| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
OT "Spineless" John Kerry: "I Am Against the War"
The liberals want to make it sound as though we're losing
ground. They conjure up pessimism and negativism. They have to make it all up. Liberals do not look at the good things that have happened. They don't see them, don't recognize them, or acknowledge them, because they don't want people to be or feel happier, or safer. They want to paint the blackest picture and they want American's to buy into this bull****. America is a safer place, liberals are not happy about it. They want you to think they are going to be able to solve the problem when the reality Kerry has gone from supporting the war, to saying he would continue on our present course, to now saying, "I am against the war." Here it goes again, Kerry is against the war. Our troops overseas can count on one thing. They will die for our country and Kerry will be apologizing to our enemies. The military can count on one thing, not being able to count on Kerry to follow through on what he voted for. CHENEY: When Congress voted to authorize force against Saddam Hussein, Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards both voted "yes." Now it seems they've both developed a convenient case of campaign amnesia. The last thing our nation needs is politicians who support a decision to go to war and then try to rewrite history and then fail to support the troops they voted to send into battle. ********************************* Kerry has done just that, so has Edwards, they both voted for the war then they voted against the $87 billion. Now they're trying to say that they would do it better then do it smarter but they won't say how and won't answer the hard questions. Now: KERRY: [on 60 Minutes] "I'm against this war." KERRY: "In the two years since 9/11, less nuclear materials have been secured than in the two years prior to 9/11." HOLBROOKE [Kerry advisor on the Today Show with: Katie Couric] He's talking about North Korea. The facts speak for themselves, North Korea is more dangerous today than it was before this administration came into power. Katie looks at Newt and says, is that a valid criticism in your view? *********************************** What about the US and Soviet arms reduction agreements? *********************************** GINGRICH: Senator Kerry misses deliberately, as a campaign device, a whole series of events. Libya has given up its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and admitted, by the way, that it was lying to the world for years, which our CIA reported accurately was the case. Iran has now admitted that for 18 years it lied to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is a multinational effort the United States is participating in. Five countries, the United States, Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea, are pressuring North Korea in a multilateral effort, precisely the kind of things, by the way, that Senator Kerry says he favors. Iraq no longer has a dictator trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction, something which, by the way, the British, Italian, and French intelligence agencies ten days ago reported once again that they were trying to buy uranium from Niger while Saddam was dictator, something which had been disputed by some people. And A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani physicist who was the leading proliferator in the private sector worldwide, has now been stopped from that proliferation, and the Pakistani government has clamped down. The world is still dangerous. There are real steps that have been taken. KATIE COURIC: "Newt, you think the administration would do it differently if it had to do it all over again?" GINGRICH: Let's look at the facts. It is a fact that George W. Bush had the guts to go into Afghanistan, something Clinton never did. It is a fact that while both Richard and I favored replacing Saddam Hussein it is George W. Bush who had the guts to replace him. What's Kerry saying, is Kerry saying he would invade North Korea? What is his complaint? I want to talk here, Richard, but what would you do in North Korea? If you're not willing to invade Iraq, if you don't think invading Afghanistan was right, what would do you in North Korea? Not talk about, what would you do against the most dangerous dictatorship on the planet? HOLBROOKE: Newt, North Korea actually has weapons of mass destruction. GINGRICH: Right and got them under the Clinton administration. HOLBROOKE: No, they got them before the Clinton administration. *********************************** At least they built up dramatically under the Clinton administration *********************************** HOLBROOKE: I would continue the six-part talks but make an all-out effort to put more pressure directly on North Korea. GINGRICH: And how would you do that? HOLBROOKE: The administration's refusal to talk directly to North Korea even though the South Koreans and the Chinese have said go ahead and do it is an inexplicable triumph of ideology over substance. GINGRICH: So you would put pressure by talking with them, you'd put pressure by meeting with them, this is pressure? *********************************** Are you laughing as hard as I am? This is pressure? *********************************** HOLBROOKE: No, it's a complete -- you know it's a complete package. GINGRICH: No. Are you prepared to invade North Korea or is this just more rhetoric without any substantive action? No answer. *********************************** How can you criticize and then suggest you would both do nothing differently, and attack N. Korea in the same breath???? I want an answer to this question! ********************************** KERRY: I think the president made a mistake in the way that he took us to war. STAHL: Was the war wrong? KERRY: I am against the war. The way the president went to war was wrong. ************************************ Kerry voted for it and now says "I'm against the war". He is tap dancing around the issues and saying the way the president went to war was wrong. President Bush asked for and got Kerry's vote. Congress got it's chance, another vote, another debate and, another resolution. President Bush did not proceed until he had the votes of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House, the whole government, the whole Congress, and he didn't proceed until he had two resolutions. Now Kerry wants to pretend that he never cast that vote. Someone, please send a cows backbone, to Kerry. He is spineless. Boston Globe editorial on spineless John Kerry. http://news.bostonherald.com/electio...rticleid=29108 |
OT "Spineless" John Kerry: "I Am Against the War"
"Safer" due to restricted civil rights. Which good things? People all
around the world hating us? High gas prices, lousy economy that's finally starting to get better despite the idiot in the WH? Oh, those things. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Bart Senior" wrote in message t... The liberals want to make it sound as though we're losing ground. They conjure up pessimism and negativism. They have to make it all up. Liberals do not look at the good things that have happened. They don't see them, don't recognize them, or acknowledge them, because they don't want people to be or feel happier, or safer. They want to paint the blackest picture and they want American's to buy into this bull****. America is a safer place, liberals are not happy about it. They want you to think they are going to be able to solve the problem when the reality Kerry has gone from supporting the war, to saying he would continue on our present course, to now saying, "I am against the war." Here it goes again, Kerry is against the war. Our troops overseas can count on one thing. They will die for our country and Kerry will be apologizing to our enemies. The military can count on one thing, not being able to count on Kerry to follow through on what he voted for. CHENEY: When Congress voted to authorize force against Saddam Hussein, Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards both voted "yes." Now it seems they've both developed a convenient case of campaign amnesia. The last thing our nation needs is politicians who support a decision to go to war and then try to rewrite history and then fail to support the troops they voted to send into battle. ********************************* Kerry has done just that, so has Edwards, they both voted for the war then they voted against the $87 billion. Now they're trying to say that they would do it better then do it smarter but they won't say how and won't answer the hard questions. Now: KERRY: [on 60 Minutes] "I'm against this war." KERRY: "In the two years since 9/11, less nuclear materials have been secured than in the two years prior to 9/11." HOLBROOKE [Kerry advisor on the Today Show with: Katie Couric] He's talking about North Korea. The facts speak for themselves, North Korea is more dangerous today than it was before this administration came into power. Katie looks at Newt and says, is that a valid criticism in your view? *********************************** What about the US and Soviet arms reduction agreements? *********************************** GINGRICH: Senator Kerry misses deliberately, as a campaign device, a whole series of events. Libya has given up its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and admitted, by the way, that it was lying to the world for years, which our CIA reported accurately was the case. Iran has now admitted that for 18 years it lied to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is a multinational effort the United States is participating in. Five countries, the United States, Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea, are pressuring North Korea in a multilateral effort, precisely the kind of things, by the way, that Senator Kerry says he favors. Iraq no longer has a dictator trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction, something which, by the way, the British, Italian, and French intelligence agencies ten days ago reported once again that they were trying to buy uranium from Niger while Saddam was dictator, something which had been disputed by some people. And A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani physicist who was the leading proliferator in the private sector worldwide, has now been stopped from that proliferation, and the Pakistani government has clamped down. The world is still dangerous. There are real steps that have been taken. KATIE COURIC: "Newt, you think the administration would do it differently if it had to do it all over again?" GINGRICH: Let's look at the facts. It is a fact that George W. Bush had the guts to go into Afghanistan, something Clinton never did. It is a fact that while both Richard and I favored replacing Saddam Hussein it is George W. Bush who had the guts to replace him. What's Kerry saying, is Kerry saying he would invade North Korea? What is his complaint? I want to talk here, Richard, but what would you do in North Korea? If you're not willing to invade Iraq, if you don't think invading Afghanistan was right, what would do you in North Korea? Not talk about, what would you do against the most dangerous dictatorship on the planet? HOLBROOKE: Newt, North Korea actually has weapons of mass destruction. GINGRICH: Right and got them under the Clinton administration. HOLBROOKE: No, they got them before the Clinton administration. *********************************** At least they built up dramatically under the Clinton administration *********************************** HOLBROOKE: I would continue the six-part talks but make an all-out effort to put more pressure directly on North Korea. GINGRICH: And how would you do that? HOLBROOKE: The administration's refusal to talk directly to North Korea even though the South Koreans and the Chinese have said go ahead and do it is an inexplicable triumph of ideology over substance. GINGRICH: So you would put pressure by talking with them, you'd put pressure by meeting with them, this is pressure? *********************************** Are you laughing as hard as I am? This is pressure? *********************************** HOLBROOKE: No, it's a complete -- you know it's a complete package. GINGRICH: No. Are you prepared to invade North Korea or is this just more rhetoric without any substantive action? No answer. *********************************** How can you criticize and then suggest you would both do nothing differently, and attack N. Korea in the same breath???? I want an answer to this question! ********************************** KERRY: I think the president made a mistake in the way that he took us to war. STAHL: Was the war wrong? KERRY: I am against the war. The way the president went to war was wrong. ************************************ Kerry voted for it and now says "I'm against the war". He is tap dancing around the issues and saying the way the president went to war was wrong. President Bush asked for and got Kerry's vote. Congress got it's chance, another vote, another debate and, another resolution. President Bush did not proceed until he had the votes of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House, the whole government, the whole Congress, and he didn't proceed until he had two resolutions. Now Kerry wants to pretend that he never cast that vote. Someone, please send a cows backbone, to Kerry. He is spineless. Boston Globe editorial on spineless John Kerry. http://news.bostonherald.com/electio...rticleid=29108 |
OT "Spineless" John Kerry: "I Am Against the War"
Bart Senior wrote:
America is a safer place, liberals are not happy about it. I am not a liberal, 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. 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. 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. In doing so they have turned world opinion against us, alienated many former allies, 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? ************************************ Kerry voted for it and now says "I'm against the war". He is tap dancing around the issues and saying the way the president went to war was wrong. 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. 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. Blaming someone for believeing lies, and not blaming the liar, is a very bad double standard. Can't you come up with anything better? DSK |
OT "Spineless" John Kerry: "I Am Against the War"
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message "Safer" due to restricted civil rights. Perhaps it's time YOU took that remedial reading course, Jon. Qaddafi has surrendered his nukes, and we know for a fact that he has had numerous ties to terrorists, including terrorist training camps within Lybia. So you don't consider that "safer." Would Qaddafi's acquiesence have occurred if we'd not entered Iraq? Which good things? People all around the world hating us? Anti-US sentiment is nothing new. If you think we were popular with those same folks prior to the Iraq war, you're delusional. The price of being the only superpower . . . High gas prices, And you're blaming Bush for this? Have you forgotten the $2.20 per gallon prices during the Clinton admin.? lousy economy that's finally starting to get better despite the idiot in the WH? More liberal lies. The economy has been improving steadily, if slowly, since it's pit following 9/11. And I'd like you to show me evidence that it's improving despite what the current administration is doing/has done. Don't bother--you can't. (Unless it's something out of a Michael Moore flick.) Face the facts, Jon. The only way Kerry (a throw-away candidate for the democrats) can win is to fabricate bad news, oppose anything the Bush administration has done (despite having supported it formerly), and hope the American people buy into the bull****. Here's another wrinkle fer ya: Hillary Clinton is silently praying Kerry is defeated. If he wins, it conceivably puts off her bid for the presidency by 8 years. She'll be well into her upper sixties then, and less likely to be a favorable candidate in the eyes of her fellow democrats, who appear to prefer younger individuals. Her career is dependent upon Kerry's defeat. Oh, I suspect WJC and Hillary will make a mild show of support at the convention, but don't count on them beating the "bush" for him. Max |
OT "Spineless" John Kerry: "I Am Against the War"
"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 |
OT "Spineless" John Kerry: "I Am Against the War"
Sorry but Qaddafi didn't have any "nukes." He had a prelininary program
to develop them, however. Is that what you meant? Anti-US sentiment is at an all time high. There are terror attacks all over the world and other gov'ts are loath to involve us or help us. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message "Safer" due to restricted civil rights. Perhaps it's time YOU took that remedial reading course, Jon. Qaddafi has surrendered his nukes, and we know for a fact that he has had numerous ties to terrorists, including terrorist training camps within Lybia. So you don't consider that "safer." Would Qaddafi's acquiesence have occurred if we'd not entered Iraq? Which good things? People all around the world hating us? Anti-US sentiment is nothing new. If you think we were popular with those same folks prior to the Iraq war, you're delusional. The price of being the only superpower . . . High gas prices, And you're blaming Bush for this? Have you forgotten the $2.20 per gallon prices during the Clinton admin.? lousy economy that's finally starting to get better despite the idiot in the WH? More liberal lies. The economy has been improving steadily, if slowly, since it's pit following 9/11. And I'd like you to show me evidence that it's improving despite what the current administration is doing/has done. Don't bother--you can't. (Unless it's something out of a Michael Moore flick.) Face the facts, Jon. The only way Kerry (a throw-away candidate for the democrats) can win is to fabricate bad news, oppose anything the Bush administration has done (despite having supported it formerly), and hope the American people buy into the bull****. Here's another wrinkle fer ya: Hillary Clinton is silently praying Kerry is defeated. If he wins, it conceivably puts off her bid for the presidency by 8 years. She'll be well into her upper sixties then, and less likely to be a favorable candidate in the eyes of her fellow democrats, who appear to prefer younger individuals. Her career is dependent upon Kerry's defeat. Oh, I suspect WJC and Hillary will make a mild show of support at the convention, but don't count on them beating the "bush" for him. Max |
OT "Spineless" John Kerry: "I Am Against the War"
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 |
OT "Spineless" John Kerry: "I Am Against the War"
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message Well, you're obviously easitly fooled! I really don't know why, Jon, but I've held out some tiny fragment of hope for you. Sadly you've let me down. You apparently have no intention of thinking about your responses before belching them in the form of a post. I give up. I guess extreme left-wingers, such as yourself, are incapable of rational or reasoned thought, rather choosing to upchuck the left-wing party line instead. So be it. Max |
OT "Spineless" John Kerry: "I Am Against the War"
Well I guess! I thought you were holding out something else, but I'm
not that kind of guy. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Maxprop" wrote in message nk.net... "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message Well, you're obviously easitly fooled! I really don't know why, Jon, but I've held out some tiny fragment of hope for you. Sadly you've let me down. You apparently have no intention of thinking about your responses before belching them in the form of a post. I give up. I guess extreme left-wingers, such as yourself, are incapable of rational or reasoned thought, rather choosing to upchuck the left-wing party line instead. So be it. Max |
max prop for president
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 |
OT "Spineless" John Kerry: "I Am Against the War"
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 |
OT "Spineless" John Kerry: "I Am Against the War"
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 |
max prop for president
Well stupid, that I agree with.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "gonefishiing" wrote in message ... 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 |
OT "Spineless" John Kerry: "I Am Against the War"
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 |
OT "Spineless" John Kerry: "I Am Against the War"
"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? |
max prop for president
do the world a favor.................go for a long sail.
|
max prop for president
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. |
max prop for president
I have. Clearly you haven't.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "gonefishiing" wrote in message ... do the world a favor.................go for a long sail. |
max prop for president
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 et... 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. |
OT "Spineless" John Kerry: "I Am Against the War"
I hope its your kid hat gets killed next. Its a great education.
|
OT "Spineless" John Kerry: "I Am Against the War"
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. |
OT "Spineless" John Kerry: "I Am Against the War"
Real Sailor Sentiment there Dip Wad!
CM "Dndeeley" wrote in message ... | I hope its your kid hat gets killed next. Its a great education. |
max prop for president
"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 |
OT "Spineless" John Kerry: "I Am Against the War"
"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 |
OT "Spineless" John Kerry: "I Am Against the War"
"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 |
OT "Spineless" John Kerry: "I Am Against the War"
"Vito" wrote in message So our choice is "spineless" Kerry or a village idiot who thinks he's king? That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Almost makes Nader look palatable, eh? Max |
OT "Spineless" John Kerry: "I Am Against the War"
"Dndeeley" wrote in message I hope its your kid hat gets killed next. Its a great education. You're a pathetic excuse for flesh and bone. Not sure where you originated, but I hope they'll do a recall soon. Max |
OT "Spineless" John Kerry: "I Am Against the War"
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 |
OT "Spineless" John Kerry: "I Am Against the War"
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. |
OT "Spineless" John Kerry: "I Am Against the War"
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 |
OT "Spineless" John Kerry: "I Am Against the War"
"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 |
max prop for president
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. |
OT "Spineless" John Kerry: "I Am Against the War"
"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 |
OT "Spineless" John Kerry: "I Am Against the War"
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 |
OT "Spineless" John Kerry: "I Am Against the War"
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 |
max prop for president
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. |
OT "Spineless" John Kerry: "I Am Against the War"
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 |
OT "Spineless" John Kerry: "I Am Against the War"
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 |
OT "Spineless" John Kerry: "I Am Against the War"
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. |
OT "Spineless" John Kerry: "I Am Against the War"
"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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:09 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com