JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"D K" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 17:10:03 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:49:12 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 10:56:26 -0500, John H penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 10:17:53 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 07:04:59 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Dec 31 2008, 2:47 pm, John H wrote:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 14:25:34 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"

wrote:
(considering what hasn't changed here in this NG)
http://www.slate.com/id/2202423/pagenum/all/
Even though it was Bush's fault, Obama will have that fixed in
no
time.
--
** Good Day! **

John H
Here's what I find odd. Seems that those who have already
concluded
that Obama is a bad president, even though he hasn't been in
office
yet, are the very same ones that didn't see that Bush would be a
miserable failure, and STILL don't see it.
Who has made conclusions that Obama will be a bad president?

Bush wasn't a miserable failure. His accomplishments in Iraq and
Afghanistan are remarkable. If it hadn't been for the Barney
Frank
crowd,
he would have had a great economy going for him.
John H
Too bad he failed to punish the country responsible for attacking
us.

What country would you have had him 'punish'?
15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists were from one country. That country,
to this day, broadcasts strong anti-American sentiment on their
government owned radio. That same government, having close ties to
the
Bush administration, walked away from the mess, entirely
unchallenged
by the US government for their role in the death of 3,000 Americans.
Their hands are just as dirty as Afghanistan's.

In addition, although this country has claimed to arrest Al Qaeda
operatives within their borders, I don't think any have been charged
(or accused) of having terrorist targets *outside* of that country's
borders.

Afghanistan makes sense, but why punish Iraq and then let this
country
go free.....
Doubters will attempt to trash the source of this information. That
will
be
funny to watch, as the doubters try and rain disrespect all over OUR
SOLDIERS, who uncovered the information about our so-called "allies",
who
provided the majority of foreign fighters who came to kill our
soldiers.

"The data come largely from a trove of documents and computers
discovered
in
September, when American forces raided a tent camp in the desert near
Sinjar, close to the Syrian border. The raid's target was an
insurgent
cell
believed to be responsible for smuggling the vast majority of foreign
fighters into Iraq. The most significant discovery was a collection
of
biographical sketches that listed hometowns and other details for
more
than
700 fighters brought into Iraq since August 2006."

I suppose, using your logic, we should wreak havoc on Mexico from
whence
have come a whole passel of murderers, rapists, and other assorted
felons.
--
** Good Day! **

John H
Based on YOUR logic, we should've attacked Peru in retaliation for
Pearl
Harbor.

Enuff. Bye.

It's fun to scare you away like this. You can't face your own "logic", if
you can call it logic.
Why are you always such an asshole, Doug?


I asked John to name the country which attacked us on 9/11. If that's being
an asshole, then I'm an asshole. Live with it.

My impression at this point of the discussion is that John's refusal to name
the enemy fits the constitutional term "adhering to the enemy" (see Article
III section 3, definition of treason). What do you think?



I think you are waaaay out there...