NO NO NO
 

NO WMDs NONE BUSH SAYS SO!

Horvath, Scotty, Loco...you're IDIOTS to still support a president who lied to
you.

And he did lie to you 100% and he's laughing along with Cheney all the way to
the bank while our country is bled dry.

For shame!


RB

"Bobsprit" wrote in message


And he did lie to you 100% and he's laughing along with Cheney all the way
to
the bank while our country is bled dry.

You're really gonna be unhappy if Kerry's elected, if his proposed two
trillion dollars in social spending comes to fruition, eh?

Max

Subject: NO NO NO
From: (Bobsprit)
Date: 09/08/2004 03:05 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

NO WMDs NONE BUSH SAYS SO!

Horvath, Scotty, Loco...you're IDIOTS to still support a president who lied
to
you.


LOL I can't remember a President, politician, CEO, lawyer, boss, manager,
supervisor, news media, etc., who didn't lie to me, if it suited their purpose
..... kinda, the nature of the beast.

In article ,
Shen44 wrote:
LOL I can't remember a President, politician, CEO, lawyer, boss, manager,
supervisor, news media, etc., who didn't lie to me, if it suited their purpose
.... kinda, the nature of the beast.

I agree! But, I'd rather have him lie about getting a blow job than
why we need to go to war.


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

I agree! But, I'd rather have him lie about getting a blow job than
why we need to go to war.



G If he lied about that, what else did he lie about ..... time will tell, and
whether it benefited us, or not.

In article ,
Shen44 wrote:

I agree! But, I'd rather have him lie about getting a blow job than
why we need to go to war.

G If he lied about that, what else did he lie about ..... time will tell, and
whether it benefited us, or not.

Who knows. I'm sure Clinton lied about lots of things, but I'm also
sure that none of them were intended to hurt us as a people for his
own profit. Certainly, Clinton has a huge ego, and just as certainly
he had a left-leaning, centrist Democratic agenda. Some may fault him
for that. But, I don't think he was deceptive about killing people for
the sake of his agenda.

I'm also sure that Bush is not lying about everything and that he is
sincere about his beliefs, as much as I disagree and dislike
him. Unfortunately, he's unwilling to admit mistakes, unwilling to
listen to other points of view, and is quite willing to be led by the
neoconservatives such as Wolfawitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Perls, etc. He's
beholden to the religious right, and that scares me, because their
agenda is a Christian state, not a secular state. He's also beholden
by proxy via Cheney to big business. Cheney and Ashcroft have a warped
view of the world and of their own importance in it, and that scares
me too.

I believe we have a strong democracy, but I'm concerned that we keep
the debate on our civil liberties vs. our security open. If we don't,
it's a very slippery slope to the Big Brother state that Orwell
invisioned, whether that be by the government or by big business or by
some combination.
--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Joe wrote:
(Bobsprit) wrote in message ...
Bled Dry. Wanna see over 11,000 bled dry?

Joe, you need to get with the program... this happened in a different
century.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

Bled Dry. Wanna see over 11,000 bled dry?


Joe, we all know Saddam was a bad man. But the war and reasons for it were sold
on a pack of lies and have hurt this country badly.

RB

On 08 Sep 2004 10:05:16 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote this
crap:

NO WMDs NONE BUSH SAYS SO!


Sarin and mustard gas are not WMDs?


Horvath, Scotty, Loco...you're IDIOTS to still support a president who lied to
you.

And he did lie to you 100% and he's laughing along with Cheney all the way to
the bank while our country is bled dry.


President George W. Bush has never lied. You whacko liberals are
still upset that KKKlinton was impeached for lying, and you are
desperate to pin one on Honest George.







Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

In article ,
Horvath wrote:
On 08 Sep 2004 10:05:16 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote this
crap:
President George W. Bush has never lied. You whacko liberals are
still upset that KKKlinton was impeached for lying, and you are
desperate to pin one on Honest George.

Clinton was impeached and found not guilty.

Bush has yet to come to trial.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On 08 Sep 2004 10:05:16 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote this
crap:

NO WMDs NONE BUSH SAYS SO!


Sarin and mustard gas are not WMDs?

Correct, Horvath!

Sarin, and mustard gas are completely different to nuclear and bioligical
weapons.


Regards

Donal
--

President George W. Bush has never lied.


It takes a dumb putz to think that ANY politician has never lied.

RB

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 01:01:41 +0100, "Donal"
wrote this crap:


"Horvath" wrote in message
.. .
On 08 Sep 2004 10:05:16 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote this
crap:

NO WMDs NONE BUSH SAYS SO!


Sarin and mustard gas are not WMDs?

Correct, Horvath!

Sarin, and mustard gas are completely different to nuclear and bioligical
weapons.


WMDs include Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 01:01:41 +0100, "Donal"
wrote this crap:


"Horvath" wrote in message
.. .
Sarin and mustard gas are not WMDs?

Correct, Horvath!

Sarin, and mustard gas are completely different to nuclear and bioligical
weapons.


WMDs include Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons.

Since when?

Chemical weapons cause "local" damage. Nuclear and Biological weapons
spread their destruction over a very large area.

I bet that you cannot provide a convincing reason why mustard gas deserves
the label "WMD".



Regards


Donal
--

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 23:03:52 +0100, "Donal"
wrote this crap:

Correct, Horvath!

Sarin, and mustard gas are completely different to nuclear and bioligical
weapons.


WMDs include Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons.

Since when?


The Weapons of Mass Destruction Branch provides substantive support
for the activities of the United Nations in the area of weapons of
mass destruction (nuclear, chemical and biological weapons), including
the threat of use of weapons of mass destruction in terrorist acts, as
well as missiles. The Branch follows closely all developments and
trends with regard to weapons of mass destruction in all their aspects
in order to keep the Secretary-General fully informed and to provide
information to Member States and the international community. The
Branch supports, and participates in, multilateral efforts to
strengthen the international norm on disarmament and non-proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction and, in this connection, it cooperates
with relevant intergovernmental organizations and specialized agencies
of the United Nations system, in particular the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA), the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons (OPCW) and the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive
Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO PrepCom).

http://disarmament.un.org:8080/wmd/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice it says that WMDs includes nuclear, biological, and chemical
weapons.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO PrepCom).

http://disarmament.un.org:8080/wmd/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------

Notice it says that WMDs includes nuclear, biological, and chemical
weapons.


So what? It's wrong.


There is *no* comparison berween the destructive effects of chemical and
nuclear weapons.

Chemical weapons only affect people who are in the detonation area - just
like conventional bombs.

Nuclear, and bioligical weapons cause deaths outside the area of detonation.
That is why they are defined as Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Regards


Donal
--

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO PrepCom).

http://disarmament.un.org:8080/wmd/


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------

Notice it says that WMDs includes nuclear, biological, and chemical
weapons.


So what? It's wrong.


There is *no* comparison berween the destructive effects of chemical and
nuclear weapons.

Chemical weapons only affect people who are in the detonation area - just
like conventional bombs.

Nuclear, and bioligical weapons cause deaths outside the area of
detonation.
That is why they are defined as Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Regards


Donal

Due to their toxicity and method of dispersal(gaseous state) I would think
that chemical weapons do qualify as WMD's, they also can affect fairly large
areas, due to their method of dispersal, and like nukes, have severe
long-term after affects. And, chemical weapons are generally defined as
WMD's. Dead is dead.
http://www.nti.org/f_wmd411/f1a1.html

John Cairns

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 00:41:57 +0100, "Donal"
wrote this crap:


"Horvath" wrote in message
.. .
Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO PrepCom).

http://disarmament.un.org:8080/wmd/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------

Notice it says that WMDs includes nuclear, biological, and chemical
weapons.


So what? It's wrong.

You are ****ing whacked. That was off the UN website. Do a search
for "WMD" and you will see that EVERY website lists Nuclear Biological
and Chemical (NBC) weapons.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!