Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

"Joe" wrote in message
om...
"Donal" wrote in message
...
"Joe" wrote in message
om...
Now is the time to contact Blockbuster rentals the nations largest and
let them know that all proud Americans will not stand for them to make
money off of burning charred American bodies. Let them know you will
do 100% of your movie rentals at your local Mom & Pop shop if they
carry M.Moores POS American hating left wing Propaganda film 911.

Good man, Joe! Show them that freedom of speech will cost them dearly!


That's the American way, eh?


Has nothing to do with freedom of speech Lanod, It has to do with
respect.

Nope! You are trying to encourage financial penalties for people who
express an opinion that you disagree with. That was tried in the past by
McCarthy. Most of us can now see that McCarthy was an inhuman beast, who
destroyed innocent lives.


As I told Felton and I will tell you I have already posted a link to
were you can download and view his POS propaganda film if you need to
view it.

I don't. I suspect that it is propoganda, so I won't download it, nor will
I go to the cinema to see it. However, I won't try to stop it being seen.


Just don't pay to see the murder of Americans.

Don't worry, Joe. I can't stand the sight of blood. I haven't seen any of
the recent horrors.

Have you seen them?

Regards


Donal
--

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

"Donal" wrote in message ...
"Joe" wrote in message
om...
"Donal" wrote in message
...
"Joe" wrote in message
om...
Now is the time to contact Blockbuster rentals the nations largest and
let them know that all proud Americans will not stand for them to make
money off of burning charred American bodies. Let them know you will
do 100% of your movie rentals at your local Mom & Pop shop if they
carry M.Moores POS American hating left wing Propaganda film 911.

Good man, Joe! Show them that freedom of speech will cost them dearly!


That's the American way, eh?


Has nothing to do with freedom of speech Lanod, It has to do with
respect.

Nope! You are trying to encourage financial penalties for people who
express an opinion that you disagree with. That was tried in the past by
McCarthy. Most of us can now see that McCarthy was an inhuman beast, who
destroyed innocent lives.


Yes MC Carthy was, he accused people.

Moore has his agenda, and I have mine. Dont like it.........
Who cares your not even British.

I just hope the Canooks follow thru and have him arrested.
I hope everyone follows my advice and contacts Bockbuster.

Moore Blood Money for Moore? I dont think so!

Joe


Joe





As I told Felton and I will tell you I have already posted a link to
were you can download and view his POS propaganda film if you need to
view it.

I don't. I suspect that it is propoganda, so I won't download it, nor will
I go to the cinema to see it. However, I won't try to stop it being seen.


Just don't pay to see the murder of Americans.

Don't worry, Joe. I can't stand the sight of blood. I haven't seen any of
the recent horrors.

Have you seen them?

Regards


Donal
--

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

"Donal" wrote in

That's the American way, eh?

This, from a Scotch Brit?

You're closer than you think!

Scotch is a **drink**..... *not* a nationality.

it's also a tape.

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 09:46:01 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

Then I suggest you back a candidate other than Bu****. He's responsible
for the murder of US troops.

Name one person he's murdered, you lying asshole.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

"Horvath" wrote
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote
Then I suggest you back a candidate other than Bu****. He's responsible
for the murder of US troops.

Name one person he's murdered, you lying asshole.

Gota define "murder" first. Solomon sent Bathsheba's husband into battle so
he would be killed, leaving the toothsome wench to himself. Was that
murder?

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

It was David, not Solomon. Solomon was the child of David and Bathsheba. The
killing of Uriah was the one sin (of David's many) that was considered crossing
the line. See 1 Kings 15:5.



"Vito" wrote in message
...
"Horvath" wrote
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote
Then I suggest you back a candidate other than Bu****. He's responsible
for the murder of US troops.

Name one person he's murdered, you lying asshole.

Gota define "murder" first. Solomon sent Bathsheba's husband into battle so
he would be killed, leaving the toothsome wench to himself. Was that
murder?

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

Here you go...

http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/us...ties.html#dead

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

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 09:46:01 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

Then I suggest you back a candidate other than Bu****. He's responsible
for the murder of US troops.

Name one person he's murdered, you lying asshole.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

"Vito" wrote in message ...
"Horvath" wrote
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote
Then I suggest you back a candidate other than Bu****. He's responsible
for the murder of US troops.

Name one person he's murdered, you lying asshole.

Gota define "murder" first. Solomon sent Bathsheba's husband into battle so
he would be killed, leaving the toothsome wench to himself. Was that
murder?


I dont know about your little warped world, but the USA says:

Murder is the crime of intentionally causing the death of another
human being, without lawful excuse. When an illegal death was not
caused intentionally, but was caused by recklessness or negligence (or
there is some defense, such as diminished capacity), the crime
committed may be referred to as manslaughter or criminally negligent
homicide, which are considered to be less serious than murder. In the
United States, manslaughter is often broken into two categories:
involuntary manslaughter and voluntary manslaughter.

A difficult issue in defining murder is what counts as causing death.
It is impossible to give a precise definition of this, but some legal
principles have been developed to help. For example, many common law
jurisdictions abide by the year and a day rule, which provides that
one is to be held responsible for a person's death only if they die
within a year and a day of the act. Thus, if you seriously injured
someone, and they died from their injuries within a year and a day,
you would be guilty of murder; but you would not be guilty if they
died from their injuries after a year and a day had passed.

It is not murder to kill someone with lawful excuse; lawful excuses
include killing enemy combatants in time of war (but not after they
surrendered), killing a person who poses an immediate threat to the
lives of ones self or others (i.e., in self-defence), and executing a
person in accordance with a sentence of death (in those jurisdictions
which use capital punishment). Sometimes extreme provocation or duress
can justify killing another as well. These cases of killing are called
justifiable homicide.

Under English law (and the law of other countries, such as Australia,
which pay close heed to the decisions of British courts), it is murder
to kill another human being for food, even if without doing so one
would die of starvation. This originated in a case of three
shipwrecked sailors cast adrift off the coast of South Africa in the
1920s; two of the sailors conspired to kill the other sailor, and
having killed him ate his flesh to survive.

Most countries allow conditions that "affect the balance of the mind"
to be regarded as mitigating circumstances against murder. This means
that a person may be found guilty of "manslaughter on the basis of
diminished responsibility" rather than murder, if it can be proved
that they were suffering from a condition that affected their
judgement at the time. Depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and
medication side-effects are examples of conditions that may be taken
into account when assessing responsibility.

Also, some countries, such as Canada, Italy, the United Kingdom and
Australia, allow post-partum depression, or 'baby-blues', as a defense
against murder of a child by a mother, provided that a child is less
than a year old.

Hope this helps Veto.

Joe

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

So, Bush is a murder. Thanks for the clarification.

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

"Joe" wrote in message
om...
"Vito" wrote in message
...
"Horvath" wrote
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote
Then I suggest you back a candidate other than Bu****. He's
responsible
for the murder of US troops.

Name one person he's murdered, you lying asshole.

Gota define "murder" first. Solomon sent Bathsheba's husband into
battle so
he would be killed, leaving the toothsome wench to himself. Was that
murder?


I dont know about your little warped world, but the USA says:

Murder is the crime of intentionally causing the death of another
human being, without lawful excuse. When an illegal death was not
caused intentionally, but was caused by recklessness or negligence (or
there is some defense, such as diminished capacity), the crime
committed may be referred to as manslaughter or criminally negligent
homicide, which are considered to be less serious than murder. In the
United States, manslaughter is often broken into two categories:
involuntary manslaughter and voluntary manslaughter.

A difficult issue in defining murder is what counts as causing death.
It is impossible to give a precise definition of this, but some legal
principles have been developed to help. For example, many common law
jurisdictions abide by the year and a day rule, which provides that
one is to be held responsible for a person's death only if they die
within a year and a day of the act. Thus, if you seriously injured
someone, and they died from their injuries within a year and a day,
you would be guilty of murder; but you would not be guilty if they
died from their injuries after a year and a day had passed.

It is not murder to kill someone with lawful excuse; lawful excuses
include killing enemy combatants in time of war (but not after they
surrendered), killing a person who poses an immediate threat to the
lives of ones self or others (i.e., in self-defence), and executing a
person in accordance with a sentence of death (in those jurisdictions
which use capital punishment). Sometimes extreme provocation or duress
can justify killing another as well. These cases of killing are called
justifiable homicide.

Under English law (and the law of other countries, such as Australia,
which pay close heed to the decisions of British courts), it is murder
to kill another human being for food, even if without doing so one
would die of starvation. This originated in a case of three
shipwrecked sailors cast adrift off the coast of South Africa in the
1920s; two of the sailors conspired to kill the other sailor, and
having killed him ate his flesh to survive.

Most countries allow conditions that "affect the balance of the mind"
to be regarded as mitigating circumstances against murder. This means
that a person may be found guilty of "manslaughter on the basis of
diminished responsibility" rather than murder, if it can be proved
that they were suffering from a condition that affected their
judgement at the time. Depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and
medication side-effects are examples of conditions that may be taken
into account when assessing responsibility.

Also, some countries, such as Canada, Italy, the United Kingdom and
Australia, allow post-partum depression, or 'baby-blues', as a defense
against murder of a child by a mother, provided that a child is less
than a year old.

Hope this helps Veto.

Joe

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
"Donal" wrote in

That's the American way, eh?

This, from a Scotch Brit?

You're closer than you think!

Scotch is a **drink**..... *not* a nationality.

it's also a tape.

Ahhh! Now I unserstand............. A "tape" Brit makes sense [backs
slowly out of the ng].




Regards


Donal
--

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

Yes, you're right, but it's more illustrative to call him a murders.
"Responsible
for" sounds too liberal. I apologize.

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

OzOne wrote in message ...
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 06:57:23 -0400, Horvath
scribbled thusly:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 09:46:01 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

Then I suggest you back a candidate other than Bu****. He's responsible
for the murder of US troops.

Name one person he's murdered, you lying asshole.


Ya gotta get a better handle on the English language Holly.
"responsible for" doesn't mean he murdered.....think about it girl!


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 11:25:30 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

Here you go...

http://www.worldmesenger.20m.com/uscasulties.html#dead


Those people weren't murdered by President George W. Bush, you lying
anti-American gayboy piece of ****.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

Horass, you're deluded and have a foul mouth, you slimy,
pig****-someone-stepped-on-bottom-boy.

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

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 11:25:30 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

Here you go...

http://www.worldmesenger.20m.com/uscasulties.html#dead


Those people weren't murdered by President George W. Bush, you lying
anti-American gayboy piece of ****.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 22:40:14 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

Horass, you're deluded and have a foul mouth, you slimy,
pig****-someone-stepped-on-bottom-boy.


You even cuss like a sissy-boy.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

Hahahah... good one Horass! I notice that you didn't
deny your nature.

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

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 22:40:14 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

Horass, you're deluded and have a foul mouth, you slimy,
pig****-someone-stepped-on-bottom-boy.


You even cuss like a sissy-boy.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

What about those killed in Bosnia, under Bill Clinton's raign? I guess Bill
murdered them! :-o
I guess he is guilty of murder for every police officer killed in the line
of duty also.....
If your wife is killed in a car accident, because you asked her to buy you
something from the store, I guess you are guilty of murder.
If you put your child in the hospital and they die in surgery, I guess you
are guilty of murder, because you sent them there.
I guess George Washington falls under that line of thinking also and every
president, govenor, fire chief, police chief, captain, general, we have ever
had.

What a liberal crock!

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

Good point, but Clinton didn't lie about why we were going to Bosnia.
Bush lied. That's the criminal aspect.

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

"FamilySailor" wrote in message
...
What about those killed in Bosnia, under Bill Clinton's raign? I guess
Bill
murdered them! :-o
I guess he is guilty of murder for every police officer killed in the line
of duty also.....
If your wife is killed in a car accident, because you asked her to buy you
something from the store, I guess you are guilty of murder.
If you put your child in the hospital and they die in surgery, I guess you
are guilty of murder, because you sent them there.
I guess George Washington falls under that line of thinking also and every
president, govenor, fire chief, police chief, captain, general, we have
ever
had.

What a liberal crock!

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

Good point, but Clinton didn't lie about why we were going to Bosnia.
Bush lied. That's the criminal aspect.

I really don't think he lied.... That "IS" the reason we went into Iraq.
That is the reason everyone who voted to go, voted that way. You sound like
my 12 year old daughter. My wife said to her that she could go out and play
after she cleaned her room, but after she finished cleaning her room a
thunderstorm developed and it was pouring down and lightning outside. When
her mom told her she could not go outside, she accused her mother of lying
to her. Now the weather man said it was not going to rain, and my wife did
not tell the weatherman to say that. But, as it turned out and that time it
was raining. The rain happened despite the evidence compiled to the
contrary. Now I got upset with my little 12 year old daughter for calling
her mother a liar. You see she was just an ignorant little child, who
hopefully has learned what a lie is and what is not a lie. I explained to
her that her mother did not lie, When she told her she could go outside it
was based on what she honestly believed would be going on after she cleaned
her room. How old are you? Maybe I need to get my little girl to talk to you
and explain to you what is and what is not a lie.

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

Huh? Bush said that there were WMDs. There are none. He
said Iraq was an iminent threat. It wasn't. Those were lies. What
"IS" are you talking about?

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

"FamilySailor" wrote in message
...
Good point, but Clinton didn't lie about why we were going to Bosnia.
Bush lied. That's the criminal aspect.

I really don't think he lied.... That "IS" the reason we went into Iraq.
That is the reason everyone who voted to go, voted that way. You sound
like
my 12 year old daughter. My wife said to her that she could go out and
play
after she cleaned her room, but after she finished cleaning her room a
thunderstorm developed and it was pouring down and lightning outside. When
her mom told her she could not go outside, she accused her mother of lying
to her. Now the weather man said it was not going to rain, and my wife did
not tell the weatherman to say that. But, as it turned out and that time
it
was raining. The rain happened despite the evidence compiled to the
contrary. Now I got upset with my little 12 year old daughter for calling
her mother a liar. You see she was just an ignorant little child, who
hopefully has learned what a lie is and what is not a lie. I explained to
her that her mother did not lie, When she told her she could go outside it
was based on what she honestly believed would be going on after she
cleaned
her room. How old are you? Maybe I need to get my little girl to talk to
you
and explain to you what is and what is not a lie.

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 14:18:13 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote:

Huh? Bush said that there were WMDs. There are none. He
said Iraq was an iminent threat. It wasn't. Those were lies. What
"IS" are you talking about?

GWB's supporters don't hold him to a very high standard for being
right. I think they conisder this war as falling under the "s*it
happens" category. So far all that we *know* is that nothing we were
told prior to the war was accurate. The Republican controlled
Congress doesn't plan to look into why we were told those things until
after the election. Don't hold your breath. After all, this is
hardly as important as a two bit real estate deal in Arkansas.

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

Huh? Bush said that there were WMDs. There are none. He
said Iraq was an iminent threat. It wasn't. Those were lies. What
"IS" are you talking about?

OK, what is a weapon of mass destruction. Is saran (sp?) gas a weapon of
mass destruction?
Is putting out a hit on the George Bush a threat to America? Is firing
missiles at American fighter pilots a threat? All you need is one and it was
not a lie. There are many more, but no liberal will ever be satisfied,
because it does not suit their political Bush hating agenda. What if the
weapons were shipped out of the country, say in just a hand full of trucks,
would that mean he still lied. What if that is the facts! Maybe you don't
really know enough to be qualified to accuse the man of being a liar. Maybe
those who have them don't want you to know they have them and they laugh
their ass off at the liberals who yell "Bush LIED! There are no weapons of
mass destruction!" I know either way, I never accused anyone falsely. I
never accused Clinton either, it is not my place, I wasn't there. From our
position it is all hear-say.

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

Family Sailor,
actually i think it is the liberals that are unwittingly the terrorists

there is plenty that points to the *possibility* that WMD's found their way
to Syria

--actually it is not liberalism ........it is infantile narcissism,
sometimes affected by ritilan deprevation.
don't confuse the two---they are very different.
gf.




"FamilySailor" wrote in message
...
Huh? Bush said that there were WMDs. There are none. He
said Iraq was an iminent threat. It wasn't. Those were lies. What
"IS" are you talking about?

OK, what is a weapon of mass destruction. Is saran (sp?) gas a weapon of
mass destruction?
Is putting out a hit on the George Bush a threat to America? Is firing
missiles at American fighter pilots a threat? All you need is one and it
was
not a lie. There are many more, but no liberal will ever be satisfied,
because it does not suit their political Bush hating agenda. What if the
weapons were shipped out of the country, say in just a hand full of
trucks,
would that mean he still lied. What if that is the facts! Maybe you don't
really know enough to be qualified to accuse the man of being a liar.
Maybe
those who have them don't want you to know they have them and they laugh
their ass off at the liberals who yell "Bush LIED! There are no weapons of
mass destruction!" I know either way, I never accused anyone falsely. I
never accused Clinton either, it is not my place, I wasn't there. From our
position it is all hear-say.

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 18:04:39 -0400, "gonefishiing"
wrote:

Family Sailor,
actually i think it is the liberals that are unwittingly the terrorists

there is plenty that points to the *possibility* that WMD's found their way
to Syria

--actually it is not liberalism ........it is infantile narcissism,
sometimes affected by ritilan deprevation.
don't confuse the two---they are very different.
gf.

Oh, well if it was "possible", then by all means start a war. I guess
there isn't much difference than saying that someone "might" have the
intent to develop WMDs so we need a preemptive war to stop someone
from a future action that is possible in an imaginary sort of way. If
imagined future events are the standard, then it is hard to say that
anyone is ever wrong.

Your honor, I had to shoot the bitch or she might have gotten mad,
bought a gun and shot me someday.






"FamilySailor" wrote in message
...
Huh? Bush said that there were WMDs. There are none. He
said Iraq was an iminent threat. It wasn't. Those were lies. What
"IS" are you talking about?

OK, what is a weapon of mass destruction. Is saran (sp?) gas a weapon of
mass destruction?
Is putting out a hit on the George Bush a threat to America? Is firing
missiles at American fighter pilots a threat? All you need is one and it
was
not a lie. There are many more, but no liberal will ever be satisfied,
because it does not suit their political Bush hating agenda. What if the
weapons were shipped out of the country, say in just a hand full of
trucks,
would that mean he still lied. What if that is the facts! Maybe you don't
really know enough to be qualified to accuse the man of being a liar.
Maybe
those who have them don't want you to know they have them and they laugh
their ass off at the liberals who yell "Bush LIED! There are no weapons of
mass destruction!" I know either way, I never accused anyone falsely. I
never accused Clinton either, it is not my place, I wasn't there. From our
position it is all hear-say.

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

Come on... get real. Bu**** made all sorts of claims as to why
we should attack Iraq. So far, none of them have any credibility.
You can dance all you want, but the fact remains that the American
people were mislead by the current administration in the White House.

As you know, none of the things you mention now were mentioned
prior to the invasion as a reason for the invasion... except possibly
that "he tried to kill my daddy."

Bush lied about the reasons for war. That's a fact. If you think that's
yelling, you need to get a new hearing aid.

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

"FamilySailor" wrote in message
...
Huh? Bush said that there were WMDs. There are none. He
said Iraq was an iminent threat. It wasn't. Those were lies. What
"IS" are you talking about?

OK, what is a weapon of mass destruction. Is saran (sp?) gas a weapon of
mass destruction?
Is putting out a hit on the George Bush a threat to America? Is firing
missiles at American fighter pilots a threat? All you need is one and it
was
not a lie. There are many more, but no liberal will ever be satisfied,
because it does not suit their political Bush hating agenda. What if the
weapons were shipped out of the country, say in just a hand full of
trucks,
would that mean he still lied. What if that is the facts! Maybe you don't
really know enough to be qualified to accuse the man of being a liar.
Maybe
those who have them don't want you to know they have them and they laugh
their ass off at the liberals who yell "Bush LIED! There are no weapons of
mass destruction!" I know either way, I never accused anyone falsely. I
never accused Clinton either, it is not my place, I wasn't there. From our
position it is all hear-say.

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

This guy is incredible. If you can't defend yourself, attack liberals.
You are stoooopid!

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

"gonefishiing" wrote in message
...
Family Sailor,
actually i think it is the liberals that are unwittingly the terrorists

there is plenty that points to the *possibility* that WMD's found their
way
to Syria

--actually it is not liberalism ........it is infantile narcissism,
sometimes affected by ritilan deprevation.
don't confuse the two---they are very different.
gf.




"FamilySailor" wrote in message
...
Huh? Bush said that there were WMDs. There are none. He
said Iraq was an iminent threat. It wasn't. Those were lies. What
"IS" are you talking about?

OK, what is a weapon of mass destruction. Is saran (sp?) gas a weapon of
mass destruction?
Is putting out a hit on the George Bush a threat to America? Is firing
missiles at American fighter pilots a threat? All you need is one and it
was
not a lie. There are many more, but no liberal will ever be satisfied,
because it does not suit their political Bush hating agenda. What if the
weapons were shipped out of the country, say in just a hand full of
trucks,
would that mean he still lied. What if that is the facts! Maybe you
don't
really know enough to be qualified to accuse the man of being a liar.
Maybe
those who have them don't want you to know they have them and they laugh
their ass off at the liberals who yell "Bush LIED! There are no weapons
of
mass destruction!" I know either way, I never accused anyone falsely. I
never accused Clinton either, it is not my place, I wasn't there. From
our
position it is all hear-say.

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 13:38:46 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

Good point, but Clinton didn't lie about why we were going to Bosnia.
Bush lied. That's the criminal aspect.


President George W. Bush did not lie about anything. Reports now show
that the intelligence on Iraq was exaggerated.

All you liberal whackos who screamed, "Bush lied," owe him an apology.

BTW, WMDs have been found.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

Bush lied about Iraq. He had it on his agenda from the very
beginning. He lied about his reasons for going to war and
didn't bother to follow up with the intelligence services. For
all of Clinton's faults, he did do that. A couple of shells don't
match the tons of wmds that Powel and others claimed were
there.

Fishboy and you make a great pair.

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

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 13:38:46 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

Good point, but Clinton didn't lie about why we were going to Bosnia.
Bush lied. That's the criminal aspect.


President George W. Bush did not lie about anything. Reports now show
that the intelligence on Iraq was exaggerated.

All you liberal whackos who screamed, "Bush lied," owe him an apology.

BTW, WMDs have been found.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

Come on... get real. Bu**** made all sorts of claims as to why
we should attack Iraq. So far, none of them have any credibility.

Except for the WMD bit name a couple more.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"Trains are a winter sport"

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

The main reason we went to Iraq is Iraq refused for 12 years to meet UN
resolutions. WMDs were another issue.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"Trains are a winter sport"

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

hey ganz-------i didn't attack liberals, in fact i didn't attack, i merely
poked fun at infantile narcisists..and your offended!....(wink)

and actually you were right when you stated saddam was the antithesis of
terrorism
an interesting addition, but it never answered the question i asked
nor did felton.
instead you just simply blindly defend your position and attack, deflect
questions and assume everyone else is doing the same.

but you'll never understand that so forget i was here, if you can.

if it makes you feel important---yeah your still kf'd--just not on my
laptop.........

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

"FamilySailor" wrote in message
...
Huh? Bush said that there were WMDs. There are none. He
said Iraq was an iminent threat. It wasn't. Those were lies. What
"IS" are you talking about?

OK, what is a weapon of mass destruction. Is saran (sp?) gas a weapon of
mass destruction?

No it isn't. Weapons of Mass Destruction are defined as weapons that are
capable of *mass* destruction.

These are nuclear and biological weapons.

Chemical weapons don't count.


Is putting out a hit on the George Bush a threat to America?

Quite the opposite. America would be much safer without him.



Is firing
missiles at American fighter pilots a threat? All you need is one and it
was
not a lie.

Invading Iraq threatened more US lives than firing missiles at US fighter
pilots. How many US servicemen died as a result of Saddam's missiles?
How many died as a result of the invasion?



There are many more, but no liberal will ever be satisfied,




because it does not suit their political Bush hating agenda. What if the
weapons were shipped out of the country, say in just a hand full of
trucks,
would that mean he still lied.

Were they? What if you were so brainwashed that you would cling to the
flimsiest of straws?


What if that is the facts!

You don't need to resort to "what if" for the facts. We know the facts!

Maybe you don't
really know enough to be qualified to accuse the man of being a liar.

Did Saddam have WMD? ... OR did Bush lie?



Regards


Donal
--

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

"SAIL LOCO" wrote in message
...
The main reason we went to Iraq is Iraq refused for 12 years to meet UN
resolutions.

Wrong.

Regards


Donal
--

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

Iraq *had* WMD. That is an undisputable fact. When & where did they all
go? Either they're well hidden, which I strongly doubt after all this
time & embarrassment, they were shipped over a border (possible) or
they were all used up.

I don't know, the intelligence agencies didn't know and the people
relying on information from intelligence agencies didn't know either.
Hussein was very uncooperative with the UN weapons inspectors leading
them and pretty much everybody else to wonder what he was hiding. It's
apparent *now* that nobody can find WMD and therefore Hussein was not
an imminent threat. Unless you can prove Bush et al knew in advance
that there were no WMD left, you can't fairly call them liars.

It's nice to see how omniscient you are, Jonathan. Can you apply this
to tell me what stocks are going to radically change price by this time
next year?

PDW

In article , Jonathan Ganz
wrote:

Huh? Bush said that there were WMDs. There are none. He
said Iraq was an iminent threat. It wasn't. Those were lies. What
"IS" are you talking about?

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 16:45:04 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

Bush lied about Iraq. He had it on his agenda from the very
beginning.

For God's sake, we have plans on the table to attack, or defend every
country on the planet. If we were going to attack Mexico, there would
already be plans somewhere.


He lied about his reasons for going to war and
didn't bother to follow up with the intelligence services.


That's bull****. He put everything on the table. And nobody really
knows where the intelligence problems were.


For
all of Clinton's faults, he did do that. A couple of shells don't
match the tons of wmds that Powel and others claimed were
there.

And the British said they were there. And the Kurds said they were
there. And the UN said they were there. And so on.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 01:28:24 +0100, "Donal"
wrote this crap:


No it isn't. Weapons of Mass Destruction are defined as weapons that are
capable of *mass* destruction.

These are nuclear and biological weapons.

Chemical weapons don't count.


WMDs are called "NBC" weapons by the military. This stands for
"Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical" weapons.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE RESPONSE

The United States leads international efforts to develop and sustain
global norms against the proliferation of nuclear, biological, or
chemical (NBC) weapons and their delivery means (NBC/M), often
referred to as weapons of mass destruction (WMD). It actively engages
in dialogues with states around the world to persuade them not to
acquire these NBC weapons capabilities or to eliminate capabilities
already developed. The United States also works with states to combat
proliferation by assisting them in gaining and assuring greater
control over sensitive dual-use equipment and technology
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/prolif97/secii.html

You forget, dumbass, that I was an NBC officer.




Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

Please don't wink at me. I'm only interested in women.

I'm not defending anything, except that you're a fishboy.

You're lying about the KF, just like Bu**** lied to the
American people.

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

"gonefishiing" wrote in message
...
hey ganz-------i didn't attack liberals, in fact i didn't attack, i
merely
poked fun at infantile narcisists..and your offended!....(wink)

and actually you were right when you stated saddam was the antithesis of
terrorism
an interesting addition, but it never answered the question i asked
nor did felton.
instead you just simply blindly defend your position and attack, deflect
questions and assume everyone else is doing the same.

but you'll never understand that so forget i was here, if you can.

if it makes you feel important---yeah your still kf'd--just not on my
laptop.........

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

Do your own research. All of this has been posted here even
many times.

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

"SAIL LOCO" wrote in message
...
Come on... get real. Bu**** made all sorts of claims as to why
we should attack Iraq. So far, none of them have any credibility.

Except for the WMD bit name a couple more.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"Trains are a winter sport"

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

Iraq was in iminent threat because of the WMDs. That was the
central issue. It was a fabrication.

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

"SAIL LOCO" wrote in message
...
The main reason we went to Iraq is Iraq refused for 12 years to meet UN
resolutions. WMDs were another issue.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"Trains are a winter sport"

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

I didn't realize that NBC officer is another acronym for STOOPID!
Thanks!

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

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 01:28:24 +0100, "Donal"
wrote this crap:


No it isn't. Weapons of Mass Destruction are defined as weapons that
are
capable of *mass* destruction.

These are nuclear and biological weapons.

Chemical weapons don't count.


WMDs are called "NBC" weapons by the military. This stands for
"Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical" weapons.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE RESPONSE

The United States leads international efforts to develop and sustain
global norms against the proliferation of nuclear, biological, or
chemical (NBC) weapons and their delivery means (NBC/M), often
referred to as weapons of mass destruction (WMD). It actively engages
in dialogues with states around the world to persuade them not to
acquire these NBC weapons capabilities or to eliminate capabilities
already developed. The United States also works with states to combat
proliferation by assisting them in gaining and assuring greater
control over sensitive dual-use equipment and technology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------


http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/prolif97/secii.html

You forget, dumbass, that I was an NBC officer.




Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

Sure thing.

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

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..

Iraq *had* WMD. That is an undisputable fact. When & where did they all
go? Either they're well hidden, which I strongly doubt after all this
time & embarrassment, they were shipped over a border (possible) or
they were all used up.

I don't know, the intelligence agencies didn't know and the people
relying on information from intelligence agencies didn't know either.
Hussein was very uncooperative with the UN weapons inspectors leading
them and pretty much everybody else to wonder what he was hiding. It's
apparent *now* that nobody can find WMD and therefore Hussein was not
an imminent threat. Unless you can prove Bush et al knew in advance
that there were no WMD left, you can't fairly call them liars.

It's nice to see how omniscient you are, Jonathan. Can you apply this
to tell me what stocks are going to radically change price by this time
next year?

PDW

In article , Jonathan Ganz
wrote:

Huh? Bush said that there were WMDs. There are none. He
said Iraq was an iminent threat. It wasn't. Those were lies. What
"IS" are you talking about?