OT- Deja vu, McDiarmid all over again.
 

Dear alt.sailing.asa and uk.rec.sailing

McDiarmid wrote this letter to the London
Daily Telegraph:

"Dear Editor,

"The whole world rings with Christmas joy
and love as the capture of the indescribable
Saddam Hussein is announced. But, forgive
my ignorance, what has he done?

"It is true there are rumours of mass graves and
other nasties but the Security Industries of the
West churn these out routinely and it is said on
the Continent, where I live, that only the Brits
believe their media.

"All I see is a man who likes animals and children,
became the beloved elected leader of his people,
was falsely accused of creating weapons of mass
destruction and had his country invaded as a
consequence. So,what has he done?

"Dr Trevor Artingstoll"

***************************

My reply to him is as follows:

Now, there's old McDiarmid rearing his feisty head . . .

I must ask the dear man why would I wish to republish that
which should not have been published in the first place other
than in the name of a belief in freedom of speech?

Asking what has Saddam Hussein done to deserve being
dragged out of his hidey hole is tantamount to asking
what has Hitler done to deserve infamy? Some claim there
was no holocaust in the face of the overwhelming reality.
These same defective minds live on in those who deny the
reality of Saddam Hussein.

Even if "All I see is a man who likes animals and children,
became the beloved elected leader of his people, was falsely
accused of creating weapons of mass destruction and had
his country invaded as a consequence" was meant to be parody
or sarcasm the statement still does a disservice because it feeds
the ignorance of the chronically uniformed, supports the dogma
of the average leftist and, most dangerously, encourages the
enmity of the Islamic radical, stoking furnace fires of Jihad.


Respectfully,
Capt. Neal
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OT- Deja vu, McDiarmid all over again.
 

Good troll.

Cheers MC

Simple Simon wrote:

Dear alt.sailing.asa and uk.rec.sailing

McDiarmid wrote this letter to the London
Daily Telegraph:

"Dear Editor,

"The whole world rings with Christmas joy
and love as the capture of the indescribable
Saddam Hussein is announced. But, forgive
my ignorance, what has he done?

"It is true there are rumours of mass graves and
other nasties but the Security Industries of the
West churn these out routinely and it is said on
the Continent, where I live, that only the Brits
believe their media.

"All I see is a man who likes animals and children,
became the beloved elected leader of his people,
was falsely accused of creating weapons of mass
destruction and had his country invaded as a
consequence. So,what has he done?

"Dr Trevor Artingstoll"

***************************

My reply to him is as follows:

Now, there's old McDiarmid rearing his feisty head . . .

I must ask the dear man why would I wish to republish that
which should not have been published in the first place other
than in the name of a belief in freedom of speech?

Asking what has Saddam Hussein done to deserve being
dragged out of his hidey hole is tantamount to asking
what has Hitler done to deserve infamy? Some claim there
was no holocaust in the face of the overwhelming reality.
These same defective minds live on in those who deny the
reality of Saddam Hussein.

Even if "All I see is a man who likes animals and children,
became the beloved elected leader of his people, was falsely
accused of creating weapons of mass destruction and had
his country invaded as a consequence" was meant to be parody
or sarcasm the statement still does a disservice because it feeds
the ignorance of the chronically uniformed, supports the dogma
of the average leftist and, most dangerously, encourages the
enmity of the Islamic radical, stoking furnace fires of Jihad.


Respectfully,
Capt. Neal
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OT- Deja vu, McDiarmid all over again.
 

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Dear alt.sailing.asa and uk.rec.sailing

McDiarmid wrote this letter to the London
Daily Telegraph:

"Dear Editor,

"The whole world rings with Christmas joy
and love as the capture of the indescribable
Saddam Hussein is announced. But, forgive
my ignorance, what has he done?

"It is true there are rumours of mass graves and
other nasties but the Security Industries of the
West churn these out routinely and it is said on
the Continent, where I live, that only the Brits
believe their media.

"All I see is a man who likes animals and children,
became the beloved elected leader of his people,
was falsely accused of creating weapons of mass
destruction and had his country invaded as a
consequence. So,what has he done?

"Dr Trevor Artingstoll"

***************************

My reply to him is as follows:

Now, there's old McDiarmid rearing his feisty head . . .

I must ask the dear man why would I wish to republish that
which should not have been published in the first place other
than in the name of a belief in freedom of speech?

Asking what has Saddam Hussein done to deserve being
dragged out of his hidey hole is tantamount to asking
what has Hitler done to deserve infamy? Some claim there
was no holocaust in the face of the overwhelming reality.
These same defective minds live on in those who deny the
reality of Saddam Hussein.

Even if "All I see is a man who likes animals and children,
became the beloved elected leader of his people, was falsely
accused of creating weapons of mass destruction and had
his country invaded as a consequence" was meant to be parody
or sarcasm the statement still does a disservice because it feeds
the ignorance of the chronically uniformed, supports the dogma
of the average leftist and, most dangerously, encourages the
enmity of the Islamic radical, stoking furnace fires of Jihad.


Respectfully,
Capt. Neal
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And here is a copy of my letter on the subject published in The Times
on16/12/03:

"Dear Sir,
Finding Saddam Hussein is irrelevant to the justification for the war. We
went to war because we were told there was a real threat from Weapons of
Mass Destruction. None have been found. This should not be forgotten amid
the euphoria of politicians trying to move the goalposts.
Yours faithfully,
Duncan Heenan"

Well Simple Simon, when the UN weapons inspectors asked for more time, Bush
refused and instead declared war, killing thousands and ruining the country.
When we asked 'where are the WMD's' he asked for more time. Why should we
give it? He should resign if he has any trace of honour. He hasn't, of
course, so the American people should kick him out at the next election if
they want the world to think they have any trace of honour.

OT- Deja vu, McDiarmid all over again.
 

Simple Trollman.

OT- Deja vu, McDiarmid all over again.
 

"Duncan Heenan" wrote in message ...

And here is a copy of my letter on the subject published in The Times
on16/12/03:

"Dear Sir,
Finding Saddam Hussein is irrelevant to the justification for the war. We
went to war because we were told there was a real threat from Weapons of
Mass Destruction. None have been found. This should not be forgotten amid
the euphoria of politicians trying to move the goalposts.
Yours faithfully,
Duncan Heenan"

Well Simple Simon, when the UN weapons inspectors asked for more time, Bush
refused and instead declared war, killing thousands and ruining the country.
When we asked 'where are the WMD's' he asked for more time. Why should we
give it? He should resign if he has any trace of honour. He hasn't, of
course, so the American people should kick him out at the next election if
they want the world to think they have any trace of honour.


Listen to President Bush's many speeches and even a closed-
minded individual such as yourself will be forced to conclude
that WMDs were only one of the several reasons we included
Iraq in our larger war against terrorists. Americans are aware
of this and it is one of the main reasons Mr. Bush has the
support of close to 60% of Americans polled in this matter.
Americans don't give a hoot what a bunch of European
socialists have to say. What do they know about it? What
right do any such pacifists have to tell the United States
of America how to prosecute the war against terrorism?
We will do what is in our best interest and to Hell with
all you busybodies sticking your snotty noses where they
don't belong.

Evidence of WMD programs has been found. Read David
Kay's report. It is only a matter of time before actual WMDs
are located and displayed just like it was only a matter of
time before Saddam Hussein was found and just like it's
only a matter time before bin Laden is found and it's
just a matter of time before terrorists are crushed.

But, people like you will not believe the actual evidence any
more than you believe Saddam Hussein tortured and butchered
up hundreds of thousands of his own people. Rather than waiting
for evidence of WMDs you'd rather side with a murderous
dictator and do everything you can to allow his activities to
continue.

Shame on you!

S.Simon

OT- Deja vu, McDiarmid all over again.
 

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Listen to President Bush's many speeches and even a closed-
minded individual such as yourself will be forced to conclude
that WMDs were only one of the several reasons we included
Iraq in our larger war against terrorists. Americans are aware
of this and it is one of the main reasons Mr. Bush has the
support of close to 60% of Americans polled in this matter.

Which poll? I thought the latest polls show around 50% of americans aren't
willing to suffer the moron for another term. Mr. Bush is stumbling left
and right, and just watch what happens when he opens his stupid mouth
endorsing that bill banning homosexuals from marriage. The Bush
administration is a sinking ship, and you Simon, are a sinking troll.

OT- Deja vu, McDiarmid all over again.
 

"Chris" wrote in message ...

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Listen to President Bush's many speeches and even a closed-
minded individual such as yourself will be forced to conclude
that WMDs were only one of the several reasons we included
Iraq in our larger war against terrorists. Americans are aware
of this and it is one of the main reasons Mr. Bush has the
support of close to 60% of Americans polled in this matter.

Which poll? I thought the latest polls show around 50% of americans aren't
willing to suffer the moron for another term. Mr. Bush is stumbling left
and right, and just watch what happens when he opens his stupid mouth
endorsing that bill banning homosexuals from marriage. The Bush
administration is a sinking ship, and you Simon, are a sinking troll.



Currently two-thirds of Americans support the military action taken in Iraq, up two points since September but down from a high of
81 percent in early April when major combat was still underway.

Read more at: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103666,00.html

OT- Deja vu, McDiarmid all over again.
 

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Currently two-thirds of Americans support the military action taken in
Iraq, up two points since September but down from a high of
81 percent in early April when major combat was still underway.

Read more at: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103666,00.html

Fox News, the tool of the up and coming troll.

OT- Deja vu, McDiarmid all over again.
 

"Chris" wrote in message ...

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Listen to President Bush's many speeches and even a closed-
minded individual such as yourself will be forced to conclude
that WMDs were only one of the several reasons we included
Iraq in our larger war against terrorists. Americans are aware
of this and it is one of the main reasons Mr. Bush has the
support of close to 60% of Americans polled in this matter.

Which poll? I thought the latest polls show around 50% of americans aren't
willing to suffer the moron for another term. snip trolling


From: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/NewsStory...orld&OID=40615
"The poll found that in the two days after Saddam's capture, Bush's overall approval rating rose six points to 58 percent, the
highest level since last July, and up from 52 percent in the four days before the former Iraqi leader's arrest. "

OT- Deja vu, McDiarmid all over again.
 

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
From: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/NewsStory...orld&OID=40615
"The poll found that in the two days after Saddam's capture, Bush's
overall approval rating rose six points to 58 percent, the
highest level since last July, and up from 52 percent in the four days
before the former Iraqi leader's arrest. "

Lovely. I thought you said his rating was 60%.

OT- Deja vu, McDiarmid all over again.
 

You gonna quibble about two percentage points in a poll
that has an error rate greater than two percent?

I'd say you just lost your argument.

S.Simon

"Chris" wrote in message om...

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
From: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/NewsStory...orld&OID=40615
"The poll found that in the two days after Saddam's capture, Bush's
overall approval rating rose six points to 58 percent, the
highest level since last July, and up from 52 percent in the four days
before the former Iraqi leader's arrest. "

Lovely. I thought you said his rating was 60%.

OT- Deja vu, McDiarmid all over again.
 

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...


You gonna quibble about two percentage points in a poll
that has an error rate greater than two percent?

I'd say you just lost your argument.

So you admit you falsified percentage ratings in an approval poll.
Congratulations, you can apply for an anchor position at Fox News or CNN.

Or, if television isn't your game, you could be an editor with Washington
Post or NY Times.

OT- Deja vu, McDiarmid all over again.
 

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

Excellent work, Neal. Your posts demonstrate a truly superior intellect!!





Listen to President Bush's many speeches

Only a true genius can understand Bush's speeches. The rest of us think
that he is speaking gobbledeegook. You must be really clever if you can
understand what he says.


and even a closed-
minded individual such as yourself will be forced to conclude
that WMDs were only one of the several reasons we included
Iraq in our larger war against terrorists.

Nope! I'm afraid that after we listen to Bush speak for more than 30
seconds, we conclude that he is a complete idiot. After 60 seconds, we
conclude that he is an incredibly dangerous idiot.


Americans are aware
of this and it is one of the main reasons Mr. Bush has the
support of close to 60% of Americans polled in this matter.

60% of Americans must be illiterate!


Americans don't give a hoot what a bunch of European
socialists have to say. What do they know about it? What
right do any such pacifists have to tell the United States
of America how to prosecute the war against terrorism?
We will do what is in our best interest and to Hell with
all you busybodies sticking your snotty noses where they
don't belong.

heh heh You don't agree with your president on this issue!!

Bush recently said "Please Europe, help me in Iraq. It's all gone
tewwibbly wrong. America needs your supportification."




Evidence of WMD programs has been found.

Dream on.


Read David
Kay's report. It is only a matter of time before actual WMDs
are located and displayed just like it was only a matter of
time before Saddam Hussein was found and just like it's
only a matter time before bin Laden is found and it's
just a matter of time before terrorists are crushed.
But, people like you will not believe the actual evidence any
more than you believe Saddam Hussein tortured and butchered
up hundreds of thousands of his own people.

Who has killed more innocent Iraqis? The Bush family, or Saddam's family?
How many died because sanctions prevented vital drugs reaching Iraqi
hospitals?
Did you know that birth defects have risen 10 fold since depleted uranium
was used by Bush senior?
Cancer and Leukemia rates have also gone through the roof!


Rather than waiting
for evidence of WMDs you'd rather side with a murderous
dictator and do everything you can to allow his activities to
continue.


Your use of politically correct invective will not fool most people.
What you should have written is:-
"Rather than wait for the UN inspection team to prove that Iraq did not
possess WMD, Bush decided to start a war that would make his friends and
family incredibly rich - and at the same time create thousands more
tourists[sic] - so that he could declare even more wars to generate even
more wealth for his father and his friends."


Shame on you!

The really sad thing is that the idiots who believe Bush aren't making a
penny out of it.

Regards


Donal
--

OT- Deja vu, McDiarmid all over again.
 

"Chris" wrote in message ...

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...


You gonna quibble about two percentage points in a poll
that has an error rate greater than two percent?

I'd say you just lost your argument.

So you admit you falsified percentage ratings in an approval poll.
Congratulations, you can apply for an anchor position at Fox News or CNN.

Or, if television isn't your game, you could be an editor with Washington
Post or NY Times.


I 'falsified' nothing.

From the site named:

"One-thousand-fifty-seven adults were polled
December 10-13 prior to Saddam's capture.
The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus
three percentage points."

I would be just as correct saying Bush had a 60
percent approval rating as I would be saying
Bush has a 56 percent. It is within the margin
of error of the poll.

Either way, you lose. Bush is popular and as
long as the economy, which is roaring along
continues to do so and all indications show
it will, Mr. Bush will be a two-term president.

S.Simon

OT- Deja vu, McDiarmid all over again.
 

All this to support a president who lost the presidential election.

Lost america jobs through his ban on steel imports.

Lost sight of the war on terroism to go against what he thought would be an
easy target and has embroiled america in a military action that will last
between 5 and 40 years.

Lied to America and the world about intelligence on weapons on Mass
Destruction (after all if you can show the UN satellite pictures of their
dispersal how come you can't find them).

Has failed to have any coherent policy on Israel/Palestine.

Walked away from the issues of global warming.

Lets face it Ellen McArthur has more chance of winning a yacht race than any
of the various Bush clan have of being remembered as even adequate political
leaders.

OT- Deja vu, McDiarmid all over again.
 

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:35:18 GMT, "Chris" wrote
this crap:

Which poll? I thought the latest polls show around 50% of americans aren't
willing to suffer the moron for another term. Mr. Bush is stumbling left
and right, and just watch what happens when he opens his stupid mouth
endorsing that bill banning homosexuals from marriage. The Bush
administration is a sinking ship, and you Simon, are a sinking troll.

The following is the results of the latest CBS poll, which shows that
"Don't Know" is leading the democrats. This is ironic because Don't
Know actually has a better chance of beating President George W. Bush
than Coward Dean.

CHOICE FOR DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE
(Democratic primary voters)
Now
Howard Dean
23%
Wesley Clark
10%
Joe Lieberman
10%
Richard Gephardt
6%
Al Sharpton
5%
John Kerry
4%
John Edwards
2%
Carol Moseley-Braun
1%
Dennis Kucinich
1%
Don’t Know
28%




This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe

OT- Deja vu, McDiarmid all over again.
 

"Nick Temple-Fry" theP wrote in message
...
All this to support a president who lost the presidential election.

Lost america jobs through his ban on steel imports.

Lost sight of the war on terroism to go against what he thought would be
an
easy target and has embroiled america in a military action that will last
between 5 and 40 years.

Lied to America and the world about intelligence on weapons on Mass
Destruction (after all if you can show the UN satellite pictures of their
dispersal how come you can't find them).

Has failed to have any coherent policy on Israel/Palestine.

Walked away from the issues of global warming.

Lets face it Ellen McArthur has more chance of winning a yacht race than
any
of the various Bush clan have of being remembered as even adequate
political
leaders.

You forgot one....

Lost the chance to change his surname to anything other than slang for a
woman's sexual organ BEFORE getting involved with politics.

OT- Deja vu, McDiarmid all over again.
 

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
The following is the results of the latest CBS poll, which shows that
"Don't Know" is leading the democrats. This is ironic because Don't
Know actually has a better chance of beating President George W. Bush
than Coward Dean.

Oddly enough, "don't know, don't tell" should be Bush's campaign slogan.

OT- Deja vu, McDiarmid all over again.
 

Hahahahaha...

For Horass, it would be... Don't have a clue.

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
The following is the results of the latest CBS poll, which shows that
"Don't Know" is leading the democrats. This is ironic because Don't
Know actually has a better chance of beating President George W. Bush
than Coward Dean.

Oddly enough, "don't know, don't tell" should be Bush's campaign slogan.

OT- Deja vu, McDiarmid all over again.
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Hahahahaha...

For Horass, it would be... Don't have a clue.

For Howard Dean it should be....Al Gore says I'm the bestest guy.

OT- Deja vu, McDiarmid all over again.
 

Well, he's better than the Breck Girl.

"Chris" wrote in message
om...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Hahahahaha...

For Horass, it would be... Don't have a clue.

For Howard Dean it should be....Al Gore says I'm the bestest guy.

OT- Deja vu, McDiarmid all over again.
 

In article , Donal
wrote:

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

Excellent work, Neal. Your posts demonstrate a truly superior intellect!!





Listen to President Bush's many speeches

Only a true genius can understand Bush's speeches. The rest of us think
that he is speaking gobbledeegook. You must be really clever if you can
understand what he says.


and even a closed-
minded individual such as yourself will be forced to conclude
that WMDs were only one of the several reasons we included
Iraq in our larger war against terrorists.

Nope! I'm afraid that after we listen to Bush speak for more than 30
seconds, we conclude that he is a complete idiot. After 60 seconds, we
conclude that he is an incredibly dangerous idiot.


Americans are aware
of this and it is one of the main reasons Mr. Bush has the
support of close to 60% of Americans polled in this matter.

60% of Americans must be illiterate!


Americans don't give a hoot what a bunch of European
socialists have to say. What do they know about it? What
right do any such pacifists have to tell the United States
of America how to prosecute the war against terrorism?
We will do what is in our best interest and to Hell with
all you busybodies sticking your snotty noses where they
don't belong.

heh heh You don't agree with your president on this issue!!

Bush recently said "Please Europe, help me in Iraq. It's all gone
tewwibbly wrong. America needs your supportification."




Evidence of WMD programs has been found.

Dream on.


Read David
Kay's report. It is only a matter of time before actual WMDs
are located and displayed just like it was only a matter of
time before Saddam Hussein was found and just like it's
only a matter time before bin Laden is found and it's
just a matter of time before terrorists are crushed.
But, people like you will not believe the actual evidence any
more than you believe Saddam Hussein tortured and butchered
up hundreds of thousands of his own people.

Who has killed more innocent Iraqis? The Bush family, or Saddam's family?

Saddam's by at least an order of magnitude. Want to count the number of
Kurds killed by chemical weapons? How about the death toll in the
Iran-Iraq war?

How many died because sanctions prevented vital drugs reaching Iraqi
hospitals?

Lots. Who was responsible for not complying with the sanctions for PR
reasons? The then Iraqi Govt. Blaming the USA for this is infantile.

Did you know that birth defects have risen 10 fold since depleted uranium
was used by Bush senior?

Cite please. Did *you* know that chemical weapons and the resultant
pollution are proven teratogenic and carcinogenic agents while DU
isn't? My wife is one of Australia's leading paediatric biochemists,
specialises in genetic disorders.

I suspect you've been following Pilger.

Cancer and Leukemia rates have also gone through the roof!

True but see above.

Donal, I think you're backing a loser with this line of argument.
Better stick to the lack of WMD and personal observations WRT
'intelligence'.

Peter Wiley

OT- Deja vu, McDiarmid all over again.
 

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 01:10:16 -0000, "Nick Temple-Fry"
theP wrote this crap:

All this to support a president who lost the presidential election.

Actually, every recount shows him winning the last election, and every
poll has him winning the next one, dumbass.




This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe

OT- Deja vu, McDiarmid all over again.
 

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
Actually, every recount shows him winning the last election, and every
poll has him winning the next one, dumbass.

Actually, the only "recount" I witnessed, was called off in mid-stride, just
after the local news started coming back with reports of uncounted votes. I
can't comment on what I didn't get to see, only what I recall as actually
happening.

Oh, and the polls as we're fed them tend to show his approval rating around
50% until
he pulls a rabbit (or Saddam) out of a hole, wherein the points rise
alittle, and eventually settle back down as he ****es someone else off.

OT- Deja vu, McDiarmid all over again.
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Well, he's better than the Breck Girl.

Who's the Breck Girl?

OT- Deja vu, McDiarmid all over again.
 

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

Responses interleaved:

Listen to President Bush's many speeches and even a closed-
minded individual such as yourself will be forced to conclude
that WMDs were only one of the several reasons we included
Iraq in our larger war against terrorists. Americans are aware
of this and it is one of the main reasons Mr. Bush has the
support of close to 60% of Americans polled in this matter.
Americans don't give a hoot what a bunch of European
socialists have to say. What do they know about it? What
right do any such pacifists have to tell the United States
of America how to prosecute the war against terrorism?
We will do what is in our best interest and to Hell with
all you busybodies sticking your snotty noses where they
don't belong.

Then perhaps you'll ask the US Government to stop sticking their snotty
noses in to other peoples business worldwide.

Evidence of WMD programs has been found. Read David
Kay's report. It is only a matter of time before actual WMDs
are located and displayed just like it was only a matter of
time before Saddam Hussein was found and just like it's
only a matter time before bin Laden is found and it's
just a matter of time before terrorists are crushed.

How much time will it take for you to admit you're barking up the wrong
tree. You can't win a war of ideas with guns.
If WMDs are found it will be because the CIA put them there to help Geprge
Bush win the next election.

But, people like you will not believe the actual evidence any
more than you believe Saddam Hussein tortured and butchered
up hundreds of thousands of his own people. Rather than waiting
for evidence of WMDs you'd rather side with a murderous
dictator and do everything you can to allow his activities to
continue.

I'm afraid, yes, our Prime Minister did (against the wishes of the british
people) side with a murderous dictator - George Bush!

Shame on you!

S.Simon

OT- Deja vu, McDiarmid all over again.
 

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Listen to President Bush's many speeches and even a closed-
minded individual such as yourself will be forced to conclude
that WMDs were only one of the several reasons we included
Iraq in our larger war against terrorists. Americans are aware
of this and it is one of the main reasons Mr. Bush has the
support of close to 60% of Americans polled in this matter.

Which poll? I thought the latest polls show around 50% of americans
aren't
willing to suffer the moron for another term. snip trolling


From: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/NewsStory...orld&OID=40615
"The poll found that in the two days after Saddam's capture, Bush's
overall approval rating rose six points to 58 percent, the
highest level since last July, and up from 52 percent in the four days
before the former Iraqi leader's arrest. "



No doubt the poll was carried out in the state of Florida, and subject to
'recounts' until he approved the result?

OT- Deja vu, McDiarmid all over again.
 

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:50:53 +1100, wrote:

Cool, has it dropped back to normal after that ridiculous reaction? Who
the hell do they ask these questions to get a 6% swing that one small
thing. WTF did these people think was going to happen?

Only 6%? Hell, after one of GWB's speeches we had a 12% jump, and we all
know what a rousing orator he is.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

OT- Deja vu, McDiarmid all over again.
 

Well, Horass isn't looking very hard... of course, he's pretty stupid,
so what can you expect.

"Chris" wrote in message
om...

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
Actually, every recount shows him winning the last election, and every
poll has him winning the next one, dumbass.

Actually, the only "recount" I witnessed, was called off in mid-stride,
just
after the local news started coming back with reports of uncounted votes.
I
can't comment on what I didn't get to see, only what I recall as actually
happening.

Oh, and the polls as we're fed them tend to show his approval rating
around
50% until
he pulls a rabbit (or Saddam) out of a hole, wherein the points rise
alittle, and eventually settle back down as he ****es someone else off.

OT- Deja vu, McDiarmid all over again.
 

John Edwards

"Chris" wrote in message
om...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Well, he's better than the Breck Girl.

Who's the Breck Girl?

OT- Deja vu, McDiarmid all over again.
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
John Edwards

Please tell me he's not that sissy psychic guy on television?

OT- Deja vu, McDiarmid all over again.
 

crosspost snipped

Actually, Edwards is probably the best candidate the Democrats have,
which makes it all the more interesting that he is running at or near
the bottom of the pack. The primaries seem almost designed to produce
the worst choice. I still can't imagine how anyone could think that
Bush was more qualified than McCain.


On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:52:36 GMT, "Chris"
wrote:


"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
John Edwards

Please tell me he's not that sissy psychic guy on television?

OT- Deja vu, McDiarmid all over again.
 

No, and he's not that bad, but that's what people are calling him.

"Chris" wrote in message
. com...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
John Edwards

Please tell me he's not that sissy psychic guy on television?

OT- Deja vu, McDiarmid all over again.
 

Martin,

Are you having posting problems... all you seem to
do is post the same as what someone else sent.

"martin" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:27:50 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote:

John Edwards

"Chris" wrote in message
. com...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Well, he's better than the Breck Girl.

Who's the Breck Girl?




--
Martin

OT- Deja vu, McDiarmid all over again.
 

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:06:37 GMT, felton wrote
this crap:

crosspost snipped

Actually, Edwards is probably the best candidate the Democrats have,
which makes it all the more interesting that he is running at or near
the bottom of the pack. The primaries seem almost designed to produce
the worst choice. I still can't imagine how anyone could think that
Bush was more qualified than McCain.

George W. Bush was govenor of Texas. McCain was what?




This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe

OT- Deja vu, McDiarmid all over again.
 

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Donal
wrote:

How many died because sanctions prevented vital drugs reaching Iraqi
hospitals?

Lots. Who was responsible for not complying with the sanctions for PR
reasons? The then Iraqi Govt. Blaming the USA for this is infantile.

Is it?
I can understand that sanctions would prohibit the export of munitions,
various raw materials, industrial goods, and high tech equipment. I don't
understand why medicines should be included in the list of prohibited items.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that it is unusual for a country to be
subjected to sanctions which include medical supplies.



Did you know that birth defects have risen 10 fold since depleted
uranium
was used by Bush senior?

Cite please. Did *you* know that chemical weapons and the resultant
pollution are proven teratogenic and carcinogenic agents while DU
isn't?

Yes, I know that. However, the increases in birth defects, and cancers,
correlate with the use of DU. They do NOT correlate with Saddam's use of
chemical weapons.

Most of the evidence that is used to support your theory is based on the
radioactivity of depleted uranium. However, DU is an extremely toxic
substance in its own right. Lead and aluminium are bad for you. DU is also
bad for you.


My wife is one of Australia's leading paediatric biochemists,
specialises in genetic disorders.

I get a cup of tea in bed every morning.



I suspect you've been following Pilger

I admit that I recognise that name. You'll have to accept my word for the
fact that I am not aware of his significance. I did a Google yesterday, and
I think that I saw his name. It is possible that some of my previous post
used his information.

..

Cancer and Leukemia rates have also gone through the roof!

True but see above.

Donal, I think you're backing a loser with this line of argument.
Better stick to the lack of WMD and personal observations WRT
'intelligence'.

That isn't fair!

You seem to be suggesting that only the rednecks should be allowed to use
whacko arguements.



Regards

Donal
--

OT- Deja vu, McDiarmid all over again.
 

A US Senator and a war hero.... what a dufus.

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:06:37 GMT, felton wrote
this crap:

crosspost snipped

Actually, Edwards is probably the best candidate the Democrats have,
which makes it all the more interesting that he is running at or near
the bottom of the pack. The primaries seem almost designed to produce
the worst choice. I still can't imagine how anyone could think that
Bush was more qualified than McCain.

George W. Bush was govenor of Texas. McCain was what?




This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe

OT- Deja vu, McDiarmid all over again.
 

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:15:31 -0500, Horvath
wrote:

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:06:37 GMT, felton wrote
this crap:

crosspost snipped

Actually, Edwards is probably the best candidate the Democrats have,
which makes it all the more interesting that he is running at or near
the bottom of the pack. The primaries seem almost designed to produce
the worst choice. I still can't imagine how anyone could think that
Bush was more qualified than McCain.

George W. Bush was govenor of Texas. McCain was what?

Governor of Texas has only slightly more prestige than Grand Marshal
of the Rose Bowl Parade, and fewer responsibilities. The only thing
required of the Governor of Texas is to routinely deny stays of
execution and tell colorful stories. Ann Richards was a much better
Governor as her stories were far more entertaining. The Lt Governor
runs the show.

McCain may be one of the true statesmen in Washington, who doesn't toe
the party line.





This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe

OT- Deja vu, McDiarmid all over again.
 

In article , Donal
wrote:

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Donal
wrote:

How many died because sanctions prevented vital drugs reaching Iraqi
hospitals?

Lots. Who was responsible for not complying with the sanctions for PR
reasons? The then Iraqi Govt. Blaming the USA for this is infantile.

Is it?
I can understand that sanctions would prohibit the export of munitions,
various raw materials, industrial goods, and high tech equipment. I don't
understand why medicines should be included in the list of prohibited items.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that it is unusual for a country to be
subjected to sanctions which include medical supplies.

Hmmm. My understanding was that there were restrictions on oil sales as
a sanction for not complying with UN resolutions WRT disclosure/access
for WMD searches, causing a drop in revenue, feeding back into
purported inability to purchase medical supplies et al. I could be
wrong, but I think that's how it played. That's why I said that Iraq
was responsible and there's no doubt they used it for PR purposes. I
regarded it as a crude attempt at moral blackmail.



Did you know that birth defects have risen 10 fold since depleted
uranium
was used by Bush senior?

Cite please. Did *you* know that chemical weapons and the resultant
pollution are proven teratogenic and carcinogenic agents while DU
isn't?

Yes, I know that. However, the increases in birth defects, and cancers,
correlate with the use of DU. They do NOT correlate with Saddam's use of
chemical weapons.

Cite, please. I have seen a report showing that there was an extermely
good correlation with Iraq's use of CW and a huge rise in cancers &
birth defects some years later.

Most of the evidence that is used to support your theory is based on the
radioactivity of depleted uranium. However, DU is an extremely toxic
substance in its own right. Lead and aluminium are bad for you. DU is also
bad for you.

Yes but are they teratogenic? Is DU teratogenic? CW are *known*
teratogens & carcinogens. DU isn't all that toxic, it's a ******* to
machine and burns well, but I wouldn't worry about handling it.

BTW, who says aluminium is bad for you? Except some weak evidence
linking Al oxides with Alzheimers (IIRC) this is just another rumour
put about by the lunatic fringe.

My wife is one of Australia's leading paediatric biochemists,
specialises in genetic disorders.

I get a cup of tea in bed every morning.

Lucky you. I get to design & build elaborate databases for mine so she
can keep track of all her patient data :-(

I suspect you've been following Pilger

I admit that I recognise that name. You'll have to accept my word for the
fact that I am not aware of his significance. I did a Google yesterday, and
I think that I saw his name. It is possible that some of my previous post
used his information.

Pilger is a notorious left-wing conspiracy theorist & liar. He produced
a report blaming the DU munitions used in the Gulf War for a rise in
cancers & birth defects. Only problem was the timing was wrong; there
couldn't have been that effect in the time frame. OTOH the timing was
about perfect for it to have occurred following the use of CW during
the Iraq-Iran war when CW which are known & proven teratogens and
carcinogens were used freely. A fact that Pilger totally ignored as it
didn't support his thesis.

He also, some years ago, managed to blame everyone except the Khmer
Rouge for the massacres in Cambodia following their victory. Etc etc.


.

Cancer and Leukemia rates have also gone through the roof!

True but see above.

Donal, I think you're backing a loser with this line of argument.
Better stick to the lack of WMD and personal observations WRT
'intelligence'.

That isn't fair!

You seem to be suggesting that only the rednecks should be allowed to use
whacko arguements.

The lefties seem to muster at least their fair share. I do my best to
ignore both sides and treat all claims with skepticism.

Whatever, I don't really care. You seem to be falling into the trap of
believing everything bad about the USA in Iraq on the basis that some
of it is true, and that's as big an error as dickheads like Simon who
believe none of it.

Peter Wiley

OT- Deja vu, McDiarmid all over again.
 

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Donal
wrote:

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Donal
wrote:


Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that it is unusual for a country
to be
subjected to sanctions which include medical supplies.

Hmmm. My understanding was that there were restrictions on oil sales as
a sanction for not complying with UN resolutions WRT disclosure/access
for WMD searches, causing a drop in revenue, feeding back into
purported inability to purchase medical supplies et al. I could be
wrong, but I think that's how it played. That's why I said that Iraq
was responsible and there's no doubt they used it for PR purposes. I
regarded it as a crude attempt at moral blackmail.

I did a Google on "Iraq sanctions medicines". Here are the first three
hits.

A story about a man who was prosecuted for taking medicines to Iraq.
"My objection is we are using (sanctions) as a lethal tool of coercion to
try and have a regime change. How in the world do cough syrup, aspirin and
antibiotics endanger the national security of the United States?"
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0618-01.htm

"more than 1.25 million Iraqis have reportedly died from the massive
escalation in the mortality rate since sanctions were imposed in 1990
(Reuters, 12/29/99). "

http://www.fair.org/extra/0003/crossette-iraq.html


"The effect of this situation on Iraq's infant and child population is
especially severe. From 1991 to 1998, children under 5 died from
malnutrition-related diseases in numbers ranging from a conservative 2,690 a
month to a more realistic 5,357 per month. "
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/iraq/effects.shtml

It looks like sanctions caused the deaths of 4,000 children a month for 10
years.

One can take two views on the sanctions issue. One view is that they
failed, so war became necessary.
In this case the childrens' deaths were totally unnecessary.

The other(cynical) view is that the sanctions were used to soften up
Saddam's military machine, and they were very successful indeed. In this
case, the children were colateral damage.

In either case, at least 480,000 children died for no good reason. You
cannot claim that Saddam killed them. They wouldn't have died if Saddam was
allowed to rule Iraq as he saw fit.





Did you know that birth defects have risen 10 fold since depleted
uranium
was used by Bush senior?

Cite please. Did *you* know that chemical weapons and the resultant
pollution are proven teratogenic and carcinogenic agents while DU
isn't?

Yes, I know that. However, the increases in birth defects, and cancers,
correlate with the use of DU. They do NOT correlate with Saddam's use
of
chemical weapons.

Cite, please. I have seen a report showing that there was an extermely
good correlation with Iraq's use of CW and a huge rise in cancers &
birth defects some years later.

Statistics, and reports, prove nothing more than what their author's want
you to believe. I've seen reports that said that said that Saddam had WMD
that could be used against us in 45 minutes!!

I like to play on a level playing field. So, I will not acquiese to your
request for a citation while you use a vague "report".


Most of the evidence that is used to support your theory is based on the
radioactivity of depleted uranium. However, DU is an extremely toxic
substance in its own right. Lead and aluminium are bad for you. DU is
also
bad for you.

Yes but are they teratogenic? Is DU teratogenic? CW are *known*
teratogens & carcinogens. DU isn't all that toxic, it's a ******* to
machine and burns well, but I wouldn't worry about handling it.

BTW, who says aluminium is bad for you? Except some weak evidence
linking Al oxides with Alzheimers (IIRC) this is just another rumour
put about by the lunatic fringe.

Hmmmmm! You remind me of the scientists who said that it was safe to eat
beef because there was no proven link between BSE and CJD.



My wife is one of Australia's leading paediatric biochemists,
specialises in genetic disorders.

I get a cup of tea in bed every morning.

Lucky you. I get to design & build elaborate databases for mine so she
can keep track of all her patient data :-(

I'd recommend MySql and PHP.


snip

The lefties seem to muster at least their fair share. I do my best to
ignore both sides and treat all claims with skepticism.


So do I, usually. However, I fancied a bit of Redneck fishing.
Unfortunately, they weren't attracted to the lure.


Whatever, I don't really care. You seem to be falling into the trap of
believing everything bad about the USA in Iraq on the basis that some
of it is true,

That is a bit unfair. Consider my earlier response to your Pilger
accusation.

and that's as big an error as dickheads like Simon who
believe none of it.

I'll ignore that comment.


Regards


Donal
--