| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Australia and Obama
Obama is a better man for the war on terrorism, for a very simple
reason. It is not just bombs that deter terrorists, but also improvement in the condition of the lives of people in Middle East and better view of the Western world. Terrorists feed off two twin problems: Bad conditions and ill will toward the West. And it is by addressing the two, convincingly and effectively, that the spell of jihadism can be broken over the people of Middle East. The Australian army has figured this out, and is doing the right thing in Afghanistan. Not only are they involved, as all armies on the ground, in the military operations against Taliban, but they also are building schools for children and training adults in skills such as carpentry. In this they are tackling the two root problems. They are giving people a chance at a better future, and they are building goodwill in the people toward the West. That makes the people a lot less likely to believe or join entities such as the Taliban. Whereas Republican Party's policies are completely blind to this obvious dynamic. They just want to come in, shoot up the place, and declare victory. Then they want to claim that the hatred that Middle East has toward America is because of its freedoms. That is false. While the jihadists do in fact hate everything that is not Sharia, the people support them because of the blindness, arrogance, greed, irresponsibility and stupidity of Republican policies in the region. The Reagan administration encouraged Islamism in Middle East as part of its war against Communism. What made them believe that Islamists would be more partial to USA than the Communists? Either it was a huge oversight, or we are seeing genuine wrongdoing. And why would McCain, who has similar ideas on these matters as did Reagan, solve the problem instead of adding to it? America armed and trained mujahedeen against USSR. When USSR withdrew, American policymakers forgot that Afghanistan existed. It was not long before these same people turned their guns away from USSR, which no longer was on the map, to USA, which was. The people felt used and betrayed. This gave a fertile ground for jihadists, whose tactic has been to feed off any sentiment against the West or any part of the West and use it to turn people into terrorists. Indeed the terrorists have done this: Infiltrate any constituency that has a problem with West or with Israel or with government. Goal? Turn them all into Sharia thugs. Republican policies do not begin to address this problem, as they are focused solely on military action. But to truly end terrorism, it is necessary to also remove the true infrastructure for supporting terrorism: Ill will toward the West, and bad living conditions, of people in Middle East. To succeed over the long term, any anti-terrorist action requires that people in Middle East be given good view of the West as well as a chance at a better existence. And while neither Democrats nor Republicans are advocating that the war against Al Qaeda and Taliban be brought to a halt, in order to create and win the peace it is requisite to apply approach similar to one that is being taken by Australian forces in the region. It is necessary to win the war; it is also necessary to secure the peace. And that can only come from action that benefits people on the ground as effectively as it combats the militants in the hills. |
Australia and Obama
|
Australia and Obama
"Charles Momsen" wrote in message ... http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news....aspx?id=25229 And Hussein was removed from power some five years ago. What's your point? |
Australia and Obama
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et... "Charles Momsen" wrote in message ... http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news....aspx?id=25229 And Hussein was removed from power some five years ago. What's your point? Trolling.... -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Australia and Obama
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message et... "Charles Momsen" wrote in message ... http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news....aspx?id=25229 And Hussein was removed from power some five years ago. What's your point? The US military has been building schools and infrastructure in the Middle East for years and not just Iraq. Also, certain segments of the military focus on winning the hearts and minds of the people. To claim that this will come about as a result of Obama getting elected isn't true. http://www.defendamerica.mil/article...062006dg2.html |
Australia and Obama
"Capt. JG" wrote in message easolutions... "KLC Lewis" wrote in message et... "Charles Momsen" wrote in message ... http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news....aspx?id=25229 And Hussein was removed from power some five years ago. What's your point? Trolling.... -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com Your point is to make an public ass of yourself. You're doing a great job. |
Australia and Obama
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 07:58:01 -0600, someone posting as Charles Momsen
purportedly wrote: The US military has been building schools and infrastructure in the Middle East for years and not just Iraq. Also, certain segments of the military focus on winning the hearts and minds of the people. Unfortunately,hunting down and killing the older brothers, fathers and uncles of the kids going to the schools built, kind of gets in the way of winning their hearts and minds...but continue to delude yourself if you like. -- if it was easy, everyone would do it |
Australia and Obama
"wordsmith" wrote in message m... On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 07:58:01 -0600, someone posting as Charles Momsen purportedly wrote: The US military has been building schools and infrastructure in the Middle East for years and not just Iraq. Also, certain segments of the military focus on winning the hearts and minds of the people. Unfortunately,hunting down and killing the older brothers, fathers and uncles of the kids going to the schools built, kind of gets in the way of winning their hearts and minds...but continue to delude yourself if you like. -- if it was easy, everyone would do it Not to mention their sisters, mothers, daughters... |
Australia and Obama
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
... "wordsmith" wrote in message m... On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 07:58:01 -0600, someone posting as Charles Momsen purportedly wrote: The US military has been building schools and infrastructure in the Middle East for years and not just Iraq. Also, certain segments of the military focus on winning the hearts and minds of the people. Unfortunately,hunting down and killing the older brothers, fathers and uncles of the kids going to the schools built, kind of gets in the way of winning their hearts and minds...but continue to delude yourself if you like. -- if it was easy, everyone would do it Not to mention their sisters, mothers, daughters... Well, looks like we're out of there by January 1st anyway. http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/10...qi_opposition/ -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Australia and Obama
"wordsmith" wrote in message m... On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 07:58:01 -0600, someone posting as Charles Momsen purportedly wrote: The US military has been building schools and infrastructure in the Middle East for years and not just Iraq. Also, certain segments of the military focus on winning the hearts and minds of the people. Unfortunately,hunting down and killing the older brothers, fathers and uncles of the kids going to the schools built, kind of gets in the way of winning their hearts and minds...but continue to delude yourself if you like. I actually agree. Would you vote for a presidential candidate that promises increasing troops and killing in Afghanistan and promises to invade Pakistan to kill even more? I wouldn't. |
Australia and Obama
"Capt. JG" wrote in message easolutions... Well, looks like we're out of there by January 1st anyway. http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/10...qi_opposition/ -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com Well, we give lip-service to the idea that Iraq is a sovereign nation with a popularly-elected government. If that sovereign nation tells us to get the hell out, then get out we must -- or declare war again. Or first. Whatever. |
Australia and Obama
"Charles Momsen" wrote in message ... Would you vote for a presidential candidate that promises increasing troops and killing in Afghanistan and promises to invade Pakistan to kill even more? I wouldn't. Both McCain and Obama support more troops in Afghanistan, and both state that they would pursue terrorists into Pakistan if the situation called for it. Neither has "promised" to invade Pakistan. Only McCain has sung songs about bombing Iran. |
Australia and Obama
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et... "Charles Momsen" wrote in message ... Would you vote for a presidential candidate that promises increasing troops and killing in Afghanistan and promises to invade Pakistan to kill even more? I wouldn't. Both McCain and Obama support more troops in Afghanistan, and both state that they would pursue terrorists into Pakistan if the situation called for it. Neither has "promised" to invade Pakistan. Only McCain has sung songs about bombing Iran. Apparently McCain now has the support of Bin Laden... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/1..._n_136941.html Oops... I meant this one.... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/1..._n_136779.html -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Australia and Obama
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message et... "Charles Momsen" wrote in message ... Would you vote for a presidential candidate that promises increasing troops and killing in Afghanistan and promises to invade Pakistan to kill even more? I wouldn't. Both McCain and Obama support more troops in Afghanistan, and both state that they would pursue terrorists into Pakistan if the situation called for it. Neither has "promised" to invade Pakistan. Only McCain has sung songs about bombing Iran. Obama has promised to invade Pakistan. Are you saying his word is less than a promise? |
Australia and Obama
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message et... "Charles Momsen" wrote in message ... Would you vote for a presidential candidate that promises increasing troops and killing in Afghanistan and promises to invade Pakistan to kill even more? I wouldn't. Both McCain and Obama support more troops in Afghanistan, and both state that they would pursue terrorists into Pakistan if the situation called for it. Neither has "promised" to invade Pakistan. Only McCain has sung songs about bombing Iran. So which war monger are you rooting for? |
Australia and Obama
"Charles Momsen" wrote in message ... Obama has promised to invade Pakistan. Are you saying his word is less than a promise? No, I'm saying that you are a liar. |
Australia and Obama
"Charles Momsen" wrote in message ... So which war monger are you rooting for? Ron Paul. |
Australia and Obama
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message et... "Charles Momsen" wrote in message ... Obama has promised to invade Pakistan. Are you saying his word is less than a promise? No, I'm saying that you are a liar. That's interesting. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3434573&page=1 "I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama said, "but let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." So explain the lie. |
Australia and Obama
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message ... "Charles Momsen" wrote in message ... So which war monger are you rooting for? Ron Paul. You're a liar. |
Australia and Obama
"Charles Momsen" wrote in message ... "I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama said, "but let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." So explain the lie. You stated that "Obama has promised to invade Pakistan." That is a flat lie, as your quote of his speech proves. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," is not a "promise" to invade Pakistan. Which you know. You are deliberately misrespresenting Obama's position, which makes you a liar. |
Australia and Obama
"Charles Momsen" wrote in message ... "KLC Lewis" wrote in message ... "Charles Momsen" wrote in message ... So which war monger are you rooting for? Ron Paul. You're a liar. Really. Prove it. |
Australia and Obama
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message ... "Charles Momsen" wrote in message ... "KLC Lewis" wrote in message ... "Charles Momsen" wrote in message ... So which war monger are you rooting for? Ron Paul. You're a liar. Really. Prove it. Ron Paul is not a war monger, you claim to support him as a war monger. |
Australia and Obama
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message et... "Charles Momsen" wrote in message ... "I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama said, "but let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." So explain the lie. You stated that "Obama has promised to invade Pakistan." That is a flat lie, as your quote of his speech proves. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," is not a "promise" to invade Pakistan. Which you know. You are deliberately misrespresenting Obama's position, which makes you a liar. I did not state that Obama would unconditionally invade Pakistan. promise: 1.. To make a declaration assuring that something will or will not be done. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," invade: 1.To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage. 2.To encroach or intrude on; violate: 1.. To overrun as if by invading; infest: 2.. To enter and permeate, especially harmfully. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2182955.ece http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTwUA...eature=related So he said he is not going to go into Pakistan? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw2XT...eature=related |
Australia and Obama
"Charles Momsen" wrote in message ... "KLC Lewis" wrote in message ... "Charles Momsen" wrote in message ... "KLC Lewis" wrote in message ... "Charles Momsen" wrote in message ... So which war monger are you rooting for? Ron Paul. You're a liar. Really. Prove it. Ron Paul is not a war monger, you claim to support him as a war monger. You are an idiot. Plonk. |
Australia and Obama
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message et... So which war monger are you rooting for? Ron Paul. Ron Paul is not a war monger. You are an idiot. Sums it up nicely. |
Australia and Obama
"Charles Momsen" wrote in message ... "KLC Lewis" wrote in message et... "Charles Momsen" wrote in message ... "I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama said, "but let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." So explain the lie. You stated that "Obama has promised to invade Pakistan." That is a flat lie, as your quote of his speech proves. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," is not a "promise" to invade Pakistan. Which you know. You are deliberately misrespresenting Obama's position, which makes you a liar. I did not state that Obama would unconditionally invade Pakistan. promise: 1.. To make a declaration assuring that something will or will not be done. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," invade: 1.To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage. 2.To encroach or intrude on; violate: 1.. To overrun as if by invading; infest: 2.. To enter and permeate, especially harmfully. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2182955.ece http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTwUA...eature=related So he said he is not going to go into Pakistan? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw2XT...eature=related SMACKDOWN! |
Australia and Obama
"Charles Momsen" wrote in message ... "KLC Lewis" wrote in message et... So which war monger are you rooting for? Ron Paul. Ron Paul is not a war monger. You are an idiot. Sums it up nicely. He couldn't stand it that you smacked him down so thoroughly in the "Obama promising to invade Pakistan" discussion. The liberal modus operandi involves three things: 1) remain ignorant of the facts as long as you can, 2) when someone points out the facts prove you are wrong then.. 3) yell LIAR or... 4) run away. -- Gregory Hall |
Australia and Obama
"Gregory Hall" wrote in message ... "Charles Momsen" wrote in message ... "KLC Lewis" wrote in message et... So which war monger are you rooting for? Ron Paul. Ron Paul is not a war monger. You are an idiot. Sums it up nicely. He couldn't stand it that you smacked him down so thoroughly in the "Obama promising to invade Pakistan" discussion. The liberal modus operandi involves three things: 1) remain ignorant of the facts as long as you can, 2) when someone points out the facts prove you are wrong then.. 3) yell LIAR or... 4) run away. -- Gregory Hall Actually it's "she," and I simply got tired of dealing with blatant obtuseness. The fact remains that Obama has exactly the same policy regarding Pakistan as McCain: IF terrorists are hiding in Pakistan; IF the Pakistani government refuses to pursue them; and IF we have "actionable intelligence" which gives us reason to belive we know where they are and that a strike against them would be successful, we should act. Now if you want to take that as a "promise" that we will "invade" Pakistan, you go right ahead and do so. But it's a stretch at best. And to state that Obama has "promised to invade Pakistan" while leaving out the fact that his position is identical to McCain's is duplicitous and deceitful. In short, it is a lie. Just another "liberal" Ron Paul supporter. Karin |
Australia and Obama
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message ... "Gregory Hall" wrote in message ... "Charles Momsen" wrote in message ... "KLC Lewis" wrote in message et... So which war monger are you rooting for? Ron Paul. Ron Paul is not a war monger. You are an idiot. Sums it up nicely. He couldn't stand it that you smacked him down so thoroughly in the "Obama promising to invade Pakistan" discussion. The liberal modus operandi involves three things: 1) remain ignorant of the facts as long as you can, 2) when someone points out the facts prove you are wrong then.. 3) yell LIAR or... 4) run away. -- Gregory Hall Actually it's "she," and I simply got tired of dealing with blatant obtuseness. The fact remains that Obama has exactly the same policy regarding Pakistan as McCain: IF terrorists are hiding in Pakistan; IF the Pakistani government refuses to pursue them; and IF we have "actionable intelligence" which gives us reason to belive we know where they are and that a strike against them would be successful, we should act. Now if you want to take that as a "promise" that we will "invade" Pakistan, you go right ahead and do so. But it's a stretch at best. And to state that Obama has "promised to invade Pakistan" while leaving out the fact that his position is identical to McCain's is duplicitous and deceitful. In short, it is a lie. Should have know he was dealing with a female . . . My bad! Extend your logic a little further, Sweetie, and you will see how absurd your argument really is. You contend it is a lie to leave out information that does not include McCain's stance so let's run with that. I can then say YOU are a liar because you left out the stances of Gloria La Riva, Chuck Baldwin, Gene Amondson, Bob Barr, Thomas Stevens, James, Harris, Cynthia McKinney, Alan Keyes, Ralph Nader, Brian Moore and Charles Jay who are ALL running for President of the United States and are on the ballot at this time. Just another "liberal" Ron Paul supporter. Karin Ron Paul would have to be a write-in . . . Are you sure YOU are informed enough to vote? I would think any sane woman would be voting for Sarah Palin/John McCain. -- Gregory Hall |
Australia and Obama
"Gregory Hall" wrote in message ... Ron Paul would have to be a write-in . . . And? Are you sure YOU are informed enough to vote? I would think any sane woman would be voting for Sarah Palin/John McCain. -- Gregory Hall There is a strong possibility that John McCain would die within his first term of office -- he's in horrible health. That means that Sarah Palin would become President sometime within the next four years. Sorry, but I'm not ready for a right-wing fundamentalist Christian theocracy. I also must disqualify anyone from serving as president who cannot pronounce the word, "nuclear." Had McCain chosen a running mate who is qualified to serve as president, I might have considered voting for him. As it stands, however, no. Just another insane liberal Ron Paul supporter, Karin |
Australia and Obama
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message ... Now if you want to take that as a "promise" that we will "invade" Pakistan, you go right ahead and do so. But it's a stretch at best. And to state that Obama has "promised to invade Pakistan" while leaving out the fact that his position is identical to McCain's is duplicitous and deceitful. In short, it is a lie. If I point out that a certain tomato on the vine is yellow (and it is), is it then a lie because I didn't point out the tomato on the other vine is green? The deceit lay wholly within yourself. You are making unstated assumptions about another person's reasoning that seriously impair your ability to engage in any form of rational discussion. For the record I'm a Ron Paul supporter and have been so since he was first elected to office and voted for him when he first ran for president decades ago. Now who is duplicitous? |
Australia and Obama
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message et... "Gregory Hall" wrote in message ... Ron Paul would have to be a write-in . . . And? Are you sure YOU are informed enough to vote? I would think any sane woman would be voting for Sarah Palin/John McCain. -- Gregory Hall There is a strong possibility that John McCain would die within his first term of office -- he's in horrible health. That means that Sarah Palin would become President sometime within the next four years. Sorry, but I'm not ready for a right-wing fundamentalist Christian theocracy. I also must disqualify anyone from serving as president who cannot pronounce the word, "nuclear." Too late! Bush couldn't say it right either. ;-) But, you don't really think any president could create a theocracy do you? That means you'd rather have a man who CAN and WILL TRY to turn the country into a socialist country over a woman who could not turn the country into a theocracy? See what I mean about female logic? It's just not logical. Had McCain chosen a running mate who is qualified to serve as president, I might have considered voting for him. As it stands, however, no. Palin is more qualified than Obama by virtue of her greater executive experience. He has NONE she has years of it. Your ONLY choice is between your unfounded fears of what you irrationally fear Palin *might* do IF or what Obama SAYs he will do IF. You're supporting a Marxist by not supporting McCain/Palin. It's that simple. You are unpatriotic. -- Gregory Hall |
Australia and Obama
"Gregory Hall" wrote in message ... Palin is more qualified than Obama by virtue of her greater executive experience. He has NONE she has years of it. Your ONLY choice is between your unfounded fears of what you irrationally fear Palin *might* do IF or what Obama SAYs he will do IF. You're supporting a Marxist by not supporting McCain/Palin. It's that simple. You are unpatriotic. -- Gregory Hall What can I say? Obviously, I hate America and want to see it invaded by communists. Oh, and you forgot to say that Obama "pals around with terrorists." Too bad -- that might have swayed me. That's the problem with you right-wingers: Either everyone agrees with you, or they are "unpatriotic." As was said by one wiser than me, "Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels." As to the differences between Palin and Obama, I would choose Obama's wisdom and thoughtfullness over Palin's "experience" any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. Fortunately, however, there are other choices. Did I mention that I am supporting Ron Paul? Seems to me I did. At least twice. And no, a vote for Ron Paul is not a vote for Obama. Nor is it a vote for McCain. It is a vote for Ron Paul. |
Australia and Obama
"Charles Momsen" wrote in message ... "KLC Lewis" wrote in message ... Now if you want to take that as a "promise" that we will "invade" Pakistan, you go right ahead and do so. But it's a stretch at best. And to state that Obama has "promised to invade Pakistan" while leaving out the fact that his position is identical to McCain's is duplicitous and deceitful. In short, it is a lie. If I point out that a certain tomato on the vine is yellow (and it is), is it then a lie because I didn't point out the tomato on the other vine is green? The deceit lay wholly within yourself. You are making unstated assumptions about another person's reasoning that seriously impair your ability to engage in any form of rational discussion. For the record I'm a Ron Paul supporter and have been so since he was first elected to office and voted for him when he first ran for president decades ago. Now who is duplicitous? Ouch! |
Australia and Obama
In article ,
"KLC Lewis" wrote: "Charles Momsen" wrote in message ... So which war monger are you rooting for? Ron Paul. Ron Paul. -- Molesworth http://www.stcustards.free-online.co.uk/ |
Australia and Obama
"WaIIy" wrote in message
... On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:57:19 -0500, "KLC Lewis" wrote: "Gregory Hall" wrote in message ... Ron Paul would have to be a write-in . . . And? Are you sure YOU are informed enough to vote? I would think any sane woman would be voting for Sarah Palin/John McCain. -- Gregory Hall There is a strong possibility that John McCain would die within his first term of office -- he's in horrible health. That means that Sarah Palin would become President sometime within the next four years. Sorry, but I'm not ready for a right-wing fundamentalist Christian theocracy. I also must disqualify anyone from serving as president who cannot pronounce the word, "nuclear." You really want a limp wrist on the button? If Obama croaks, Biden's brain is a ticking time bomb. Biden refuses to release his brain scans. Hmmmm Fortunately, Gov. Palin has released her complete medical records. NOT However, she did release her brain scans: http://www.nothingisthere.com/ -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Australia and Obama
"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions... "WaIIy" wrote in message ... On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:57:19 -0500, "KLC Lewis" wrote: "Gregory Hall" wrote in message ... Ron Paul would have to be a write-in . . . And? Are you sure YOU are informed enough to vote? I would think any sane woman would be voting for Sarah Palin/John McCain. -- Gregory Hall There is a strong possibility that John McCain would die within his first term of office -- he's in horrible health. That means that Sarah Palin would become President sometime within the next four years. Sorry, but I'm not ready for a right-wing fundamentalist Christian theocracy. I also must disqualify anyone from serving as president who cannot pronounce the word, "nuclear." You really want a limp wrist on the button? If Obama croaks, Biden's brain is a ticking time bomb. Biden refuses to release his brain scans. Hmmmm Fortunately, Gov. Palin has released her complete medical records. NOT However, she did release her brain scans: http://www.nothingisthere.com/ -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com I take that back! She wants to name her sixth child Zamboni. I kid you not... Can it possibly get any worse? I *really* don't want to see her brain scans..... -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Australia and Obama
"WaIIy" wrote in message ... On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 00:19:46 -0700, "Capt. JG" wrote: I take that back! She wants to name her sixth child Zamboni. I kid you not... Zamboni is bad, but Shawanda is just fine? Think it over. So who is named "Shawanda"? As for "Zamboni," it beats her first choice, "Toepick." |
Australia and Obama
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
... "WaIIy" wrote in message ... On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 00:19:46 -0700, "Capt. JG" wrote: I take that back! She wants to name her sixth child Zamboni. I kid you not... Zamboni is bad, but Shawanda is just fine? Think it over. So who is named "Shawanda"? As for "Zamboni," it beats her first choice, "Toepick." It's either some obscure relative of Obama in Africa or he's making a lame racist remark. I don't recall anyone who is running for President or VP wanting to name a child Shawanda. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Australia and Obama
"WaIIy" wrote in message
... On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:34:26 -0700, "Capt. JG" wrote: "KLC Lewis" wrote in message ... "WaIIy" wrote in message ... On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 00:19:46 -0700, "Capt. JG" wrote: I take that back! She wants to name her sixth child Zamboni. I kid you not... Zamboni is bad, but Shawanda is just fine? Think it over. So who is named "Shawanda"? As for "Zamboni," it beats her first choice, "Toepick." It's either some obscure relative of Obama in Africa or he's making a lame racist remark. I don't recall anyone who is running for President or VP wanting to name a child Shawanda. Oh, odd sounding names is racist? Why don't you say Barack's middle name a few dozen times if it makes you feel better. Is Barack less odd sounding than Zamboni? No, but Piper for a girl's name? Trig? Track? Bristol and Willow are at least nice names that you don't have to defend in the schoolyard. Do you feel the need to stoop to a discourse on proposed names for kids? Bristol is sort of sailor-like, so yes. Besides, I'm not old enough to stoop. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:39 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com