It's not necessary to respond to anonymous sockpuppets. There
are bigger fish. Oh, and it's not that you're easily fooled. You're
just a fool.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"gonefishiing" wrote in message
...
that's your answer?
how about an intelligent response?

the arguement, in part, is that kerry is supported for the same reasons
bush
is criticized.
what do you think?

if you say not true, well then ..substaniate it, instead of taking your
ball and going home.....again. more faux liberal bs.



"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Well, you're obviously easitly fooled!

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"DSK" wrote in message

Bart Senior wrote:
America is a safer place, liberals are not happy about it.

I am not a liberal,

Really? Could have fooled me and anyone else here.

and one of the reasons I am against President Bush
is that he has made the U.S. far less safe. In fact, I cannot see
how
you would claim we are safer.

One example: Qaddaffi surrendered his nukes. His ties to terrorists
is
a
matter of extensive record. Can you honestly claim he'd have done
that
if
we hadn't shown the cajones to enter Iraq? Why didn't he make this
surrender during the Clinton admin.?

The gov't is in deep debt and could not
afford another major military operation. The Army is stretched to
the
limit, or slightly past, and doesn't have the manpower to conduct
any
further major operations anyway. Intel & counter-terrorist efforts
are
all centered on Iraq, leaving the rest just hanging in the wind.

The above paragraph was basically true, until your last sentence,
which
holds no basis in fact. Just because the media fail to report on
ongoing
actions and efforts elsewhere (Afghanistan, USA, Canada, Mexico, for
example) doesn't mean such efforts aren't being made. Have our intel
resources typically reported to the media everything they're doing????
You
rely far too heavily on the left-leaning media for your "gospel."

True conservatives are in favor of a strong national defense. This
includes defense against terrorists. Bush & Cheney manipulated us
into
a
war so that their buddies (and Cheney himself, I believe) could reap
enormous profits.

Prove this. While it was extremely bad form for Halliburton to even
participate in the post-war contracts, let alone grossly overcharge
for
them, you cannot provide one piece of evidence that this was Bush's
original
intent. Speculation at best, and shaky at that. Liberal dogma.

In doing so they have turned world opinion against us,
alienated many former allies,

Like France? Russia? China? Now who's been lacking in historical
accuracy?
I'm wondering who all these new "enemies" will turn to when they need
either
financial or military assistance. I think we both know the answer.
It
never ceases to amaze how quickly enmity is discarded when the chips
are
down.

and provided motivation for 3 more
generatins of suicide bombers. Not to mention the killing of 10,000
Iraqi civilians... I suppose you believe Sept 11th morally justifies
killing huge numbers of indiscriminate foreigners? Or just Muslims?

Did WWII justify the killing of millions of civilians? War is what it
is.
So what is the alternative? If attacked, should we lick our wounds,
appologize to those who attacked us for ****ing them off for whatever
unknown reason, and wait for the next attack? Pacifism never solves
disputes. War does, sadly. History confirms this. That's the human
condition, and it's not likely to change.

He is not tap-dancing at all. Kerry supported the war becaue he was
told
that Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S. He was told that Iraq
had
ties to Al-Queda and had helped plan the Sept 11th suicide attacks.
He
was told that the war would be short & sweet and that we would not
get
involved in "nation building." He was told that the war would cost
far,
far less than it has.

Would you have been more approving of Bush if he'd recently said, "Ya
know,
I think this whole Iraq war thing was a bad idea. We're pulling out."
Wouldn't that make him a great leader?!! Everyone makes decisions,
good
and/or bad. The one's with spine and integrity stick with them,
despite
the
resulting popularity or lack thereof. And let's not forget the
political
equation: Kerry would look foolish to support Bush in anything at
this
stage of an election year, no?

You are eager to denounce Kerry for being wrong, and don't even
mention
the wrong done by those who lied about all the above. That is rather
strange logic.

It is easy for liberals to accuse Bush of lies, while discarding
out-of-hand
that he might have been mislead by faulty intel as well. But that
seems
to
be the gold standard for liberals currently.

Blaming someone for believeing lies, and not blaming the liar, is a
very
bad double standard. Can't you come up with anything better?

I think Bart covered it rather well, replete with quotes and such.
That
you
disagree doesn't make him wrong--only in dispute with you.

Max

"gonefishiing" wrote in message

that's your answer?
how about an intelligent response?

Don't hold your breath, GF. Jon hasn't exactly been, um . . . forthcoming
with pearls of wisdom.

Max

well stated cogent points
thanks

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"DSK" wrote in message

Bart Senior wrote:
America is a safer place, liberals are not happy about it.

I am not a liberal,

Really? Could have fooled me and anyone else here.

and one of the reasons I am against President Bush
is that he has made the U.S. far less safe. In fact, I cannot see how
you would claim we are safer.

One example: Qaddaffi surrendered his nukes. His ties to terrorists is a
matter of extensive record. Can you honestly claim he'd have done that if
we hadn't shown the cajones to enter Iraq? Why didn't he make this
surrender during the Clinton admin.?

The gov't is in deep debt and could not
afford another major military operation. The Army is stretched to the
limit, or slightly past, and doesn't have the manpower to conduct any
further major operations anyway. Intel & counter-terrorist efforts are
all centered on Iraq, leaving the rest just hanging in the wind.

The above paragraph was basically true, until your last sentence, which
holds no basis in fact. Just because the media fail to report on ongoing
actions and efforts elsewhere (Afghanistan, USA, Canada, Mexico, for
example) doesn't mean such efforts aren't being made. Have our intel
resources typically reported to the media everything they're doing????
You
rely far too heavily on the left-leaning media for your "gospel."

True conservatives are in favor of a strong national defense. This
includes defense against terrorists. Bush & Cheney manipulated us into a
war so that their buddies (and Cheney himself, I believe) could reap
enormous profits.

Prove this. While it was extremely bad form for Halliburton to even
participate in the post-war contracts, let alone grossly overcharge for
them, you cannot provide one piece of evidence that this was Bush's
original
intent. Speculation at best, and shaky at that. Liberal dogma.

In doing so they have turned world opinion against us,
alienated many former allies,

Like France? Russia? China? Now who's been lacking in historical
accuracy?
I'm wondering who all these new "enemies" will turn to when they need
either
financial or military assistance. I think we both know the answer. It
never ceases to amaze how quickly enmity is discarded when the chips are
down.

and provided motivation for 3 more
generatins of suicide bombers. Not to mention the killing of 10,000
Iraqi civilians... I suppose you believe Sept 11th morally justifies
killing huge numbers of indiscriminate foreigners? Or just Muslims?

Did WWII justify the killing of millions of civilians? War is what it is.
So what is the alternative? If attacked, should we lick our wounds,
appologize to those who attacked us for ****ing them off for whatever
unknown reason, and wait for the next attack? Pacifism never solves
disputes. War does, sadly. History confirms this. That's the human
condition, and it's not likely to change.

He is not tap-dancing at all. Kerry supported the war becaue he was told
that Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S. He was told that Iraq had
ties to Al-Queda and had helped plan the Sept 11th suicide attacks. He
was told that the war would be short & sweet and that we would not get
involved in "nation building." He was told that the war would cost far,
far less than it has.

Would you have been more approving of Bush if he'd recently said, "Ya
know,
I think this whole Iraq war thing was a bad idea. We're pulling out."
Wouldn't that make him a great leader?!! Everyone makes decisions, good
and/or bad. The one's with spine and integrity stick with them, despite
the
resulting popularity or lack thereof. And let's not forget the political
equation: Kerry would look foolish to support Bush in anything at this
stage of an election year, no?

You are eager to denounce Kerry for being wrong, and don't even mention
the wrong done by those who lied about all the above. That is rather
strange logic.

It is easy for liberals to accuse Bush of lies, while discarding
out-of-hand
that he might have been mislead by faulty intel as well. But that seems
to
be the gold standard for liberals currently.

Blaming someone for believeing lies, and not blaming the liar, is a
very
bad double standard. Can't you come up with anything better?

I think Bart covered it rather well, replete with quotes and such. That
you
disagree doesn't make him wrong--only in dispute with you.

Max

Well stupid, that I agree with.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"gonefishiing" wrote in message
news
well stated cogent points
thanks

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"DSK" wrote in message

Bart Senior wrote:
America is a safer place, liberals are not happy about it.

I am not a liberal,

Really? Could have fooled me and anyone else here.

and one of the reasons I am against President Bush
is that he has made the U.S. far less safe. In fact, I cannot see how
you would claim we are safer.

One example: Qaddaffi surrendered his nukes. His ties to terrorists is
a
matter of extensive record. Can you honestly claim he'd have done that
if
we hadn't shown the cajones to enter Iraq? Why didn't he make this
surrender during the Clinton admin.?

The gov't is in deep debt and could not
afford another major military operation. The Army is stretched to the
limit, or slightly past, and doesn't have the manpower to conduct any
further major operations anyway. Intel & counter-terrorist efforts are
all centered on Iraq, leaving the rest just hanging in the wind.

The above paragraph was basically true, until your last sentence, which
holds no basis in fact. Just because the media fail to report on
ongoing
actions and efforts elsewhere (Afghanistan, USA, Canada, Mexico, for
example) doesn't mean such efforts aren't being made. Have our intel
resources typically reported to the media everything they're doing????
You
rely far too heavily on the left-leaning media for your "gospel."

True conservatives are in favor of a strong national defense. This
includes defense against terrorists. Bush & Cheney manipulated us into
a
war so that their buddies (and Cheney himself, I believe) could reap
enormous profits.

Prove this. While it was extremely bad form for Halliburton to even
participate in the post-war contracts, let alone grossly overcharge for
them, you cannot provide one piece of evidence that this was Bush's
original
intent. Speculation at best, and shaky at that. Liberal dogma.

In doing so they have turned world opinion against us,
alienated many former allies,

Like France? Russia? China? Now who's been lacking in historical
accuracy?
I'm wondering who all these new "enemies" will turn to when they need
either
financial or military assistance. I think we both know the answer. It
never ceases to amaze how quickly enmity is discarded when the chips are
down.

and provided motivation for 3 more
generatins of suicide bombers. Not to mention the killing of 10,000
Iraqi civilians... I suppose you believe Sept 11th morally justifies
killing huge numbers of indiscriminate foreigners? Or just Muslims?

Did WWII justify the killing of millions of civilians? War is what it
is.
So what is the alternative? If attacked, should we lick our wounds,
appologize to those who attacked us for ****ing them off for whatever
unknown reason, and wait for the next attack? Pacifism never solves
disputes. War does, sadly. History confirms this. That's the human
condition, and it's not likely to change.

He is not tap-dancing at all. Kerry supported the war becaue he was
told
that Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S. He was told that Iraq had
ties to Al-Queda and had helped plan the Sept 11th suicide attacks. He
was told that the war would be short & sweet and that we would not get
involved in "nation building." He was told that the war would cost
far,
far less than it has.

Would you have been more approving of Bush if he'd recently said, "Ya
know,
I think this whole Iraq war thing was a bad idea. We're pulling out."
Wouldn't that make him a great leader?!! Everyone makes decisions, good
and/or bad. The one's with spine and integrity stick with them, despite
the
resulting popularity or lack thereof. And let's not forget the
political
equation: Kerry would look foolish to support Bush in anything at this
stage of an election year, no?

You are eager to denounce Kerry for being wrong, and don't even
mention
the wrong done by those who lied about all the above. That is rather
strange logic.

It is easy for liberals to accuse Bush of lies, while discarding
out-of-hand
that he might have been mislead by faulty intel as well. But that seems
to
be the gold standard for liberals currently.

Blaming someone for believeing lies, and not blaming the liar, is a
very
bad double standard. Can't you come up with anything better?

I think Bart covered it rather well, replete with quotes and such. That
you
disagree doesn't make him wrong--only in dispute with you.

Max

do the world a favor.................go for a long sail.

gonefishiing wrote

In doing so they have turned world opinion against us,
alienated many former allies,

Like France? Russia? China? Now who's been lacking
in historical accuracy? I'm wondering who all these new
"enemies" will turn to when they need either financial or
military assistance.

France has just turned to the US for more help on the war on AIDS.

We should formally offer them the option of statehood, if they want
a say in our government.

Most nations do not contribute their fair share to solving important
world problems like AIDs and terrorism. They leave the expense
for research, manpower and technology to the US.

These countries say they want our help, but really they want our
money, and they want to decide how and where to spend it. Much
of the money earmarked to help people in need goes instead to
lining the bank accounts of foreign politicians. That must be
minimized.

Whoever foots the bill should run the show. If foreign nations
don't like it, they are free to pay for whatever they want to do.

Financial leverage is the most powerful leverage. The US should
halt foreign aid and trade to nations that do not treat us with respect.
If we are not liked, we should vote with our feet and go elsewhere.

We should make it plain that if our generous good-will is unrewarded,
it will stop. If our citizens whether they be tourists, missionaries, or
businessmen are killed on foreign soil, and the criminals that commit
these crimes are not punished, foreign aid and trade will stop immediately.
We should be clear we expect foreign nations to guarantee property
rights, human rights, and just laws for everyone.

Finally, if our position is clear, as a last resort, the threat of war will
produces results, and prevent wars--only if the threat is real not an
empty one posed by well meaning, but misguided liberals. This has
been shown recently by Lybia's about face on terrorism.

If we did these things, world opinion would change, country by
country, starting with foreign leaders who set the tone in their home
countries.

Except, we don't run the show. We have abdicated our authority
by invading a country because of a lie. Oh, and now you think
AIDS is high on the right-wing agenda??? Has Rush been a bad
boy (besides being a drug addict)?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bart Senior" wrote in message
news
gonefishiing wrote

In doing so they have turned world opinion against us,
alienated many former allies,

Like France? Russia? China? Now who's been lacking
in historical accuracy? I'm wondering who all these new
"enemies" will turn to when they need either financial or
military assistance.

France has just turned to the US for more help on the war on AIDS.

We should formally offer them the option of statehood, if they want
a say in our government.

Most nations do not contribute their fair share to solving important
world problems like AIDs and terrorism. They leave the expense
for research, manpower and technology to the US.

These countries say they want our help, but really they want our
money, and they want to decide how and where to spend it. Much
of the money earmarked to help people in need goes instead to
lining the bank accounts of foreign politicians. That must be
minimized.

Whoever foots the bill should run the show. If foreign nations
don't like it, they are free to pay for whatever they want to do.

Financial leverage is the most powerful leverage. The US should
halt foreign aid and trade to nations that do not treat us with respect.
If we are not liked, we should vote with our feet and go elsewhere.

We should make it plain that if our generous good-will is unrewarded,
it will stop. If our citizens whether they be tourists, missionaries, or
businessmen are killed on foreign soil, and the criminals that commit
these crimes are not punished, foreign aid and trade will stop
immediately.
We should be clear we expect foreign nations to guarantee property
rights, human rights, and just laws for everyone.

Finally, if our position is clear, as a last resort, the threat of war
will
produces results, and prevent wars--only if the threat is real not an
empty one posed by well meaning, but misguided liberals. This has
been shown recently by Lybia's about face on terrorism.

If we did these things, world opinion would change, country by
country, starting with foreign leaders who set the tone in their home
countries.

"Bart Senior" wrote in message

Financial leverage is the most powerful leverage. The US should
halt foreign aid and trade to nations that do not treat us with respect.
If we are not liked, we should vote with our feet and go elsewhere.

I agree, Bart, but it's not really respect I'm seeking--it's allegiance.
The biggest mistake the US has continually made in this regard is the
never-ending financial benevolence with no strings. We give money and
simply hope that it will buy allegiance, but it seldom does. Our
beneficiaries generally turn on us at the first sign of trouble. That
should cease, or the money should.

Max

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:15:05 +0000, Maxprop wrote:


One example: Qaddaffi surrendered his nukes. His ties to terrorists is a
matter of extensive record. Can you honestly claim he'd have done that if
we hadn't shown the cajones to enter Iraq? Why didn't he make this
surrender during the Clinton admin.?

Gadaffi's efforts to rejoin the civilized world predate Bush. I'll grant
you that Reagan's bombing of Libya may have shown him the light, but it
was not Bush. Gadaffi turned over the Lockerbie bombers pre-Bush.
Denounced terrorism and reestablished diplomatic links with the UK in
1999. Ending his weapons programs was just a continuation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/548303.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/388420.stm

"thunder" wrote
Gadaffi's efforts to rejoin the civilized world predate Bush. I'll grant
you that Reagan's bombing of Libya may have shown him the light, but it
was not Bush. Gadaffi turned over the Lockerbie bombers pre-Bush.
Denounced terrorism and reestablished diplomatic links with the UK in
1999. Ending his weapons programs was just a continuation.

Absolutely! Dudes like Gadaffi, Saddam, Bin Ladin, Rumsfield, et al don't
give a crap about their people. RR understood that and bombed Gadaffi up
close and personal killing some of his immediate family instead of going
after his pawns - and guess what: Gadaffi saw the light (a bomb blast) and
reformed. Bush could have handled Saddam the same way, but instead .... oh
well ......

What a dumb ass! So our choice is "spineless" Kerry or a village idiot who
thinks he's king?