Why didn't the Palin family...
 

On Dec 31, 3:41*pm, Boater wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Dec 31, 2:35 pm, Boater wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Dec 31, 2:17 pm, Boater wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Dec 31, 2:06 pm, Boater wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Dec 31, 12:50 pm, Boater wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Dec 31, 8:05 am, Boater wrote:
Tim wrote:
Oh, give me a break. Mama Sarah probably told Bristol if she got an
abortion, she'd be tossed out of the house and forced to shack up
somewhere with brilliant boyfriend Levi.
"Probably told"
harry, your speculating in your own fantasy.
Speculating about that family of misfits is fun. What Sarah Palin has
done has resulted in her daughter dropping out of high school and her
future son-in-law giving up the idea of going to college. The daughter
should have gotten an abortion, and stayed in high school. Of course,
the mother should have explained to her daughter how to avoid getting
pregnant.
Harry if that would be your true mode of logic then it would have only
been proper that Democratic Rep. Michael Kernell and his wife should
have had their son David aborted so he wouldn't have become a computer
hacker, being brought up on federal charges for breaking into Palins
email account and therefore causeing shame and embarrassment to his
family as well as the DNC.
yeah, David kernell, a true contributor to society.
Did the Kernell kid get pregnant?
No, but he's an alleged criminal.
So is Dick Cheney.
Teen pregnancy isn't a crime Harry, but computer hacking is.
Cheney is a computer hacker?
When was he arrested? And when was he charged with criminal conduct?
Trial date set?
Sadly, he will likely remain unindicted.
Well then, legally he's not a criminal.
neither is palin's daughter, but Kernell is.
Indeed, Cheney has not been indicted and convicted, so he's no more a
criminal than OJ is a murderer. The two share the same moral compass.

But one is probably behind bars for life, and the other has never had
charges brought on him by anyone for any reason.

That only means he got a pass from the criminal justice system.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So dickhead.. What specific charges should Bush and Cheney be charged
with, and based on what evidence?

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

On Dec 31, 3:51*pm, Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:

"Boater" wrote in message
...

Indeed, Cheney has not been indicted and convicted, so he's no more a
criminal than OJ is a murderer. The two share the same moral compass.

I wonder if one has to be actually indicted or convicted to qualify for
a Presidential pardon, or can Bush issue a blanket pardon for anything
he and/or Cheney could possibly be charged with after they leave office..

Eisboch

Blanket, I believe. Gerry Ford gave Nixon one of those, didn't he?
I'd be happy if Bush gave Cheney one, because it would mean he was
guilty of criminal acts.

I doubt Bush can pardon himself.

He hasn't committed any crime that isn't some fantasy of some pimple
faced punk pulling his dick, blogging in his mom's basement... Oh, and
commentators on MSNBC, The Daily Hoax, and The New York Lies...

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

On Dec 31, 6:24*pm, John H wrote:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 12:00:34 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:
On Dec 31, 12:42*pm, Boater wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Dec 31, 8:05 am, Boater wrote:
Tim wrote:
Oh, give me a break. Mama Sarah probably told Bristol if she got an
abortion, she'd be tossed out of the house and forced to shack up
somewhere with brilliant boyfriend Levi.
"Probably told"
harry, your speculating in your own fantasy.
Speculating about that family of misfits is fun. What Sarah Palin has
done has resulted in her daughter dropping out of high school and her
future son-in-law giving up the idea of going to college. The daughter
should have gotten an abortion, and stayed in high school. Of course,
the mother should have explained to her daughter how to avoid getting
pregnant.

Crikey, a zillion years ago when I was in junior high, the school nurse
came to boys and girls gym classes separately and showed a film on human
sexuality and did a presentation on "avoiding pregnancy and disease.." It
was a black and white film, too! This had to be in the late 1950s, and
it was *after* my father warned me about "the temptations of girls and
making sure they don't get pregnant."

I blame Sarah Palin for the pregnancy of her teen daughter.

Well this is a milestone.

Finally you're not blaming something on Bush/Cheney.

The Bush brothers have had enough trouble raising their own kids.
Hmmm...what do the Bush brothers and Sarah Palin have in common?
Simple-minded fundie religious beliefs...

After all, the Clintons are pretty liberal, and their kid turned out ok.
Jimmy Carter was sort of liberal, and the Carter kid turned out ok.
Ronald Reagan was a conservative, but not a religious fundie, and his
kids turned out okay.
Gerry Ford and Richard Nixon were moderates, but not religious fundies,
and their kids turned out ok, as did LBJ's daughters and the Kennedy kids.

Obviously, simple-minded religious fundamentalism is bad for kids.

:)

Well let's see. I'm not sure of you draw your opinion on being a
"religious fundie"

And I'm not sure what the clintons belief d'jur is.

Jimmy Carter is a Southern Baptist and a Sunday school teacher
Ronald Reagan was Christian Church (Disciples of Christ.)
Gerald Ford was an elder in the Presbyterian church.
Richard Nixon was a Quaker (Society of Friends)
LBJ was (Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)

Kennedys (Roman Cathoic)
And nothing wrong with RC's.

But now that you mentioned Kennedy's

"John-John" Kennedy Jr. was suspected drunk when the plane he was
piloting crashed into the ocean also killing his wife and sister-in-
law

From: *http://www.radaronline.com/exclusive...s-drinking-at-...

"Heymann also gets toxicologist James C. Gariott, M.D., on record as
saying an analysis of Kennedy's remains suggest Kennedy had "two to
three glasses of wine imbibed in quick succession." Gariott also notes
that "Kennedy's alcohol reading was twice the legal level established
by FAA regulations as the standard for licensed commercial airline
pilots."

Bobby's son David died from a Demerol and cocaine overdose.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Was arrested for possession of heroin and other
controlled substances.

After a hard night of boozing with uncle Ted, William Kennedy Smith,
was accused of raping a woman in Palm Beach, Florida but was
acquitted . Then some nine years later, was facing another (different
than the previous) set of *sexual assault allegations, but the charges
are are also dismissed.

Michael Skakel, another nephew of John, Bob, and Ted, is convicted of
the murder of Martha Moxley that he committed when he was a teenager.

You say: "The Bush brothers have had enough trouble raising their own
kids."

Don't know anything about the other brothers, but yeah, W's daughters
partied. Jenna is now married, graduated college, has worked
extensively for UNICEF and is a school teacher and writer.

Barbra Bush WAS charged with a misdemeanor for attempting to use a
fake ID to buy alcohol , also possession of alcohol by a minor, and
plead no contest to the charge.

Now she works for the Cooper-Hewett Design Museum and has done
extensive work throughout Africa with AIDS patients.

Amy Carter was a good kid, and pretty low key after her dads term of
POTUS, that is until she was arrested at a protest rally with Abbey
Hoffman (member of the Chicago 7 and convicted drug dealer) on the
Campus of the U. of Mass. and she got kicked out of Brown University
for poor grades. *She's married, has a son, and now works for her
dad's Carter Center.

Comparitivly, *the Bush twins fared fairly *well.

Just thought you'd like to know that, Harry.

?;^ )

Very good, Tim. Most likely Harry will ignore it as it is too factual.
--
** Good Day! **

* * John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Harry is just daydreaming again. The left likes to see who can make up
the most rediculous charges and try to be clever on the net...

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

On Dec 31, 6:35*pm, Boater wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 31, 3:51 pm, Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:

"Boater" wrote in message
...
Indeed, Cheney has not been indicted and convicted, so he's no more a
criminal than OJ is a murderer. The two share the same moral compass..
I wonder if one has to be actually indicted or convicted to qualify for
a Presidential pardon, or can Bush issue a blanket pardon for anything
he and/or Cheney could possibly be charged with after they leave office.
Eisboch
Blanket, I believe. Gerry Ford gave Nixon one of those, didn't he?
I'd be happy if Bush gave Cheney one, because it would mean he was
guilty of criminal acts.

I doubt Bush can pardon himself.

He hasn't committed any crime that isn't some fantasy of some pimple
faced punk pulling his dick, blogging in his mom's basement... Oh, and
commentators on MSNBC, The Daily Hoax, and The New York Lies...

Now you're a lawyer? *snerk- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nope, that would be your party, and not one of em' has gotten beyond
daydreaming about charges...

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

On Dec 31, 8:06*pm, Boater wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 31, 7:13 pm, Boater wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 31, 6:51 pm, Boater wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 31, 6:35 pm, Boater wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 31, 3:51 pm, Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
. ..
Indeed, Cheney has not been indicted and convicted, so he's no more a
criminal than OJ is a murderer. The two share the same moral compass.
I wonder if one has to be actually indicted or convicted to qualify for
a Presidential pardon, or can Bush issue a blanket pardon for anything
he and/or Cheney could possibly be charged with after they leave office.
Eisboch
Blanket, I believe. Gerry Ford gave Nixon one of those, didn't he?
I'd be happy if Bush gave Cheney one, because it would mean he was
guilty of criminal acts.
I doubt Bush can pardon himself.
He hasn't committed any crime that isn't some fantasy of some pimple
faced punk pulling his dick, blogging in his mom's basement... Oh, and
commentators on MSNBC, The Daily Hoax, and The New York Lies...
Now you're a lawyer? *snerk- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Nope, that would be your party, and not one of em' has gotten beyond
daydreaming about charges...
Scott, you are in no position to know whether Cheney committed crimes.
There have been many serious accusations about him, and commentary about
the reluctance to prosecute.
I think a pardon for Cheney is in order. I'd welcome it. It would be
prima facie evidence that he is a criminal.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Harry, the accusations are by political hacks. It's not like they
found 90,000 in his freezer or have him on tape selling a seat or
similar.. Al Frankin, and Ariana Huffington, and even Michael Moore's
accustions are about as sincere as yours...
Those are petty crimes, and I am not referring to Ms. Huffington, et al.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hummm, Jefferson caught on tape taking bribes is petty. Blago selling
power is petty? *And still you can't name anyone credible, just
dismiss the messenger...
Pfffttt, so, you really have no answers???

Compared to lying a country in a war, seeing 4000 Americans and tens of
thousands of Iraqis die?

Jefferson and Blago are petty criminals.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your "lying us into war" when every other leader in the free world was
given and trusted the exact same info, including Clinton, Pelosi,
Reid, et al.. is just another red herring, now give me a real answer
or admit your just spouting party lines...

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

"Boater" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Like most Americans, I just want the Bush Administration to be over -
officially.

So does Bush.

Eisboch

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

wrote in message
news:903925ec-d12e-40ac-aef3-

Your "lying us into war" when every other leader in the free world was
given and trusted the exact same info, including Clinton, Pelosi,
Reid, et al.. is just another red herring, now give me a real answer
or admit your just spouting party lines...

========================================

If this election cycle taught me anything it was the absolute BS and
intellectual dishonesty that exists in the world of politics. And it comes
from both sides.

Spin something enough and it becomes a fact. I've never in my life seen a
bunch of supposedly educated people display the ability to straight out lie,
while keeping a straight face, about what they are on record as saying a
year earlier. Or twist a story around, repeating it over and over, until
it becomes "factual".

George Bush "lied" us into the war. Right. BULL****!

Then you watch the pundits. It's as if a position paper is emailed to
everyone early in the morning to be memorized. Throughout the rest of the
day, week or whatever, depending on how much attention a particular issue is
getting, they all repeat, virtually word for word, the same talking points.
We even witnessed it here in this NG on a regular basis.

I've resigned myself to the realization that all politicians, with very few
exceptions, are BS artists.
I used to respect Lieberman because he took a stand that was unpopular with
his party. But, now I see he is back to sucking up in order to save his ass
and position of power. It's sickening. And it's on both sides.

That's why, as goofy as she sounded, Palin attracted so much interest.
She's real. She's not a polished bureaucrat. She's just a simple person
with a common sense perspective on the world. You can agree with her or
disagree, but at least you know what she thinks and it isn't going to change
with the wind. The spin misters ate her alive.

But, to me, what took the cake and I'll never forget was our next Secretary
of State's whopper of a story, repeated several times, claiming to have
flown into Bosnia "under fire" from ground troops. She didn't "miss-speak"
anything. She friggin' made the story up, repeated it over the course of
three days and then, when finally trapped, arrogantly just shrugged it off
as if being a phony, lying SOB wasn't an issue that she needed to concern
herself with explaining. Good grief! What kind of "leaders" are we
willing to accept in this country?

Eisboch

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

Good grief! *What kind of "leaders" are we
willing to accept in this country?

Eisboch


"Obama" and the Clinton administration....

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:41:18 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


That's why, as goofy as she sounded, Palin attracted so much interest.
She's real. She's not a polished bureaucrat. She's just a simple
person with a common sense perspective on the world. You can agree with
her or disagree, but at least you know what she thinks and it isn't
going to change with the wind. The spin misters ate her alive.

Yeah, but give her time. Not all politicians were born liars, I figure
maybe 1/2 ;-), but they all turn into liars. If Palin is planning on
running in 2012, right now, I figure her handlers are teaching her to lie
with the best of them.

It's a bad system we've created. It corrupts the best of them. I figure
if we take the money out of the system, we might stand a chance. I think
the biggest danger in this system is the incestuous relationship between
campaign finance and corporate welfare. Our politicians spend their
entire careers fund raising, and are beholding to the money, not us.

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

Eisboch wrote:


That's why, as goofy as she sounded, Palin attracted so much interest.
She's real. She's not a polished bureaucrat. She's just a simple
person with a common sense perspective on the world.


She wasn't intellectually curious, which disqualified her for high
office in my opinion. The woman didn't seem to know anything, and didn't
seem to want to learn. A simple person has no business in the White
House or a heartbeat away from it.

As much as I dislike Cheney, and I dislike him far more than I dislike
Bush, I never thought him intellectually lazy or not smart enough to be
POTUS if he had to take over. Well, actually, he did take over. :)

Palin is not smart enough to be POTUS and she never will be.

But she has great appeal to a certain segment of the rightwing, for sure.

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

On Dec 31, 9:42*pm, Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:

That's why, as goofy as she sounded, Palin attracted so much interest.
She's real. *She's not a polished bureaucrat. *She's just a simple
person with a common sense perspective on the world.

She wasn't intellectually curious, which disqualified her for high
office in my opinion. The woman didn't seem to know anything, and didn't
seem to want to learn. A simple person has no business in the White
House or a heartbeat away from it.

As much as I dislike Cheney, and I dislike him far more than I dislike
Bush, I never thought him intellectually lazy or not smart enough to be
POTUS if he had to take over. Well, actually, he did take over. *:)

Palin is not smart enough to be POTUS and she never will be.

But she has great appeal to a certain segment of the rightwing, for sure.

You are so predictable.. The story is always the same, the names just
change based on the audience... don't you ever have a real thought??

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

wrote in message
t...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:41:18 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


That's why, as goofy as she sounded, Palin attracted so much interest.
She's real. She's not a polished bureaucrat. She's just a simple
person with a common sense perspective on the world. You can agree with
her or disagree, but at least you know what she thinks and it isn't
going to change with the wind. The spin misters ate her alive.

Yeah, but give her time. Not all politicians were born liars, I figure
maybe 1/2 ;-), but they all turn into liars. If Palin is planning on
running in 2012, right now, I figure her handlers are teaching her to lie
with the best of them.

It's a bad system we've created. It corrupts the best of them. I figure
if we take the money out of the system, we might stand a chance. I think
the biggest danger in this system is the incestuous relationship between
campaign finance and corporate welfare. Our politicians spend their
entire careers fund raising, and are beholding to the money, not us.

Yeah, I agree. Our founding fathers intended political service to be short
interruptions of one's regular lives and vocations, not lifetime careers.

As for Palin, hopefully she will get over the unexpected rush of publicity
and regain her senses. In no way is she qualified to be POTUS anymore than
I am and the sooner she realizes it, the better off she will be. I am
afraid she's a bit of an opportunist and a publicity hound. But, she's
honest and that you can't take away from her.

Eisboch

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:


That's why, as goofy as she sounded, Palin attracted so much interest.
She's real. She's not a polished bureaucrat. She's just a simple person
with a common sense perspective on the world.


She wasn't intellectually curious, which disqualified her for high office
in my opinion. The woman didn't seem to know anything, and didn't seem to
want to learn. A simple person has no business in the White House or a
heartbeat away from it.

As much as I dislike Cheney, and I dislike him far more than I dislike
Bush, I never thought him intellectually lazy or not smart enough to be
POTUS if he had to take over. Well, actually, he did take over. :)

Palin is not smart enough to be POTUS and she never will be.

But she has great appeal to a certain segment of the rightwing, for sure.


Cheney was Secretary of Defense for Reagan, I think I recall. Or maybe it
was under Bush I.
Regardless, I seem to recall that he was held in high regard when he held
that position, even by those who didn't necessarily subscribe to the
Republican party's policies.

Eisboch

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

Boater wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 31, 6:35 pm, Boater wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 31, 3:51 pm, Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Indeed, Cheney has not been indicted and convicted, so he's no
more a
criminal than OJ is a murderer. The two share the same moral
compass.
I wonder if one has to be actually indicted or convicted to
qualify for
a Presidential pardon, or can Bush issue a blanket pardon for
anything
he and/or Cheney could possibly be charged with after they leave
office.
Eisboch
Blanket, I believe. Gerry Ford gave Nixon one of those, didn't he?
I'd be happy if Bush gave Cheney one, because it would mean he was
guilty of criminal acts.
I doubt Bush can pardon himself.
He hasn't committed any crime that isn't some fantasy of some pimple
faced punk pulling his dick, blogging in his mom's basement... Oh, and
commentators on MSNBC, The Daily Hoax, and The New York Lies...
Now you're a lawyer? snerk- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nope, that would be your party, and not one of em' has gotten beyond
daydreaming about charges...


Scott, you are in no position to know whether Cheney committed crimes.
There have been many serious accusations about him, and commentary about
the reluctance to prosecute.

I think a pardon for Cheney is in order. I'd welcome it. It would be
prima facie evidence that he is a criminal.

Just, you are in no position to know whether Cheney committed crimes,
but Harry is. Harry is wired with everyone in power.

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

On Dec 31 2008, 10:08*pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message

...





Eisboch wrote:

That's why, as goofy as she sounded, Palin attracted so much interest.
She's real. *She's not a polished bureaucrat. *She's just a simple person
with a common sense perspective on the world.

She wasn't intellectually curious, which disqualified her for high office
in my opinion. The woman didn't seem to know anything, and didn't seem to
want to learn. A simple person has no business in the White House or a
heartbeat away from it.

As much as I dislike Cheney, and I dislike him far more than I dislike
Bush, I never thought him intellectually lazy or not smart enough to be
POTUS if he had to take over. Well, actually, he did take over. *:)

Palin is not smart enough to be POTUS and she never will be.

But she has great appeal to a certain segment of the rightwing, for sure.

Cheney was Secretary of Defense for Reagan, I think I recall. *Or maybe it
was under Bush I.
Regardless, I seem to recall that he was held in high regard when he held
that position, even by those who didn't necessarily subscribe to the
Republican party's policies.

Eisboch- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Harry knows that, Eisboch! Harry knows them personally, and they asked
his advice on a range of issues. Just ask him!

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

Eisboch wrote:

"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:


That's why, as goofy as she sounded, Palin attracted so much
interest. She's real. She's not a polished bureaucrat. She's just a
simple person with a common sense perspective on the world.


She wasn't intellectually curious, which disqualified her for high
office in my opinion. The woman didn't seem to know anything, and
didn't seem to want to learn. A simple person has no business in the
White House or a heartbeat away from it.

As much as I dislike Cheney, and I dislike him far more than I dislike
Bush, I never thought him intellectually lazy or not smart enough to
be POTUS if he had to take over. Well, actually, he did take over. :)

Palin is not smart enough to be POTUS and she never will be.

But she has great appeal to a certain segment of the rightwing, for sure.


Cheney was Secretary of Defense for Reagan, I think I recall. Or maybe
it was under Bush I.
Regardless, I seem to recall that he was held in high regard when he
held that position, even by those who didn't necessarily subscribe to
the Republican party's policies.

Eisboch

Eis,
It was George the first, and you are correct about politics being
corrupt and corrupting those involved. The problem is Harry's "take no
prisoners" approach to political spin used to be the exception. Today,
we have too many people who use the exact same approach to politics and
"serving" our country. They would rather see our country go down the
crapper, than to have the opposition do something that was successful.

I am hoping the Republicans and Independents get behind our new
president, and try to work together to solve our problems.

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:41:18 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


wrote in message
news:903925ec-d12e-40ac-aef3-

Your "lying us into war" when every other leader in the free world was
given and trusted the exact same info, including Clinton, Pelosi,
Reid, et al.. is just another red herring, now give me a real answer
or admit your just spouting party lines...

========================================

If this election cycle taught me anything it was the absolute BS and
intellectual dishonesty that exists in the world of politics. And it comes
from both sides.

Spin something enough and it becomes a fact. I've never in my life seen a
bunch of supposedly educated people display the ability to straight out lie,
while keeping a straight face, about what they are on record as saying a
year earlier. Or twist a story around, repeating it over and over, until
it becomes "factual".

George Bush "lied" us into the war. Right. BULL****!

Then you watch the pundits. It's as if a position paper is emailed to
everyone early in the morning to be memorized. Throughout the rest of the
day, week or whatever, depending on how much attention a particular issue is
getting, they all repeat, virtually word for word, the same talking points.
We even witnessed it here in this NG on a regular basis.

I've resigned myself to the realization that all politicians, with very few
exceptions, are BS artists.
I used to respect Lieberman because he took a stand that was unpopular with
his party. But, now I see he is back to sucking up in order to save his ass
and position of power. It's sickening. And it's on both sides.

That's why, as goofy as she sounded, Palin attracted so much interest.
She's real. She's not a polished bureaucrat. She's just a simple person
with a common sense perspective on the world. You can agree with her or
disagree, but at least you know what she thinks and it isn't going to change
with the wind. The spin misters ate her alive.

But, to me, what took the cake and I'll never forget was our next Secretary
of State's whopper of a story, repeated several times, claiming to have
flown into Bosnia "under fire" from ground troops. She didn't "miss-speak"
anything. She friggin' made the story up, repeated it over the course of
three days and then, when finally trapped, arrogantly just shrugged it off
as if being a phony, lying SOB wasn't an issue that she needed to concern
herself with explaining. Good grief! What kind of "leaders" are we
willing to accept in this country?

Pretty much agree with all of this.
BTW, Jesse Ventura is another honest "politician."
I think, anyway.
Watch all the flip-flopping you're going to see - already happening -
when Burris shows up at the U.S. Senate on Tuesday.
What a F^%&&&& circus.

--Vic

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 12:54:10 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote:



Your "lying us into war" when every other leader in the free world was
given and trusted the exact same info, including Clinton, Pelosi,
Reid, et al.. is just another red herring, now give me a real answer
or admit your just spouting party lines...

That trap exists on both sides of the argument.....


The text of the Downing Street Memo reads: “It seemed clear that Bush
had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was
not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his
neighbours, and his capability for weapons of mass destruction was
less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan
for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the U.N. weapons
inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the
use of force.”

http://downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html#otherdocs

Key word, usually overlooked by the left is 'seemed'. Hell, I could say it
'seemed' like Saddam had a warehouse full of nuclear weapons. Would my
statement be any less accurate?

I'll repeat: "Your "lying us into war" when every other leader in the free
world was given and trusted the exact same info, including Clinton, Pelosi,
Reid, et al.. is just another red herring, now give me a real answer
or admit your just spouting party lines..."
--
** Good Day! **

John H

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...

That trap exists on both sides of the argument.....


The text of the Downing Street Memo reads: "It seemed clear that Bush
had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was
not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his
neighbours, and his capability for weapons of mass destruction was
less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan
for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the U.N. weapons
inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the
use of force."

http://downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html#otherdocs



That's accurate. And for a time Saddam (under pressure) *did* agree to
allow the inspectors back in.
Then, he refused to allow inspections of certain facilities, and eventually
kicked them out again.

He was buying time.

This is the argument I subscribe to regarding the Iraq war. It has nothing
to do with 9/11. It has everything to do with the fact that Saddam was
thumbing his nose at the UN and the world regarding compliance with the
resolutions agreed to after the first Gulf War. For some reason, this is
forgotten or not discussed anymore.

Eisboch

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

On Jan 1, 5:31*pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message

...



That trap exists on both sides of the argument.....

The text of the Downing Street Memo reads: "It seemed clear that Bush
had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was
not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his
neighbours, and his capability for weapons of mass destruction was
less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan
for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the U.N. weapons
inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the
use of force."

http://downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html#otherdocs

That's accurate. *And for a time Saddam *(under pressure) **did* agree to
allow the inspectors back in.
Then, he refused to allow inspections of certain facilities, and eventually
kicked them out again.

He was buying time.

This is the argument I subscribe to regarding the Iraq war. *It has nothing
to do with 9/11. *It has everything to do with the fact that Saddam was
thumbing his nose at the UN and the world regarding compliance with the
resolutions agreed to after the first Gulf War. * *For some reason, this is
forgotten or not discussed anymore.

Eisboch

It doesn't fit into the fantasy and lies perpetrated on the public by
the left and the MSM. The biggest issue I have is seemingly decent
people who are willing to go along with the daily talking points,
knowing full well it is bull****.

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 17:31:03 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
.. .

That trap exists on both sides of the argument.....


The text of the Downing Street Memo reads: "It seemed clear that Bush
had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was
not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his
neighbours, and his capability for weapons of mass destruction was
less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan
for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the U.N. weapons
inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the
use of force."

http://downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html#otherdocs



That's accurate. And for a time Saddam (under pressure) *did* agree to
allow the inspectors back in.
Then, he refused to allow inspections of certain facilities, and eventually
kicked them out again.

He was buying time.

This is the argument I subscribe to regarding the Iraq war. It has nothing
to do with 9/11. It has everything to do with the fact that Saddam was
thumbing his nose at the UN and the world regarding compliance with the
resolutions agreed to after the first Gulf War. For some reason, this is
forgotten or not discussed anymore.

Eisboch

Liberals like to 'tie' it to 9/11 so they can 'shoot down' that idea and
pretend, therefore, that no rationale for attacking Saddam existed. Cute,
but transparent.

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 18:18:14 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 17:31:03 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

This is the argument I subscribe to regarding the Iraq war. It has nothing
to do with 9/11. It has everything to do with the fact that Saddam was
thumbing his nose at the UN and the world regarding compliance with the
resolutions agreed to after the first Gulf War. For some reason, this is
forgotten or not discussed anymore.

Our middle east policy is all about Israel. We will invade Iran to
keep Israel from doing it too.
None of them are really a threat to the US

Now, no. With a newly developed nuclear weapon, yes.

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

On Jan 1, 8:12*pm, Gene Kearns
wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 14:46:21 -0800 (PST),
penned the following well considered
thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

It doesn't fit into the fantasy and lies perpetrated on the public by
the left and the MSM. The biggest issue I have is seemingly decent
people who are willing to go along with the daily talking points,
knowing full well it is bull****.

While we are talking fantasy and lies...... let's examine where these
WMDs came from.....


[Snipped most of this post, not dismissing any of it though]

I don't think anybody denies any of those facts and that the US used
to be friendly with Saddam.. So where are the fantasy and lies you
were going to address? I think we are on different subjects here now..

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 20:45:28 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 18:29:17 -0500, John H
wrote:


Our middle east policy is all about Israel. We will invade Iran to
keep Israel from doing it too.
None of them are really a threat to the US

Now, no. With a newly developed nuclear weapon, yes.

Iran won't shoot a nuke at us for the same reason the soviets never
shot a nuke at us.
If you are talking about a loose nuke getting to terrorists, Pakistan
is a lot more likely source ... or one the soviets "lost" and don't
want to admit.
Our adventures in Afghanistan are more likely to destabilize Pakistan
than they are to actually do anything to stop terrorism.
We should get our troops out of the whole area and bomb them with
food, books and the knowledge to create a functioning society.

If certainty exists that any fears about Iran and nuclear weapons are
groundless, then obviously I am wrong.

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...

Nobody believes that Saddam was a nice guy. Everybody is aware of his
shenanigans with the UN inspectors. However, Saddam had nothing to do
with 911. UN weapons inspectors, during the period from 10/02 until
03/03, had done enough inspections to concluded that Saddam's WMD
projects had been dead since about 1991. (Why does everybody ignore
that???) The Bush administration knew it, fabricated "intelligence,"
and attacked Iraq because that is what they were going to do.....
period. They just wanted an "excuse."



A person responsible for a vast amount of confusion and conflicting
influence was Hans Blix, the UN appointed, Swedish chief weapons inspector.
If you recall, he was doing the most complaining about restrictions being
imposed upon his teams by Saddam in the period leading up to the decision to
invade Iraq. He repeatedly suggested WMDs may exist but he was unable to
locate them or get evidence of their existence due to Saddam's interference.
Later, he completely changed his tune and became critical of the war
decision, claiming there were no WMDs. Strange character in the overall
scheme of things.
Another one who was "for" the WMD story before he was against it, and he
only became against it *after* the decision to go to war and witnessing the
resultant complications, like so many others.

Eisboch

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 20:45:28 -0500, wrote:

We should get our troops out of the whole area and bomb them with
food, books and the knowledge to create a functioning society.

Nice thought but Pakistan has all that and more and they are still a
hot bed of terrorist activity.

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 18:27:24 -0500, John H
wrote:

This is the argument I subscribe to regarding the Iraq war. It has nothing
to do with 9/11. It has everything to do with the fact that Saddam was
thumbing his nose at the UN and the world regarding compliance with the
resolutions agreed to after the first Gulf War. For some reason, this is
forgotten or not discussed anymore.

Interestingly enough, Saddam claimed in his post capture
interrogations that he needed to maintain the ruse about possessing
WMDs to keep Iran from invading. It has a certain ring of truth
about it.

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 00:05:50 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 21:11:39 -0500, John H
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 20:45:28 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 18:29:17 -0500, John H
wrote:


Our middle east policy is all about Israel. We will invade Iran to
keep Israel from doing it too.
None of them are really a threat to the US

Now, no. With a newly developed nuclear weapon, yes.

Iran won't shoot a nuke at us for the same reason the soviets never
shot a nuke at us.
If you are talking about a loose nuke getting to terrorists, Pakistan
is a lot more likely source ... or one the soviets "lost" and don't
want to admit.
Our adventures in Afghanistan are more likely to destabilize Pakistan
than they are to actually do anything to stop terrorism.
We should get our troops out of the whole area and bomb them with
food, books and the knowledge to create a functioning society.

If certainty exists that any fears about Iran and nuclear weapons are
groundless, then obviously I am wrong.

It may be worth having some fear about a weapon they might develop
some day but Pakistan has them now and they are far from having a
stable government..

Well, obviously we should be worried about them also. Pakistan doesn't go
around demanding the deaths of us and Israel.

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Don White wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 19:23:38 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Frogwatch wrote:
On Dec 30, 6:38 pm, Boater wrote:
...name the new kid

*Maverick* Palin

*JoeSixPack* Palin

What a missed opportunity.
MEANWHILE, the Dems think Caroline "You Know" Kennedy would make a
wonderful senator because her last name is Kennedy. "You Know" has
never actually held a paying job and has no political experience but
Dems think she is well qualified. They also think a woman who was
mayor of a town and is Governor of a state and ran a business is not
qualified. What does this say about the judgement of Dems?
Obviously, Dems no longer believe in the power of common people as
they can only get excited about the divine rights of royalty and the
rich to run things.

Well, Caroline Kennedy isn't the star her daddy was, but I have no
doubts she is smarter than Mrs. Palin, who most certainly is not
qualified for high political office.
She's a great talker!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAgI4AS1NVg

You know, uhm, uhm, you know, maybe I'll, you know uhm..

What a ditz.
--
** Good Day! **

John H

I'm sure her handlers can hire someone to help her with that bad habit.
The question is...can she be effective in politics. I'd rather vote
for her than some sleazy crook

Do you know anything about her grandfather? He was a sleazy crook.



Oh, well, gee, that does it.

Everone knows Joe Kennedy Sr. made his money as a rum runner in the
20's, running alcohol from Canada to the USA.

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Don White wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 19:23:38 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Frogwatch wrote:
On Dec 30, 6:38 pm, Boater wrote:
...name the new kid

*Maverick* Palin

*JoeSixPack* Palin

What a missed opportunity.
MEANWHILE, the Dems think Caroline "You Know" Kennedy would make a
wonderful senator because her last name is Kennedy. "You Know" has
never actually held a paying job and has no political experience but
Dems think she is well qualified. They also think a woman who was
mayor of a town and is Governor of a state and ran a business is not
qualified. What does this say about the judgement of Dems?
Obviously, Dems no longer believe in the power of common people as
they can only get excited about the divine rights of royalty and the
rich to run things.

Well, Caroline Kennedy isn't the star her daddy was, but I have no
doubts she is smarter than Mrs. Palin, who most certainly is not
qualified for high political office.
She's a great talker!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAgI4AS1NVg

You know, uhm, uhm, you know, maybe I'll, you know uhm..

What a ditz.
--
** Good Day! **

John H

I'm sure her handlers can hire someone to help her with that bad habit.
The question is...can she be effective in politics. I'd rather vote
for her than some sleazy crook

Do you know anything about her grandfather? He was a sleazy crook.



Oh, well, gee, that does it.

Everone knows Joe Kennedy Sr. made his money as a rum runner in the
20's, running alcohol from Canada to the USA.


What? How awful! I wonder if he made as much money as the corporate
crooks who have been looting Wall Street the last few years? :)

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

On Jan 2, 6:53*am, Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Don White wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 19:23:38 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Frogwatch wrote:
On Dec 30, 6:38 pm, Boater wrote:
...name the new kid

*Maverick* *Palin

*JoeSixPack* *Palin

What a missed opportunity.
MEANWHILE, the Dems think Caroline "You Know" Kennedy would make a
wonderful senator because her last name is Kennedy. *"You Know" has
never actually held a paying job and has no political experience but
Dems think she is well qualified. *They also think a woman who was
mayor of a town and is Governor of a state and ran a business is not
qualified. *What does this say about the judgement of Dems?
Obviously, Dems no longer believe in the power of common people as
they can only get excited about the divine rights of royalty and the
rich to run things.

Well, Caroline Kennedy isn't the star her daddy was, but I have no
doubts she is smarter than Mrs. Palin, who most certainly is not
qualified for high political office.
She's a great talker!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAgI4AS1NVg

You know, uhm, uhm, you know, maybe I'll, you know uhm..

What a ditz.
--
** Good Day! **

* *John H

I'm sure her handlers can hire someone to help her with that bad habit.
The question is...can she be effective in politics. I'd rather vote
for her than some sleazy crook

Do you know anything about her grandfather? He was a sleazy crook.

Oh, well, gee, that does it.

Everone knows Joe Kennedy Sr. made his money as a rum runner in the
20's, running alcohol from Canada to the USA.

What? How awful! I wonder if he made as much money as the corporate
crooks who have been looting Wall Street the last few years? * :)

Idividually? or collectivly?

Probably more, that is if you adjust for inflation from the 20's until
the 90's or so.

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

Tim wrote:
On Jan 2, 6:53 am, Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Don White wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 19:23:38 -0500, Boater
wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
On Dec 30, 6:38 pm, Boater wrote:
...name the new kid
*Maverick* Palin
*JoeSixPack* Palin
What a missed opportunity.
MEANWHILE, the Dems think Caroline "You Know" Kennedy would make a
wonderful senator because her last name is Kennedy. "You Know" has
never actually held a paying job and has no political experience but
Dems think she is well qualified. They also think a woman who was
mayor of a town and is Governor of a state and ran a business is not
qualified. What does this say about the judgement of Dems?
Obviously, Dems no longer believe in the power of common people as
they can only get excited about the divine rights of royalty and the
rich to run things.
Well, Caroline Kennedy isn't the star her daddy was, but I have no
doubts she is smarter than Mrs. Palin, who most certainly is not
qualified for high political office.
She's a great talker!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAgI4AS1NVg
You know, uhm, uhm, you know, maybe I'll, you know uhm..
What a ditz.
--
** Good Day! **
John H
I'm sure her handlers can hire someone to help her with that bad habit.
The question is...can she be effective in politics. I'd rather vote
for her than some sleazy crook
Do you know anything about her grandfather? He was a sleazy crook.
Oh, well, gee, that does it.
Everone knows Joe Kennedy Sr. made his money as a rum runner in the
20's, running alcohol from Canada to the USA.
What? How awful! I wonder if he made as much money as the corporate
crooks who have been looting Wall Street the last few years? :)

Idividually? or collectivly?

Probably more, that is if you adjust for inflation from the 20's until
the 90's or so.


Well, good. At least it was honest, hard work, and provided something
useful.

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

On Jan 2, 7:14*am, Boater wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Jan 2, 6:53 am, Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Don White wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
news:psgll4pcpvbqj93a6202r18k9ceaep4s6t@4ax. com...
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 19:23:38 -0500, Boater
wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
On Dec 30, 6:38 pm, Boater wrote:
...name the new kid
*Maverick* *Palin
*JoeSixPack* *Palin
What a missed opportunity.
MEANWHILE, the Dems think Caroline "You Know" Kennedy would make a
wonderful senator because her last name is Kennedy. *"You Know" has
never actually held a paying job and has no political experience but
Dems think she is well qualified. *They also think a woman who was
mayor of a town and is Governor of a state and ran a business is not
qualified. *What does this say about the judgement of Dems?
Obviously, Dems no longer believe in the power of common people as
they can only get excited about the divine rights of royalty and the
rich to run things.
Well, Caroline Kennedy isn't the star her daddy was, but I have no
doubts she is smarter than Mrs. Palin, who most certainly is not
qualified for high political office.
She's a great talker!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAgI4AS1NVg
You know, uhm, uhm, you know, maybe I'll, you know uhm..
What a ditz.
--
** Good Day! **
* *John H
I'm sure her handlers can hire someone to help her with that bad habit.
The question is...can she be effective in politics. I'd rather vote
for her than some sleazy crook
Do you know anything about her grandfather? He was a sleazy crook.
Oh, well, gee, that does it.
Everone knows Joe Kennedy Sr. made his money as a rum runner in the
20's, running alcohol from Canada to the USA.
What? How awful! I wonder if he made as much money as the corporate
crooks who have been looting Wall Street the last few years? * :)

Idividually? or collectivly?

Probably more, that is if you adjust for inflation from the 20's until
the 90's or so.

Well, good. At least it was honest, hard work, and provided something
useful.

Yes, the crooks on wall street were honest and hard working
professional thieves too!

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 00:14:06 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 20:45:28 -0500, wrote:

We should get our troops out of the whole area and bomb them with
food, books and the knowledge to create a functioning society.

Nice thought but Pakistan has all that and more and they are still a
hot bed of terrorist activity.

"Terrorist", such a clever little word to describe anyone that doesn't
agree with you. I think it describes the USA to the rest of the world at
this point. Means less and less every day. I would say we have spread more
fear than the Romans or Genghis Khan ever did.

It's loosing it's fear factor. What will we think of next. Maybe kill them
with kindness.

Educate the masses. Too late for that here. I have no doubt in my mind.

We should teach them to be friendly little boaters first.

May we all make new friends this year. Become a functioning Group, then
work on society. Happy new year to all.

Why didn't the Palin family...
 

"Boater" wrote in message
...
Tim wrote:
On Jan 2, 6:53 am, Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Don White wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 19:23:38 -0500, Boater
wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
On Dec 30, 6:38 pm, Boater wrote:
...name the new kid
*Maverick* Palin
*JoeSixPack* Palin
What a missed opportunity.
MEANWHILE, the Dems think Caroline "You Know" Kennedy would make
a
wonderful senator because her last name is Kennedy. "You Know"
has
never actually held a paying job and has no political experience
but
Dems think she is well qualified. They also think a woman who
was
mayor of a town and is Governor of a state and ran a business is
not
qualified. What does this say about the judgement of Dems?
Obviously, Dems no longer believe in the power of common people
as
they can only get excited about the divine rights of royalty and
the
rich to run things.
Well, Caroline Kennedy isn't the star her daddy was, but I have no
doubts she is smarter than Mrs. Palin, who most certainly is not
qualified for high political office.
She's a great talker!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAgI4AS1NVg
You know, uhm, uhm, you know, maybe I'll, you know uhm..
What a ditz.
--
** Good Day! **
John H
I'm sure her handlers can hire someone to help her with that bad
habit.
The question is...can she be effective in politics. I'd rather vote
for her than some sleazy crook
Do you know anything about her grandfather? He was a sleazy crook.
Oh, well, gee, that does it.
Everone knows Joe Kennedy Sr. made his money as a rum runner in the
20's, running alcohol from Canada to the USA.
What? How awful! I wonder if he made as much money as the corporate
crooks who have been looting Wall Street the last few years? :)

Idividually? or collectivly?

Probably more, that is if you adjust for inflation from the 20's until
the 90's or so.


Well, good. At least it was honest, hard work, and provided something
useful.

Which part was honest work? It made a huge part of his fortune, as a stock
speculator and manipulator. He forecast the '28 crash and exited with lots
of money before the crash. Was a smart crook. Too bad Teddy did not get
any brains.