crashed into the
Pentagon.
> > > There is no question in my mind that the hijackers had intended to
kill
> > > as many American government officials as possible (probably including
> > > the President). He had been president just a few months, and
inherited
> > > the worst or one of the worst disasters in American history, including
> > > a threat to his own life.
> > >
> > > I think President Bush showed remarkable courage and leadership during
> > > this terrible time, and his administrations's ability to name the
prime
> > > suspect (Bin Laden) and his immediate efforts to hunt him down were
> > > commendable. I also applaud the war in Afghanistan.
> > >
> > > I think when the Bush administration started to take aim at Iraq under
> > > false pretenses is when he started to slip . . . .
> >
> >
> > Why do liberals insist on saying Bush lied about Iraq?
>
> Wheres the WMD, you fucking moron?

Probably up your ass with Michael Jackson's glove and floating in gallons of
homosexual dog sperm.



> > Bush accomplished what others only talked about.
>
> Yeah, hes manage to get the US into another quagmire and stir up the
islamic
> militants across the wortd into bombing just about every capital city.
>
> Great work.

They crashed planes into NYC and Washington DC before we invaded Iraq. The
Islamic terrorists make the news, but many people are grateful to Bush and
the U.S. for getting rid of Saddam. There were plenty of good people
celebrating their right to vote.

Lebanon is also improving, and so is Lybia.
amos
2005-08-02 23:24:11 UTC
Permalink
"BibsBro" <***@webtv.net-nospam> wrote in message
news:***@news.supernews.com...
>
>
>
> "Chocolate Jesus" <***@church.com> wrote in message
> news:dcoq15$pgr$***@pita.alt.net...
> >
> > "BibsBro" <***@webtv.net-nospam> wrote in message
> > news:***@news.supernews.com...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:***@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > Sadly, I must agree with many of the comments here about George
Bush.
> > > > However, many seem to forget some of the very positive things he
has
> > > > done.
> > > >
> > > > After all, he was President when 4 American planes were hijacked on
> > > > September 11, 2001 and when two were flown into the Twin Towers,
> > > > another crashed in Pennsylvania and the last crashed into the
> Pentagon.
> > > > There is no question in my mind that the hijackers had intended to
> kill
> > > > as many American government officials as possible (probably
including
> > > > the President). He had been president just a few months, and
> inherited
> > > > the worst or one of the worst disasters in American history,
including
> > > > a threat to his own life.
> > > >
> > > > I think President Bush showed remarkable courage and leadership
during
> > > > this terrible time, and his administrations's ability to name the
> prime
> > > > suspect (Bin Laden) and his immediate efforts to hunt him down were
> > > > commendable. I also applaud the war in Afghanistan.
> > > >
> > > > I think when the Bush administration started to take aim at Iraq
under
> > > > false pretenses is when he started to slip . . . .
> > >
> > >
> > > Why do liberals insist on saying Bush lied about Iraq?
> >
> > Wheres the WMD, you fucking moron?
>
> Probably up your ass with Michael Jackson's glove and floating in gallons
of
> homosexual dog sperm.
>
>
>
> > > Bush accomplished what others only talked about.
> >
> > Yeah, hes manage to get the US into another quagmire and stir up the
> islamic
> > militants across the wortd into bombing just about every capital city.
> >
> > Great work.
>
> They

"They." Saddam and his fellow Iraqis. Yup.

crashed planes into NYC and Washington DC before we invaded Iraq. The
> Islamic terrorists make the news,

Oh, don't you mean the IRAQIS?

but many people are grateful to Bush and
> the U.S. for getting rid of Saddam.

How many are just as hateful of the bogged down war he brought to their
doorstep?

There were plenty of good people
> celebrating their right to vote.
>
> Lebanon is also improving, and so is Lybia.

Stretch. Overreach. Grab onto any little thing.
>
>
BibsBro
2005-08-02 23:51:06 UTC
Permalink
"amos" <***@indiana.gpu.gov> wrote in message
news:***@individual.net...
>
> "BibsBro" <***@webtv.net-nospam> wrote in message
> news:***@news.supernews.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > "Chocolate Jesus" <***@church.com> wrote in message
> > news:dcoq15$pgr$***@pita.alt.net...
> > >
> > > "BibsBro" <***@webtv.net-nospam> wrote in message
> > > news:***@news.supernews.com...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:***@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > Sadly, I must agree with many of the comments here about George
> Bush.
> > > > > However, many seem to forget some of the very positive things he
> has
> > > > > done.
> > > > >
> > > > > After all, he was President when 4 American planes were hijacked
on
> > > > > September 11, 2001 and when two were flown into the Twin Towers,
> > > > > another crashed in Pennsylvania and the last crashed into the
> > Pentagon.
> > > > > There is no question in my mind that the hijackers had intended to
> > kill
> > > > > as many American government officials as possible (probably
> including
> > > > > the President). He had been president just a few months, and
> > inherited
> > > > > the worst or one of the worst disasters in American history,
> including
> > > > > a threat to his own life.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think President Bush showed remarkable courage and leadership
> during
> > > > > this terrible time, and his administrations's ability to name the
> > prime
> > > > > suspect (Bin Laden) and his immediate efforts to hunt him down
were
> > > > > commendable. I also applaud the war in Afghanistan.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think when the Bush administration started to take aim at Iraq
> under
> > > > > false pretenses is when he started to slip . . . .
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Why do liberals insist on saying Bush lied about Iraq?
> > >
> > > Wheres the WMD, you fucking moron?
> >
> > Probably up your ass with Michael Jackson's glove and floating in
gallons
> of
> > homosexual dog sperm.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Bush accomplished what others only talked about.
> > >
> > > Yeah, hes manage to get the US into another quagmire and stir up the
> > islamic
> > > militants across the wortd into bombing just about every capital city.
> > >
> > > Great work.
> >
> > They
>
> "They." Saddam and his fellow Iraqis. Yup.
>
> crashed planes into NYC and Washington DC before we invaded Iraq. The
> > Islamic terrorists make the news,
>
> Oh, don't you mean the IRAQIS?


No, first we attacked the Taliban, then we went after Saddam because of his
support of terrorism.

>
> but many people are grateful to Bush and
> > the U.S. for getting rid of Saddam.
>
> How many are just as hateful of the bogged down war he brought to their
> doorstep?

Most of them hated us before the war. They will always hate us. They hate
the Jews, the Buddists, the Hindus, the Christians, and each other. Nothing
has changed.

>
> There were plenty of good people
> > celebrating their right to vote.
> >
> > Lebanon is also improving, and so is Lybia.
>
> Stretch. Overreach. Grab onto any little thing.
> >

Maybe a little thing to you but not to those who love freedom.
Chocolate Jesus
2005-08-03 00:02:52 UTC
Permalink
"BibsBro" <***@webtv.net-nospam> wrote in message
news:***@news.supernews.com...

> No, first we attacked the Taliban, then we went after Saddam because of
his
> support of terrorism.

No no, idiot, you're forgetting what the reason is.

You went after Saddam because he had WMD.

Try and remember that will you, nucklehead?
BibsBro
2005-08-03 00:24:20 UTC
Permalink
"Chocolate Jesus" <***@church.com> wrote in message
news:dcp1md$rgv$***@pita.alt.net...
>
> "BibsBro" <***@webtv.net-nospam> wrote in message
> news:***@news.supernews.com...
>
> > No, first we attacked the Taliban, then we went after Saddam because of
> his
> > support of terrorism.
>
> No no, idiot, you're forgetting what the reason is.
>
> You went after Saddam because he had WMD.
>
> Try and remember that will you, nucklehead?
>

Yes Fudgeboy we went after Saddam to keep him from supplying terrorists with
WMD like he used on the Kurds and other Iraqis. He had plenty of time to
hide them or export them. But now thanks to Bush and our allies Saddam will
not be any more trouble to anyone.
Chocolate Jesus
2005-08-03 00:49:17 UTC
Permalink
"BibsBro" <***@webtv.net-nospam> wrote in message
news:***@news.supernews.com...
>
>
>
> "Chocolate Jesus" <***@church.com> wrote in message
> news:dcp1md$rgv$***@pita.alt.net...
> >
> > "BibsBro" <***@webtv.net-nospam> wrote in message
> > news:***@news.supernews.com...
> >
> > > No, first we attacked the Taliban, then we went after Saddam because
of
> > his
> > > support of terrorism.
> >
> > No no, idiot, you're forgetting what the reason is.
> >
> > You went after Saddam because he had WMD.
> >
> > Try and remember that will you, nucklehead?
> >
>
> Yes Fudgeboy we went after Saddam to keep him from supplying terrorists
with
> WMD like he used on the Kurds and other Iraqis.

Yeah, it was just a crying shame he didn't have any.

What else ya got, knucklehead?
BibsBro
2005-08-03 01:11:24 UTC
Permalink
"Chocolate Jesus" <***@church.com> wrote in message
news:dcp4d1$7e9$***@pita.alt.net...
>
> "BibsBro" <***@webtv.net-nospam> wrote in message
> news:***@news.supernews.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > "Chocolate Jesus" <***@church.com> wrote in message
> > news:dcp1md$rgv$***@pita.alt.net...
> > >
> > > "BibsBro" <***@webtv.net-nospam> wrote in message
> > > news:***@news.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > > No, first we attacked the Taliban, then we went after Saddam because
> of
> > > his
> > > > support of terrorism.
> > >
> > > No no, idiot, you're forgetting what the reason is.
> > >
> > > You went after Saddam because he had WMD.
> > >
> > > Try and remember that will you, nucklehead?
> > >
> >
> > Yes Fudgeboy we went after Saddam to keep him from supplying terrorists
> with
> > WMD like he used on the Kurds and other Iraqis.
>
> Yeah, it was just a crying shame he didn't have any.
>


Saddam had plenty of time to hide them or export them. Why did he stall the
inspectors for so long? If he had nothing to hide he would have been more
coopreative. but Saddam was foolish (like you) and now he is waiting trial
and execution by the free Iraqi people. :-)
Chocolate Jesus
2005-08-03 03:16:25 UTC
Permalink
"BibsBro" <***@webtv.net-nospam> wrote in message
news:***@news.supernews.com...
>
>
> "Chocolate Jesus" <***@church.com> wrote in message
> news:dcp4d1$7e9$***@pita.alt.net...
> >
> > "BibsBro" <***@webtv.net-nospam> wrote in message
> > news:***@news.supernews.com...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Chocolate Jesus" <***@church.com> wrote in message
> > > news:dcp1md$rgv$***@pita.alt.net...
> > > >
> > > > "BibsBro" <***@webtv.net-nospam> wrote in message
> > > > news:***@news.supernews.com...
> > > >
> > > > > No, first we attacked the Taliban, then we went after Saddam
because
> > of
> > > > his
> > > > > support of terrorism.
> > > >
> > > > No no, idiot, you're forgetting what the reason is.
> > > >
> > > > You went after Saddam because he had WMD.
> > > >
> > > > Try and remember that will you, nucklehead?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes Fudgeboy we went after Saddam to keep him from supplying
terrorists
> > with
> > > WMD like he used on the Kurds and other Iraqis.
> >
> > Yeah, it was just a crying shame he didn't have any.
> >
>
>
> Saddam had plenty of time to hide them or export them.

LOL!

Wake up to yourself, you imbecile.

After '91, he gave up.



>Why did he stall the
> inspectors for so long?

What are you talking about, imbecile?

Inspectors were in there for nearly ten years after GW1.



>If he had nothing to hide he would have been more
> coopreative.

Moron.
White Terror
2005-08-03 14:06:23 UTC
Permalink
BibsBro wrote:

> "Chocolate Jesus" <***@church.com> wrote in message
> news:dcp1md$rgv$***@pita.alt.net...
>
>>"BibsBro" <***@webtv.net-nospam> wrote in message
>>news:***@news.supernews.com...
>>
>>
>>>No, first we attacked the Taliban, then we went after Saddam because of
>>
>>his
>>
>>>support of terrorism.
>>
>>No no, idiot, you're forgetting what the reason is.
>>
>>You went after Saddam because he had WMD.
>>
>>Try and remember that will you, nucklehead?
>>
>
>
> Yes Fudgeboy we went after Saddam to keep him from supplying terrorists with
> WMD like he used on the Kurds and other Iraqis. He had plenty of time to
> hide them or export them. But now thanks to Bush and our allies Saddam will
> not be any more trouble to anyone.
>
>


Trouble? He was no trouble to me.He did what he had to do which is more
than we have been able to do. We put him in there.
amos
2005-08-03 15:42:06 UTC
Permalink
"BibsBro" <***@webtv.net-nospam> wrote in message
news:***@news.supernews.com...
>
>
>
> "amos" <***@indiana.gpu.gov> wrote in message
> news:***@individual.net...
> > >
> > > They
> >
> > "They." Saddam and his fellow Iraqis. Yup.
> >
> > crashed planes into NYC and Washington DC before we invaded Iraq. The
> > > Islamic terrorists make the news,
> >
> > Oh, don't you mean the IRAQIS?
>
>
> No, first we attacked the Taliban, then we went after Saddam because of
his
> support of terrorism.

Yet you use the words "they crashed planes...before we invaded Iraq." Bat
attempt to justify attacking Iraq since they were not flying the planes at
all.
>
> >
> > but many people are grateful to Bush and
> > > the U.S. for getting rid of Saddam.
> >
> > How many are just as hateful of the bogged down war he brought to their
> > doorstep?
>
> Most of them hated us before the war. They will always hate us.

These are simple generalizations that have no weight. You IMAGINE they ALL
hate us an ALWAYS will. It's that American mindset that allows Bush to do
the things he has.

They hate
> the Jews, the Buddists, the Hindus, the Christians, and each other.
Nothing
> has changed.

Sure it has. We invaded Iraq and are now universally hated by the Arab
world. Oop...I made a generalization myself, didn't I?
>
> >
> > There were plenty of good people
> > > celebrating their right to vote.
> > >
> > > Lebanon is also improving, and so is Lybia.
> >
> > Stretch. Overreach. Grab onto any little thing.
> > >
>
> Maybe a little thing to you but not to those who love freedom.

sigh
>
>
amos
2005-08-03 15:34:25 UTC
Permalink
"amos" <***@indiana.gpu.gov> wrote in message
news:***@individual.net...
>
> "BibsBro" <***@webtv.net-nospam> wrote in message
> news:***@news.supernews.com...
> >
> >

> >
> > They
>
> "They." Saddam and his fellow Iraqis. Yup.

Interesting. Which Iraqi flew the plane into the WTC? Just curious how you
get your "facts".
>
> crashed planes into NYC and Washington DC before we invaded Iraq. The
> > Islamic terrorists make the news,
>
> Oh, don't you mean the IRAQIS?
>
> but many people are grateful to Bush and
> > the U.S. for getting rid of Saddam.
>
> How many are just as hateful of the bogged down war he brought to their
> doorstep?
>
> There were plenty of good people
> > celebrating their right to vote.
> >
> > Lebanon is also improving, and so is Lybia.
>
> Stretch. Overreach. Grab onto any little thing.
> >
> >


Ah. The questions remain. No answer from BB.
shadow crying
2005-08-02 13:57:06 UTC
Permalink
<***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:***@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Sadly, I must agree with many of the comments here about George Bush.
> However, many seem to forget some of the very positive things he has
> done.
>
> After all, he was President when 4 American planes were hijacked on
> September 11, 2001 and when two were flown into the Twin Towers,
> another crashed in Pennsylvania and the last crashed into the Pentagon.
> There is no question in my mind that the hijackers had intended to kill
> as many American government officials as possible (probably including
> the President). He had been president just a few months, and inherited
> the worst or one of the worst disasters in American history, including
> a threat to his own life.
>
> I think President Bush showed remarkable courage and leadership during
> this terrible time, and his administrations's ability to name the prime
> suspect (Bin Laden) and his immediate efforts to hunt him down were
> commendable. I also applaud the war in Afghanistan.
>
> I think when the Bush administration started to take aim at Iraq under
> false pretenses is when he started to slip . . . .

I think you have no cognitive abilties whatsoever.

Thanks for sharing that lack with the world.
>
BibsBro
2005-08-02 12:10:44 UTC
Permalink
<***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> BibsBro wrote:
>
>
> At least George W. Bush is comfortable with himself, and does not
> constantly
> > change his positions to satisfy the liberal media and polls. Americans
> > recognize this as leadership.
>
>
> Thank you for the biggest laugh I've had all day.

Wow! You must have a very sad life.
shadow crying
2005-08-02 04:51:53 UTC
Permalink
"BibsBro" <***@webtv.net-nospam> wrote in message
news:***@news.supernews.com...
>
>
>
> "shadow crying" <***@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:***@individual.net...
>>
>> <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:***@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > ***@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> Dear Marcus,
>> >>
>> >> I am so so sorry. I did not mean it as an insult. It is just
>> >> that your positiion sounds just like Kerry.
>> >
>> > Kerry wanted to send more troops to Iraq, and be tougher than Bush.
>> > Somehow, liberal Democrats proclaimed him the "peace candidate".
>> >
>> > Go figure.
>>
>> He was all over the place since he couldn't take a position and stick
>> with
>> it. He was (as usual) a terrible candidate. Democrats have no toes left
>> from constantly shooting themselves in the foot.
>>
>> Still...the Bush corruption and arrogance wasn't there. He still would
> have
>> been a better president. And Nader? Faw. No way.
>> >
>>
>
> I think you guys will be whining for years to come. I agree Kerry was a
> terrible candidate. He took both sides of every issue and has been a phony
> for years. He talks about higher taxes for the wealthy, but he avoids them
> for himself.
>
> Al Gore was even more of an embarassment. What kind of candidate would
> publicly try to reinvent himself late in his campaign? The guy is in his
> fifties and he's still trying to "find himself"?!!
>
> Howard Dean makes outrageous statements that his own party won't support.
> Hillary has huge negative support....

So far I don't much disagree with any of these characterizations.
>
> At least George W. Bush is comfortable with himself, and does not
> constantly
> change his positions to satisfy the liberal media and polls.

Now THIS is a load of manure. if you weer honest you would give him the
same kind of scrutiny that you gave the Demos. But you can't do that,
Dubbaya gets a pass because by God he's your man.

The same sickening phenomenon when Nixon was president. Another
Rethuglican.


> Americans (snip)

A list, please, of all Americans you can vouch for that feel this way.


All you've done here is wail the usual plaintive claptrap, saying nothing
but doing so loudly.
BibsBro
2005-08-02 11:52:22 UTC
Permalink
<***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:***@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> ***@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Dear Marcus,
> >
> > I am so so sorry. I did not mean it as an insult. It is just
> > that your positiion sounds just like Kerry.
>
> Kerry wanted to send more troops to Iraq, and be tougher than Bush.
> Somehow, liberal Democrats proclaimed him the "peace candidate".
>
> Go figure.
>

Kerry would send more troops and punish them if they hurt any terrorists.
Then free all terrorist prisoners after making sure their prison cells were
very comfortable. Kerry tried to take both sides of every issue.

"I voted for it, before I voted against it..." John F. Kerry

"....I don't believe in Kennedy..." John Lennon


BibsBro
shadow crying
2005-07-31 21:34:53 UTC
Permalink
<***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Marcus,
>
> Sounds like you are a Kerry supporter.

He's not.
>
> I am probably in the minority here, but I don't think the war in
> Iraq or Afghanistan is as immoral or wrong as others here probably do.
> I do think mistakes have been made and some innocents have been killed
> which is very sad.
>
> I certainly will not shed one tear over Saddam Hussein, his
> family, his government or his supporters. I have no pity for the
> Taliban, Osama Bin Laden or their followers. I say hunt down as many as
> possible. Kill them, maim them or put them in jail.

Very few disagree with that statement. However, it's more the reasons we're
there now, the way it was mis-handled, the lies told to get us there and the
total disregard the government has for its own troops (many of whom were
reservists and National Guard for chrissakes) and the money being awarded in
sweetheart deals to the administrations friends and supporters....THAT's
some of what the problems with this entire Bush-fueled scenario is. The
President's arrogance at telling the rest of the world to fuck off (Kyoto,
if you're not with us you're against us, we don't need the UN to tell
us...etc. etc. etc.). Making a religious war out of this (which fuels
further the REAL religious fanatics, the hard-line anti-Westerners).

Killing a bad guy or two is not what is being looked at here.
>
> To me, if an American or British soldier came home and said "I
> killed that mofo Arab who blew up a bus full of people going to work in
> London" or "I shot that Muslim fanatic who shot up an Israeli school
> killing 10 children" I would shake his hand and pat him on the back.

Or "I had to slay a whole family of Iraqi's because I was told they were
insurgents," or "I killed a bastard who chucked something at me. Turned out
to be a rock. Turned out to be a ten year old kid..". Again, who would
disagree with YOUR examples? But those are limited and very simplistic.
And now Saddam is in custody...it just makes no good sense.
>
> Well, I guess I am just weird.

I guess so.
>
Dale Houstman
2005-07-31 22:12:37 UTC
Permalink
Arguing whrther or not one supports the troops isn't really useful. The
phrase "i Support Our Troops" is really just a psychological ploy to
curtail any serious discussion of the nature of the war they are being
ask to die for. Fact is, it's a false issue: how many Americans don't
support the troops? Almost none, and the people who promulgate that
little bumper sticker philosophy are just trying to make serious debate
that more difficult. Thus whenever anyone expresses any doubts about the
war itself, the other side can simply say "don't you support our
troops"? This makes it abundantly clear that the phrase really means "I
Support Our War." Personally - as a person who grew up in a military
family - I understand the pressures (economic and social) which can lead
to a person going into the military, although less and less are going in
all the time. I support any tendency toward "detrooping" of individuals.
I sopport those military individuals up to the point they start agreeing
with the murder and plundering that they are being asked to do. After
that, I don't support them.

dmh
White Terror
2005-08-01 02:27:58 UTC
Permalink
Dale Houstman wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Arguing whrther or not one supports the troops isn't really useful. The
> phrase "i Support Our Troops" is really just a psychological ploy to
> curtail any serious discussion of the nature of the war they are being
> ask to die for. Fact is, it's a false issue: how many Americans don't
> support the troops? Almost none, and the people who promulgate that
> little bumper sticker philosophy are just trying to make serious debate
> that more difficult. Thus whenever anyone expresses any doubts about the
> war itself, the other side can simply say "don't you support our
> troops"? This makes it abundantly clear that the phrase really means "I
> Support Our War." Personally - as a person who grew up in a military
> family - I understand the pressures (economic and social) which can lead
> to a person going into the military, although less and less are going in
> all the time. I support any tendency toward "detrooping" of individuals.
> I sopport those military individuals up to the point they start agreeing
> with the murder and plundering that they are being asked to do. After
> that, I don't support them.
>
> dmh
>

Well said.

And very true.
Lookingglass
2005-07-31 23:01:40 UTC
Permalink
(snip)


I support hospitals... that doesn't mean I want to see them full of
patients...
I support firemen... doesn't mean I want houses burning down...

Those are our children over there... pawns in a bigger game. I want them all
to come back alive.

I do NOT support WAR.
But... I would act to defend myself and the ones I love.


dave............ www.Shemakhan.com
I want to be common... just like everyone else. (anonymous)
m***@yahoo.com
2005-07-31 23:18:04 UTC
Permalink
Lookingglass wrote:

> I do NOT support WAR.
> But... I would act to defend myself and the ones I love.
>
>
>
Who wouldn't.

Just make sure that you know the threat is real.
White Terror
2005-08-01 02:32:28 UTC
Permalink
Lookingglass wrote:

>
>
> I do NOT support WAR.
> But... I would act to defend myself and the ones I love.
>

Like anyone else would. Everyone mostly would. I would be first in line
to support with my last breath a war such as what we had in WWII. Or if
it were the Iraqis that were behind 911.

But sticking out ones patriotic humblings and blindly following what any
government proclaims is as dumb as the statement:

God is on our side here in God's country.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...