"Peter Wiley" wrote in message

The problem lies in getting the plutonium or U235.

I believe Bobsprit has a consignment for sale on ebay....

CM

The evidence shows Bush did not lie. That is mearly what
you'd like to think based on the liberal party programming
in their attempt to oust President Bush. The liberals have
nothing substantial, and so must make things up.

You presume and judge the man guilty, when no court would
sentence him. If he was guilty, the issue would be in court.

Extremist liberals will try to impeach President Bush after
Kerry has lost the election, even though there is no evidence
that President Bush lied, but because they have been brainwashed
into believing it. That too will fail, however the goal of smearing
an honest man will leave a taint of decay and corruption on the
Democratic Party.

The truth is extremist liberals ignore every fact that stands in
the way. al Queda was in Iraq--the report stated only they was
no documented evidence they were actively working with Saddam.
Iraq did support terrorism. Read the report not just the few
excerpts that are mis-quoted. al Queda was(is) in Iraq, France,
Germany, Spain, Jordan, Indonesia, as well as Florida, New
Jersey and New York.

Until last week Kerry supported the war. What changed in
the last week, except more documentation showing the Bush
administration did not try to force it's agenda on the intelligence
community? France, Russia, England, and many other countries
have acknowledged that Iraq supported terrorism, and was
seeking nuclear weapons. It was well known. Read it, it's in print.
Saddam rewarded the families of terrorists with pensions and
homes. He actively supported terrorism. We can logically
conclude he did have contact with al Queda, even though there
has been no proof.

By the way, I think AIDS is high on the liberal agenda, because
there is lots of money to be made by the liberals like Clinton who
want to steal from that huge pile of money. Charities should be
run by people who work for free as volunteers--not greedy
people who want to line their own pockets while pretending to
be righteous.

I'd support a liberal or anyone else, to manage worldwide war
on AIDS--as long as they were doing it for humanitarian reasons,
not financial reasons. I support the reasoning that abstinence,
education, and condoms are the best ways to limit the spread of
AIDS. I also support government spending in this area. If you
feel strongly about AIDS, I urge you to go to developing nations
and help educate those in need--back up your liberal ideals. Walk
the walk, don't just talk the talk. Do something.

The principles of conservatism are basically, summarized in this:
Give a man a fish and you feed him today. Teach a man to fish,
you feed him forever.

Conservatives want to develop effective solutions. Extremist
liberals want to throw money at every problem and make the
middle class pay for it. Taxes are very high and the value of
money is lower than ever due to inflation. I think the middle class
deserves value for their money, and a choice in how much is spent
and where. We certainly don't want our tax dollars supporting liars
and a cheats like the Clintons. We also do not accept the strong
arm tactics used by liberals who don't practice what they preach,
like John Kerry and his wife who are extremely wealthy and pay
no taxes.

If you, the Clintons, or Kerry think the money needs to be spent,
why don't you all dig into your own pockets first. Prove you are
a humanitarian and you'll have my respect. Until then, I'll remain
convinced you are another mindless drone following the party
line without thinking or analyzing anything objectively.

Jonathan Ganz wrote

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???

"Bart Senior" wrote
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.

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message


Except that Qaddafi didn't actually, ever, have any nukes. Correct me
if I'm wrong by reference to an article stating the contrary.

You guys keep going on like he had things that could make big bangs.
All he had was an R&D program looking for a means of building bombs.

Get a grip on reality. Nearly everyone on rec.crafts.metalworking has
the technical equipment to build a nuclear weapon, it isn't technically
very difficult. The problem lies in getting the plutonium or U235.

I honestly have no idea precisely what he had. But the media has reported
that he had the necessary ingredients to produce nukes. So you tell me:
what did he turn over to the US? Did he have any fissionable material?

Max

Really, I guess you're illiterate also.

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

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

"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

Eat it asshole. You're just a cowardly sockpuppet. We see a lot
of them. You'll blow away shortly.

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

"gonefishiing" wrote in message
...
yeah figured that out
takes the ball and runs home

debate is an interesting forum to extract and evaluate
ideas............and
of course than deciding something based on knowledge.
unfortunately Ganz is not interested in anything except extolling his own
view, which is course is right.

freedom of speech is a great thing, when people are responsible about what
they say. with some the need to say something is just because they
can........

enough people like that and the democratic system comes to an abrupt halt.

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

"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

He lied or was too stupid to see when he was being
duped. Either way, I don't want him as president.
Clinton lied about a blow job. For that he was
impeached and found not guilty. Bush is guilty of
allowing 1000s to die because of either something
he didn't do (like listen to the people who knew
9/11 was imminent) or did do (go to war for no good
reason).

I would love to see him impeached, but it'll never happen.

Bush and Chumpy are no friends of regular Americans.
They deserve to lose by a landslide, but will probably
only lose by a hair.

It sounds to me like you're the one who's been brainwashed.

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

"Bart Senior" wrote in message
et...
The evidence shows Bush did not lie. That is mearly what
you'd like to think based on the liberal party programming
in their attempt to oust President Bush. The liberals have
nothing substantial, and so must make things up.

You presume and judge the man guilty, when no court would
sentence him. If he was guilty, the issue would be in court.

Extremist liberals will try to impeach President Bush after
Kerry has lost the election, even though there is no evidence
that President Bush lied, but because they have been brainwashed
into believing it. That too will fail, however the goal of smearing
an honest man will leave a taint of decay and corruption on the
Democratic Party.

The truth is extremist liberals ignore every fact that stands in
the way. al Queda was in Iraq--the report stated only they was
no documented evidence they were actively working with Saddam.
Iraq did support terrorism. Read the report not just the few
excerpts that are mis-quoted. al Queda was(is) in Iraq, France,
Germany, Spain, Jordan, Indonesia, as well as Florida, New
Jersey and New York.

Until last week Kerry supported the war. What changed in
the last week, except more documentation showing the Bush
administration did not try to force it's agenda on the intelligence
community? France, Russia, England, and many other countries
have acknowledged that Iraq supported terrorism, and was
seeking nuclear weapons. It was well known. Read it, it's in print.
Saddam rewarded the families of terrorists with pensions and
homes. He actively supported terrorism. We can logically
conclude he did have contact with al Queda, even though there
has been no proof.

By the way, I think AIDS is high on the liberal agenda, because
there is lots of money to be made by the liberals like Clinton who
want to steal from that huge pile of money. Charities should be
run by people who work for free as volunteers--not greedy
people who want to line their own pockets while pretending to
be righteous.

I'd support a liberal or anyone else, to manage worldwide war
on AIDS--as long as they were doing it for humanitarian reasons,
not financial reasons. I support the reasoning that abstinence,
education, and condoms are the best ways to limit the spread of
AIDS. I also support government spending in this area. If you
feel strongly about AIDS, I urge you to go to developing nations
and help educate those in need--back up your liberal ideals. Walk
the walk, don't just talk the talk. Do something.

The principles of conservatism are basically, summarized in this:
Give a man a fish and you feed him today. Teach a man to fish,
you feed him forever.

Conservatives want to develop effective solutions. Extremist
liberals want to throw money at every problem and make the
middle class pay for it. Taxes are very high and the value of
money is lower than ever due to inflation. I think the middle class
deserves value for their money, and a choice in how much is spent
and where. We certainly don't want our tax dollars supporting liars
and a cheats like the Clintons. We also do not accept the strong
arm tactics used by liberals who don't practice what they preach,
like John Kerry and his wife who are extremely wealthy and pay
no taxes.

If you, the Clintons, or Kerry think the money needs to be spent,
why don't you all dig into your own pockets first. Prove you are
a humanitarian and you'll have my respect. Until then, I'll remain
convinced you are another mindless drone following the party
line without thinking or analyzing anything objectively.

Jonathan Ganz wrote

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???

"Bart Senior" wrote
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.

Yeah, he'd have to go to Africa to get it... just like Saddam... oops.
Qaddafi *is* in Africa. Another lie from the Bu****s.

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

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..

Except that Qaddafi didn't actually, ever, have any nukes. Correct me
if I'm wrong by reference to an article stating the contrary.

You guys keep going on like he had things that could make big bangs.
All he had was an R&D program looking for a means of building bombs.

Get a grip on reality. Nearly everyone on rec.crafts.metalworking has
the technical equipment to build a nuclear weapon, it isn't technically
very difficult. The problem lies in getting the plutonium or U235.

PDW

In article .net,
Maxprop wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message

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

What you cite is accurate, and I agree. But I do think that our
no-line-in-the-sand approach with Saddam tended to lead Qaddaffi to
believe
he was in jeopardy by keeping his nukes. It was the push he needed, if
you
will.

Max

No. He didn't. He had plans and some of the construction material
but nothing hot.

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

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message


Except that Qaddafi didn't actually, ever, have any nukes. Correct me
if I'm wrong by reference to an article stating the contrary.

You guys keep going on like he had things that could make big bangs.
All he had was an R&D program looking for a means of building bombs.

Get a grip on reality. Nearly everyone on rec.crafts.metalworking has
the technical equipment to build a nuclear weapon, it isn't technically
very difficult. The problem lies in getting the plutonium or U235.

I honestly have no idea precisely what he had. But the media has reported
that he had the necessary ingredients to produce nukes. So you tell me:
what did he turn over to the US? Did he have any fissionable material?

Max

I'm sure there are lots of things. Open your mind grasshopper.

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

"gonefishiing" wrote in message
...
finally something i can agree with you on.

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
That is really, really sick. You need professional help.

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

"Dndeeley" wrote in message
...
I hope its your kid hat gets killed next. Its a great education.

"Dndeeley" wrote in message
...
I hope its your kid hat gets killed next. Its a great education.

You talking to Bush? He is getting American sons killed every week by
fighting third world nuts on their own terms and turf. I'd have nuked
Saddam AND Bin Laden when we knew where they were without loosing a single
American soldier.