|
Obama and Hitler
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:30:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "jps" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:49:44 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:01:22 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:08:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:b561e5h8vdu25gp5p170bvvdh61i7sn9p4@4ax. com... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:28:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:fumud51a1t69p69popunial2ellms0ovh9@4a x.com... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:38:18 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:iqptd5hu679nglvuhk4dvbjsciar6tkrc8@ 4ax.com... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21bca ... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? Possibly, unless the local gov't has/gets some credibility and takes action. Who used the word "crusade" about fighting over there? I don't think it was Obama. I've no idea who said 'crusade'. This is the first I've seen it used in this context. George W. Bush did. 'Bama said this was a war of necessity. I would think that means we should win it, not cut and run like we did in Vietnam. If we do that, then you liberals will say, "We lost". And, please show how or when we've "cut and run" if you're able. Keep trying the attack "you liberals" if you think that'll give your argument merit. We cut and ran from Vietnam. What would you have called it? I use the term 'you liberals', because you liberals are so quick to say the military 'lost' the Vietnam war. Losing. The US lost the war. If you don't understand that simple statement of fact, there's not much else I can add. No one that I know says "the military" lost the war in Vietnam. The war in Vietnam wasn't winnable, just like in Afghanistan. I guess you've really never met Harry, so you 'could' say you don't know him. He's said it multiple times, and you've never mentioned a differing opinion. The United States did lose the war in Vietnam. Bull****. The US cut and run. ?? I think you need to make your complaint to Richard M. Nixon for that one. We lost. Nixon ended the war, and we would have lost even more of our soldiers if we would have stayed... for no reason whatsoever. What's the definition of losing? Do you fight 'til the last man, 'til the last bomb, plane, ship? What's the difference between cutting and running and losing? Maybe we just haven't parsed the terms to their essence? We should never have been there in the first place, just like Iraq. We had a good reason to be in Iraq. ?? Really? What was the reason? WMDs? Saddam was training jihadists? He had a Winnebago, some balsa wood drones and a lot of oil. Plus, he slandered our CIC's daddy. We should have attacked Afghanistan with schools and hospitals. We'd have won that war already. Agreed, and we should have built the schools and hospitals as soon as the Russians left. We funded the bin laden crowd to get the Russians to leave. So, your statement makes no sense. That would be par for his course. I was thinking A Hole in one. Sorry, bad pun. Maybe the A-hole but never the one. His index is 23, which means on his best day he'd shoot 1.5 strokes over par each hole. That means his game is nearly as excruciating to him as he is to us. That's beyond duffer. Doofus perhaps. He'd be a good twosome with Disney's Goofy. Would probably get along very well with Walt as well. |
Obama and Hitler
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:13:56 -0700, jps wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:30:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "jps" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:49:44 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message m... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:01:22 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:08:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:b561e5h8vdu25gp5p170bvvdh61i7sn9p4@4ax .com... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:28:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:fumud51a1t69p69popunial2ellms0ovh9@4 ax.com... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:38:18 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:iqptd5hu679nglvuhk4dvbjsciar6tkrc8 @4ax.com... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21bc ... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? Possibly, unless the local gov't has/gets some credibility and takes action. Who used the word "crusade" about fighting over there? I don't think it was Obama. I've no idea who said 'crusade'. This is the first I've seen it used in this context. George W. Bush did. 'Bama said this was a war of necessity. I would think that means we should win it, not cut and run like we did in Vietnam. If we do that, then you liberals will say, "We lost". And, please show how or when we've "cut and run" if you're able. Keep trying the attack "you liberals" if you think that'll give your argument merit. We cut and ran from Vietnam. What would you have called it? I use the term 'you liberals', because you liberals are so quick to say the military 'lost' the Vietnam war. Losing. The US lost the war. If you don't understand that simple statement of fact, there's not much else I can add. No one that I know says "the military" lost the war in Vietnam. The war in Vietnam wasn't winnable, just like in Afghanistan. I guess you've really never met Harry, so you 'could' say you don't know him. He's said it multiple times, and you've never mentioned a differing opinion. The United States did lose the war in Vietnam. Bull****. The US cut and run. ?? I think you need to make your complaint to Richard M. Nixon for that one. We lost. Nixon ended the war, and we would have lost even more of our soldiers if we would have stayed... for no reason whatsoever. What's the definition of losing? Do you fight 'til the last man, 'til the last bomb, plane, ship? What's the difference between cutting and running and losing? Maybe we just haven't parsed the terms to their essence? We should never have been there in the first place, just like Iraq. We had a good reason to be in Iraq. ?? Really? What was the reason? WMDs? Saddam was training jihadists? He had a Winnebago, some balsa wood drones and a lot of oil. Plus, he slandered our CIC's daddy. We should have attacked Afghanistan with schools and hospitals. We'd have won that war already. Agreed, and we should have built the schools and hospitals as soon as the Russians left. We funded the bin laden crowd to get the Russians to leave. So, your statement makes no sense. That would be par for his course. I was thinking A Hole in one. Sorry, bad pun. Maybe the A-hole but never the one. His index is 23, which means on his best day he'd shoot 1.5 strokes over par each hole. That means his game is nearly as excruciating to him as he is to us. That's beyond duffer. Doofus perhaps. He'd be a good twosome with Disney's Goofy. Would probably get along very well with Walt as well. Index is now 18.7. |
Obama and Hitler
"John H." wrote in message
... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:45:00 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:06:59 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message m... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:26:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:tumud55h87bqn52c5bhto92ctfn6jq8rml@4ax. com... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:39:21 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:m0dud5tu1gsfdtj9417fnsutflg2l2pgro@4a x.com... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21bcai ... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in charge. Didn't we change our minds about Vietnam? Does changing your mind mean you've 'lost'? So, what you're saying is that if one changes one mind once, and it doesn't turn out the way you want, it's a bad thing to change your mind in the future? Where did you see me say that? This was my last post: "Didn't we change our minds about Vietnam? Does changing your mind mean you've 'lost'?" You implied that it was OK for the President to change his mind, meaning, I suppose, that the Afghanistan war is no longer one of necessity. OK, so if we now cut and run, will we have lost? If you want to change the subject and run, that's OK. You backed yourself into a corner. My question, from the last post, still stands. Read my response to the previous post and get back to me when you understand it. It's understood. Now answer the question. Your question implies that cutting and running is what happens when one decides that Afghanistan war is no longer a war of necessity, thus your question is mu. Well, what would *you* call it when the President 'changes his mind' and pulls out of Afghanistan? Don't know. Obama hasn't made that decision yet as far as I know. If he did make that decision, I would like to know the rationale, but I would likely support the decision. Have we "cut and run" in Iraq? How long should we stay there? That certainly wasn't a war of necessity even from the beginning. Iraq is not the subject of this discussion. It sure is... Bush screwed it up, beyond going in in the first place. Someone's got to end it. Unless you think we should stay forever. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Obama and Hitler
"jps" wrote in message
... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:30:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "jps" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:49:44 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message m... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:01:22 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:08:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:b561e5h8vdu25gp5p170bvvdh61i7sn9p4@4ax .com... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:28:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:fumud51a1t69p69popunial2ellms0ovh9@4 ax.com... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:38:18 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:iqptd5hu679nglvuhk4dvbjsciar6tkrc8 @4ax.com... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21bc ... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? Possibly, unless the local gov't has/gets some credibility and takes action. Who used the word "crusade" about fighting over there? I don't think it was Obama. I've no idea who said 'crusade'. This is the first I've seen it used in this context. George W. Bush did. 'Bama said this was a war of necessity. I would think that means we should win it, not cut and run like we did in Vietnam. If we do that, then you liberals will say, "We lost". And, please show how or when we've "cut and run" if you're able. Keep trying the attack "you liberals" if you think that'll give your argument merit. We cut and ran from Vietnam. What would you have called it? I use the term 'you liberals', because you liberals are so quick to say the military 'lost' the Vietnam war. Losing. The US lost the war. If you don't understand that simple statement of fact, there's not much else I can add. No one that I know says "the military" lost the war in Vietnam. The war in Vietnam wasn't winnable, just like in Afghanistan. I guess you've really never met Harry, so you 'could' say you don't know him. He's said it multiple times, and you've never mentioned a differing opinion. The United States did lose the war in Vietnam. Bull****. The US cut and run. ?? I think you need to make your complaint to Richard M. Nixon for that one. We lost. Nixon ended the war, and we would have lost even more of our soldiers if we would have stayed... for no reason whatsoever. What's the definition of losing? Do you fight 'til the last man, 'til the last bomb, plane, ship? What's the difference between cutting and running and losing? Maybe we just haven't parsed the terms to their essence? We should never have been there in the first place, just like Iraq. We had a good reason to be in Iraq. ?? Really? What was the reason? WMDs? Saddam was training jihadists? He had a Winnebago, some balsa wood drones and a lot of oil. Plus, he slandered our CIC's daddy. We should have attacked Afghanistan with schools and hospitals. We'd have won that war already. Agreed, and we should have built the schools and hospitals as soon as the Russians left. We funded the bin laden crowd to get the Russians to leave. So, your statement makes no sense. That would be par for his course. I was thinking A Hole in one. Sorry, bad pun. Maybe the A-hole but never the one. His index is 23, which means on his best day he'd shoot 1.5 strokes over par each hole. That means his game is nearly as excruciating to him as he is to us. That's beyond duffer. Doofus perhaps. He'd be a good twosome with Disney's Goofy. Would probably get along very well with Walt as well. I don't know much about golf, unless you're talking minature golf. lol -- Nom=de=Plume |
Obama and Hitler
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:23:27 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:45:00 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:06:59 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message om... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:26:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:tumud55h87bqn52c5bhto92ctfn6jq8rml@4ax .com... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:39:21 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:m0dud5tu1gsfdtj9417fnsutflg2l2pgro@4 ax.com... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21bca ... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in charge. Didn't we change our minds about Vietnam? Does changing your mind mean you've 'lost'? So, what you're saying is that if one changes one mind once, and it doesn't turn out the way you want, it's a bad thing to change your mind in the future? Where did you see me say that? This was my last post: "Didn't we change our minds about Vietnam? Does changing your mind mean you've 'lost'?" You implied that it was OK for the President to change his mind, meaning, I suppose, that the Afghanistan war is no longer one of necessity. OK, so if we now cut and run, will we have lost? If you want to change the subject and run, that's OK. You backed yourself into a corner. My question, from the last post, still stands. Read my response to the previous post and get back to me when you understand it. It's understood. Now answer the question. Your question implies that cutting and running is what happens when one decides that Afghanistan war is no longer a war of necessity, thus your question is mu. Well, what would *you* call it when the President 'changes his mind' and pulls out of Afghanistan? Don't know. Obama hasn't made that decision yet as far as I know. If he did make that decision, I would like to know the rationale, but I would likely support the decision. Have we "cut and run" in Iraq? How long should we stay there? That certainly wasn't a war of necessity even from the beginning. Iraq is not the subject of this discussion. It sure is... Bush screwed it up, beyond going in in the first place. Someone's got to end it. Unless you think we should stay forever. lol lol |
Obama and Hitler
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:24:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "jps" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:30:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:49:44 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message om... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:01:22 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:08:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:b561e5h8vdu25gp5p170bvvdh61i7sn9p4@4a x.com... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:28:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:fumud51a1t69p69popunial2ellms0ovh9@ 4ax.com... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:38:18 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:iqptd5hu679nglvuhk4dvbjsciar6tkrc ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21b ... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? Possibly, unless the local gov't has/gets some credibility and takes action. Who used the word "crusade" about fighting over there? I don't think it was Obama. I've no idea who said 'crusade'. This is the first I've seen it used in this context. George W. Bush did. 'Bama said this was a war of necessity. I would think that means we should win it, not cut and run like we did in Vietnam. If we do that, then you liberals will say, "We lost". And, please show how or when we've "cut and run" if you're able. Keep trying the attack "you liberals" if you think that'll give your argument merit. We cut and ran from Vietnam. What would you have called it? I use the term 'you liberals', because you liberals are so quick to say the military 'lost' the Vietnam war. Losing. The US lost the war. If you don't understand that simple statement of fact, there's not much else I can add. No one that I know says "the military" lost the war in Vietnam. The war in Vietnam wasn't winnable, just like in Afghanistan. I guess you've really never met Harry, so you 'could' say you don't know him. He's said it multiple times, and you've never mentioned a differing opinion. The United States did lose the war in Vietnam. Bull****. The US cut and run. ?? I think you need to make your complaint to Richard M. Nixon for that one. We lost. Nixon ended the war, and we would have lost even more of our soldiers if we would have stayed... for no reason whatsoever. What's the definition of losing? Do you fight 'til the last man, 'til the last bomb, plane, ship? What's the difference between cutting and running and losing? Maybe we just haven't parsed the terms to their essence? We should never have been there in the first place, just like Iraq. We had a good reason to be in Iraq. ?? Really? What was the reason? WMDs? Saddam was training jihadists? He had a Winnebago, some balsa wood drones and a lot of oil. Plus, he slandered our CIC's daddy. We should have attacked Afghanistan with schools and hospitals. We'd have won that war already. Agreed, and we should have built the schools and hospitals as soon as the Russians left. We funded the bin laden crowd to get the Russians to leave. So, your statement makes no sense. That would be par for his course. I was thinking A Hole in one. Sorry, bad pun. Maybe the A-hole but never the one. His index is 23, which means on his best day he'd shoot 1.5 strokes over par each hole. That means his game is nearly as excruciating to him as he is to us. That's beyond duffer. Doofus perhaps. He'd be a good twosome with Disney's Goofy. Would probably get along very well with Walt as well. I don't know much about golf, unless you're talking minature golf. lol All you need to know is that it likely frustrates the **** out of Herring. At least you know he's getting his. |
Obama and Hitler
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21bcaib@4ax .com... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in charge. -- Nom=de=Plume There is no problem with his changing his mind. Unless it is because a CNN poll says he should change his stance. We did not hire him to be an arbitrator of popularity. He needs to learn the "Buck Stops Here" part of the Presidency. I agree. What makes you think he's being an arbiter of popularity? -- Nom=de=Plume He is being like Clinton. Following the polls. CNN, etc poll says people prefer this, then O seems to follow along. Clinton should have made the hard decisions instead of the popular decisions and he would have gone in to the books as one of the great Presidents. |
Obama and Hitler
"jps" wrote in message
... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:24:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "jps" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:30:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "jps" wrote in message m... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:49:44 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:1ai1e5phkh2kracoqs1nk0oi9v46n3j6lo@4ax. com... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:01:22 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:08:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:b561e5h8vdu25gp5p170bvvdh61i7sn9p4@4 ax.com... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:28:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:fumud51a1t69p69popunial2ellms0ovh9 @4ax.com... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:38:18 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:iqptd5hu679nglvuhk4dvbjsciar6tkr ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21 ... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? Possibly, unless the local gov't has/gets some credibility and takes action. Who used the word "crusade" about fighting over there? I don't think it was Obama. I've no idea who said 'crusade'. This is the first I've seen it used in this context. George W. Bush did. 'Bama said this was a war of necessity. I would think that means we should win it, not cut and run like we did in Vietnam. If we do that, then you liberals will say, "We lost". And, please show how or when we've "cut and run" if you're able. Keep trying the attack "you liberals" if you think that'll give your argument merit. We cut and ran from Vietnam. What would you have called it? I use the term 'you liberals', because you liberals are so quick to say the military 'lost' the Vietnam war. Losing. The US lost the war. If you don't understand that simple statement of fact, there's not much else I can add. No one that I know says "the military" lost the war in Vietnam. The war in Vietnam wasn't winnable, just like in Afghanistan. I guess you've really never met Harry, so you 'could' say you don't know him. He's said it multiple times, and you've never mentioned a differing opinion. The United States did lose the war in Vietnam. Bull****. The US cut and run. ?? I think you need to make your complaint to Richard M. Nixon for that one. We lost. Nixon ended the war, and we would have lost even more of our soldiers if we would have stayed... for no reason whatsoever. What's the definition of losing? Do you fight 'til the last man, 'til the last bomb, plane, ship? What's the difference between cutting and running and losing? Maybe we just haven't parsed the terms to their essence? We should never have been there in the first place, just like Iraq. We had a good reason to be in Iraq. ?? Really? What was the reason? WMDs? Saddam was training jihadists? He had a Winnebago, some balsa wood drones and a lot of oil. Plus, he slandered our CIC's daddy. We should have attacked Afghanistan with schools and hospitals. We'd have won that war already. Agreed, and we should have built the schools and hospitals as soon as the Russians left. We funded the bin laden crowd to get the Russians to leave. So, your statement makes no sense. That would be par for his course. I was thinking A Hole in one. Sorry, bad pun. Maybe the A-hole but never the one. His index is 23, which means on his best day he'd shoot 1.5 strokes over par each hole. That means his game is nearly as excruciating to him as he is to us. That's beyond duffer. Doofus perhaps. He'd be a good twosome with Disney's Goofy. Would probably get along very well with Walt as well. I don't know much about golf, unless you're talking minature golf. lol All you need to know is that it likely frustrates the **** out of Herring. At least you know he's getting his. He seems to be loling about now... -- Nom=de=Plume |
Obama and Hitler
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21bcaib@4a x.com... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in charge. -- Nom=de=Plume There is no problem with his changing his mind. Unless it is because a CNN poll says he should change his stance. We did not hire him to be an arbitrator of popularity. He needs to learn the "Buck Stops Here" part of the Presidency. I agree. What makes you think he's being an arbiter of popularity? -- Nom=de=Plume He is being like Clinton. Following the polls. CNN, etc poll says people prefer this, then O seems to follow along. Clinton should have made the hard decisions instead of the popular decisions and he would have gone in to the books as one of the great Presidents. And, you know this because? Which polls do you think he's following? Perhaps you're talking about the "public option" that 70ish % of the population supports? Yup, he's following the polls! Which hard decisions didn't Clinton make? Ummm... let's see.. Bosnia, Somalia, gay in the military, a balanced budget, a surplus.... During his worst nightmare aka Monica he retained high public support. I guess he was just following the polls. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Obama and Hitler
In article ,
says... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21bcaib@4a x.com... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in charge. -- Nom=de=Plume There is no problem with his changing his mind. Unless it is because a CNN poll says he should change his stance. We did not hire him to be an arbitrator of popularity. He needs to learn the "Buck Stops Here" part of the Presidency. I agree. What makes you think he's being an arbiter of popularity? -- Nom=de=Plume He is being like Clinton. Following the polls. CNN, etc poll says people prefer this, then O seems to follow along. Clinton should have made the hard decisions instead of the popular decisions and he would have gone in to the books as one of the great Presidents. And, you know this because? Which polls do you think he's following? Perhaps you're talking about the "public option" that 70ish % of the population supports? Yup, he's following the polls! Scrrrrreeeeeech.. Hold on there. Some polls have been taken out of context by the minority media, but 70% of the people do not want "the public option". 70% may want some kind of reform and the minority media has fudged the polls, but to be sure, 70% do not want "the public option" They did have a poll that came out last week but it was illegitimate with them polling 30% less republicans, but that's what they call "news", fair and balanced.. snerk Please look beyond the 8 second sound bite... Which hard decisions didn't Clinton make? Ummm... let's see.. Bosnia, Somalia, gay in the military, a balanced budget, a surplus.... During his worst nightmare aka Monica he retained high public support. I guess he was just following the polls. |
Obama and Hitler
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21bcaib@4 ax.com... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in charge. -- Nom=de=Plume There is no problem with his changing his mind. Unless it is because a CNN poll says he should change his stance. We did not hire him to be an arbitrator of popularity. He needs to learn the "Buck Stops Here" part of the Presidency. I agree. What makes you think he's being an arbiter of popularity? -- Nom=de=Plume He is being like Clinton. Following the polls. CNN, etc poll says people prefer this, then O seems to follow along. Clinton should have made the hard decisions instead of the popular decisions and he would have gone in to the books as one of the great Presidents. And, you know this because? Which polls do you think he's following? Perhaps you're talking about the "public option" that 70ish % of the population supports? Yup, he's following the polls! Which hard decisions didn't Clinton make? Ummm... let's see.. Bosnia, Somalia, gay in the military, a balanced budget, a surplus.... During his worst nightmare aka Monica he retained high public support. I guess he was just following the polls. -- Nom=de=Plume He did not leave a surplus! The National debt did not go down. The dot.com bubble just poured more money in to the coffers than they could spend right away. Lots of that money was committed to future spending, which is hurting us now. Same thing with California. So much extra cash that the budget has doubled in the last 8 years before now, and lots of that money was committed as if the gobs of extra money was a permanent source. Bosnia was and is a disaster. Still an ongoing disaster, and was a European problem. Did not concern us. Somalia. He refused the heavy tanks, etc that were requested. Black Hawk down was a disaster because of no heavy armor. Why didn't Clinton authorize gays in the military, instead of pushing under the rug? Man up Clinton. Make a ruling. Just like Truman ruled the military was desegregated. Make the ruling. As to gays destroying the military. Seems to work ok in the UK and some other European countries. Clinton was extremely lucky on the financial front. It was already starting to crash, before the election. And Gore accelerated the meltdown with his election claims. Clinton should have fired Greenspan or at least had looked at the overheated market. But Clintons choice of advisors was lacking a lot of knowledge. Barrack is listening to some polls on the healthcare. Those who think they should have free healthcare. Same ones who thought he was going to pay their mortgage and put gas in the tank. Too many problems just now to tackle healthcare. Man Up. Tell the country we need health care, and we will take a year or two and get it correct. Not a 1000 page bill no one is allowed to read, or have 15 minutes to look at it and vote. Direct the justice Department to prosecute any body who was in charge of Naked Shorts and uncovered short sales on Wall Street, and force them to return all profits and 10x punitive damages. Including Paulson's buddies. Fire the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac officials, not give them a $2 mega buck signing bonus. He is listening the polls (slanted polls) and doing leadership that way. He is not stupid, he is also not an Einstein, but he is naive as hell. |
Obama and Hitler
"Tosk" wrote in message
... In article , says... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21bcaib@4a x.com... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in charge. -- Nom=de=Plume There is no problem with his changing his mind. Unless it is because a CNN poll says he should change his stance. We did not hire him to be an arbitrator of popularity. He needs to learn the "Buck Stops Here" part of the Presidency. I agree. What makes you think he's being an arbiter of popularity? -- Nom=de=Plume He is being like Clinton. Following the polls. CNN, etc poll says people prefer this, then O seems to follow along. Clinton should have made the hard decisions instead of the popular decisions and he would have gone in to the books as one of the great Presidents. And, you know this because? Which polls do you think he's following? Perhaps you're talking about the "public option" that 70ish % of the population supports? Yup, he's following the polls! Scrrrrreeeeeech.. Hold on there. Some polls have been taken out of context by the minority media, but 70% of the people do not want "the public option". 70% may want some kind of reform and the minority media has fudged the polls, but to be sure, 70% do not want "the public option" They did have a poll that came out last week but it was illegitimate with them polling 30% less republicans, but that's what they call "news", fair and balanced.. snerk Please look beyond the 8 second sound bite... Which hard decisions didn't Clinton make? Ummm... let's see.. Bosnia, Somalia, gay in the military, a balanced budget, a surplus.... During his worst nightmare aka Monica he retained high public support. I guess he was just following the polls. Here's one from Rasmussen, which doesn't exactly have a liberal bias: The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 57% oppose the plan if it doesn't include a government-run health insurance plan to compete with private insurers. Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...T2009101902502 SurveyUSA (#2): http://www.surveyusa.com/client/Poll...8-62b9d1ba8693 Have a nice day! -- Nom=de=Plume |
Obama and Hitler
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21bcaib@ 4ax.com... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in charge. -- Nom=de=Plume There is no problem with his changing his mind. Unless it is because a CNN poll says he should change his stance. We did not hire him to be an arbitrator of popularity. He needs to learn the "Buck Stops Here" part of the Presidency. I agree. What makes you think he's being an arbiter of popularity? -- Nom=de=Plume He is being like Clinton. Following the polls. CNN, etc poll says people prefer this, then O seems to follow along. Clinton should have made the hard decisions instead of the popular decisions and he would have gone in to the books as one of the great Presidents. And, you know this because? Which polls do you think he's following? Perhaps you're talking about the "public option" that 70ish % of the population supports? Yup, he's following the polls! Which hard decisions didn't Clinton make? Ummm... let's see.. Bosnia, Somalia, gay in the military, a balanced budget, a surplus.... During his worst nightmare aka Monica he retained high public support. I guess he was just following the polls. -- Nom=de=Plume He did not leave a surplus! The National debt did not go down. The dot.com bubble just poured more money in to the coffers than they could spend right away. Lots of that money was committed to future spending, which is hurting us now. Same thing with California. So much extra cash that the budget has doubled in the last 8 years before now, and lots of that money was committed as if the gobs of extra money was a permanent source. Bosnia was and is a disaster. Still an ongoing disaster, and was a European problem. Did not concern us. Somalia. He refused the heavy tanks, etc that were requested. Black Hawk down was a disaster because of no heavy armor. Why didn't Clinton authorize gays in the military, instead of pushing under the rug? Man up Clinton. Make a ruling. Just like Truman ruled the military was desegregated. Make the ruling. As to gays destroying the military. Seems to work ok in the UK and some other European countries. Clinton was extremely lucky on the financial front. It was already starting to crash, before the election. And Gore accelerated the meltdown with his election claims. Clinton should have fired Greenspan or at least had looked at the overheated market. But Clintons choice of advisors was lacking a lot of knowledge. Barrack is listening to some polls on the healthcare. Those who think they should have free healthcare. Same ones who thought he was going to pay their mortgage and put gas in the tank. Too many problems just now to tackle healthcare. Man Up. Tell the country we need health care, and we will take a year or two and get it correct. Not a 1000 page bill no one is allowed to read, or have 15 minutes to look at it and vote. Direct the justice Department to prosecute any body who was in charge of Naked Shorts and uncovered short sales on Wall Street, and force them to return all profits and 10x punitive damages. Including Paulson's buddies. Fire the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac officials, not give them a $2 mega buck signing bonus. He is listening the polls (slanted polls) and doing leadership that way. He is not stupid, he is also not an Einstein, but he is naive as hell. You might want to trim your rants or at least break them up into intelligible paragraphs. Too much jumble for me to even try to respond to without wasting lots of time. Believe what you want. It's a free country (expecting another rant any second.....). -- Nom=de=Plume |
Obama and Hitler
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:25:55 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote: He is not stupid, he is also not an Einstein, but he is naive as hell. And you've had so many years on the planet and governed millions in that time, taking into account all factors, contingencies and predictions and you'd do a better job. It's damned funny that I never heard you bitch so succinctly during Bush's presidency. Come on Bill, you haven't been a Dem in decades. Isn't time to stop fooling yourself? |
Obama and Hitler
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in charge. -- Nom=de=Plume There is no problem with his changing his mind. Unless it is because a CNN poll says he should change his stance. We did not hire him to be an arbitrator of popularity. He needs to learn the "Buck Stops Here" part of the Presidency. I agree. What makes you think he's being an arbiter of popularity? -- Nom=de=Plume He is being like Clinton. Following the polls. CNN, etc poll says people prefer this, then O seems to follow along. Clinton should have made the hard decisions instead of the popular decisions and he would have gone in to the books as one of the great Presidents. And, you know this because? Which polls do you think he's following? Perhaps you're talking about the "public option" that 70ish % of the population supports? Yup, he's following the polls! Which hard decisions didn't Clinton make? Ummm... let's see.. Bosnia, Somalia, gay in the military, a balanced budget, a surplus.... During his worst nightmare aka Monica he retained high public support. I guess he was just following the polls. Another "woman" who suffers from Monika envy. |
Obama and Hitler
On 10/23/09 3:13 AM, jps wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:25:55 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: He is not stupid, he is also not an Einstein, but he is naive as hell. And you've had so many years on the planet and governed millions in that time, taking into account all factors, contingencies and predictions and you'd do a better job. It's damned funny that I never heard you bitch so succinctly during Bush's presidency. Come on Bill, you haven't been a Dem in decades. Isn't time to stop fooling yourself? Actually, I think it is BiliousBill who used to be a Democrat...unless he and McKee underwent a vulcan mind meld. McKee always "impressed" me as one of the "I've got mine, so screw everyone else" Repubs. |
Obama and Hitler
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in charge. -- Nom=de=Plume There is no problem with his changing his mind. Unless it is because a CNN poll says he should change his stance. We did not hire him to be an arbitrator of popularity. He needs to learn the "Buck Stops Here" part of the Presidency. I agree. What makes you think he's being an arbiter of popularity? -- Nom=de=Plume He is being like Clinton. Following the polls. CNN, etc poll says people prefer this, then O seems to follow along. Clinton should have made the hard decisions instead of the popular decisions and he would have gone in to the books as one of the great Presidents. And, you know this because? Which polls do you think he's following? Perhaps you're talking about the "public option" that 70ish % of the population supports? Yup, he's following the polls! Which hard decisions didn't Clinton make? Ummm... let's see.. Bosnia, Somalia, gay in the military, a balanced budget, a surplus.... During his worst nightmare aka Monica he retained high public support. I guess he was just following the polls. -- Nom=de=Plume He did not leave a surplus! The National debt did not go down. The dot.com bubble just poured more money in to the coffers than they could spend right away. Lots of that money was committed to future spending, which is hurting us now. Same thing with California. So much extra cash that the budget has doubled in the last 8 years before now, and lots of that money was committed as if the gobs of extra money was a permanent source. Bosnia was and is a disaster. Still an ongoing disaster, and was a European problem. Did not concern us. Somalia. He refused the heavy tanks, etc that were requested. Black Hawk down was a disaster because of no heavy armor. Why didn't Clinton authorize gays in the military, instead of pushing under the rug? Man up Clinton. Make a ruling. Just like Truman ruled the military was desegregated. Make the ruling. As to gays destroying the military. Seems to work ok in the UK and some other European countries. Clinton was extremely lucky on the financial front. It was already starting to crash, before the election. And Gore accelerated the meltdown with his election claims. Clinton should have fired Greenspan or at least had looked at the overheated market. But Clintons choice of advisors was lacking a lot of knowledge. Barrack is listening to some polls on the healthcare. Those who think they should have free healthcare. Same ones who thought he was going to pay their mortgage and put gas in the tank. Too many problems just now to tackle healthcare. Man Up. Tell the country we need health care, and we will take a year or two and get it correct. Not a 1000 page bill no one is allowed to read, or have 15 minutes to look at it and vote. Direct the justice Department to prosecute any body who was in charge of Naked Shorts and uncovered short sales on Wall Street, and force them to return all profits and 10x punitive damages. Including Paulson's buddies. Fire the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac officials, not give them a $2 mega buck signing bonus. He is listening the polls (slanted polls) and doing leadership that way. He is not stupid, he is also not an Einstein, but he is naive as hell. You might want to trim your rants or at least break them up into intelligible paragraphs. Too much jumble for me to even try to respond to without wasting lots of time. Believe what you want. It's a free country (expecting another rant any second.....). He presented you with a lot of food for thought and you complain that he didn't make a neat little finger sandwich out of it. If I were him I'd let you go hungry rather than trying to spoon feed you. |
Obama and Hitler
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:58:08 -0700, jps wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:24:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "jps" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:30:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "jps" wrote in message m... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:49:44 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:1ai1e5phkh2kracoqs1nk0oi9v46n3j6lo@4ax. com... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:01:22 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:08:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:b561e5h8vdu25gp5p170bvvdh61i7sn9p4@4 ax.com... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:28:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:fumud51a1t69p69popunial2ellms0ovh9 @4ax.com... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:38:18 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:iqptd5hu679nglvuhk4dvbjsciar6tkr ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21 ... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? Possibly, unless the local gov't has/gets some credibility and takes action. Who used the word "crusade" about fighting over there? I don't think it was Obama. I've no idea who said 'crusade'. This is the first I've seen it used in this context. George W. Bush did. 'Bama said this was a war of necessity. I would think that means we should win it, not cut and run like we did in Vietnam. If we do that, then you liberals will say, "We lost". And, please show how or when we've "cut and run" if you're able. Keep trying the attack "you liberals" if you think that'll give your argument merit. We cut and ran from Vietnam. What would you have called it? I use the term 'you liberals', because you liberals are so quick to say the military 'lost' the Vietnam war. Losing. The US lost the war. If you don't understand that simple statement of fact, there's not much else I can add. No one that I know says "the military" lost the war in Vietnam. The war in Vietnam wasn't winnable, just like in Afghanistan. I guess you've really never met Harry, so you 'could' say you don't know him. He's said it multiple times, and you've never mentioned a differing opinion. The United States did lose the war in Vietnam. Bull****. The US cut and run. ?? I think you need to make your complaint to Richard M. Nixon for that one. We lost. Nixon ended the war, and we would have lost even more of our soldiers if we would have stayed... for no reason whatsoever. What's the definition of losing? Do you fight 'til the last man, 'til the last bomb, plane, ship? What's the difference between cutting and running and losing? Maybe we just haven't parsed the terms to their essence? We should never have been there in the first place, just like Iraq. We had a good reason to be in Iraq. ?? Really? What was the reason? WMDs? Saddam was training jihadists? He had a Winnebago, some balsa wood drones and a lot of oil. Plus, he slandered our CIC's daddy. We should have attacked Afghanistan with schools and hospitals. We'd have won that war already. Agreed, and we should have built the schools and hospitals as soon as the Russians left. We funded the bin laden crowd to get the Russians to leave. So, your statement makes no sense. That would be par for his course. I was thinking A Hole in one. Sorry, bad pun. Maybe the A-hole but never the one. His index is 23, which means on his best day he'd shoot 1.5 strokes over par each hole. That means his game is nearly as excruciating to him as he is to us. That's beyond duffer. Doofus perhaps. He'd be a good twosome with Disney's Goofy. Would probably get along very well with Walt as well. I don't know much about golf, unless you're talking minature golf. lol All you need to know is that it likely frustrates the **** out of Herring. At least you know he's getting his. There is a true statement. Yesterday I hit two 8's while racking up my 95 strokes at Old Hickory. Very frustrating, when I know I can shoot in the 80's. But, it's the exercise I'm in it for. five miles, or thereabouts, yesterday, on one of the most beautiful of the courses in Northern Virginia. You should try it. |
Obama and Hitler
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:22:50 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21bcaib@4a x.com... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in charge. -- Nom=de=Plume There is no problem with his changing his mind. Unless it is because a CNN poll says he should change his stance. We did not hire him to be an arbitrator of popularity. He needs to learn the "Buck Stops Here" part of the Presidency. I agree. What makes you think he's being an arbiter of popularity? -- Nom=de=Plume He is being like Clinton. Following the polls. CNN, etc poll says people prefer this, then O seems to follow along. Clinton should have made the hard decisions instead of the popular decisions and he would have gone in to the books as one of the great Presidents. And, you know this because? Which polls do you think he's following? Perhaps you're talking about the "public option" that 70ish % of the population supports? Yup, he's following the polls! Scrrrrreeeeeech.. Hold on there. Some polls have been taken out of context by the minority media, but 70% of the people do not want "the public option". 70% may want some kind of reform and the minority media has fudged the polls, but to be sure, 70% do not want "the public option" They did have a poll that came out last week but it was illegitimate with them polling 30% less republicans, but that's what they call "news", fair and balanced.. snerk Please look beyond the 8 second sound bite... Which hard decisions didn't Clinton make? Ummm... let's see.. Bosnia, Somalia, gay in the military, a balanced budget, a surplus.... During his worst nightmare aka Monica he retained high public support. I guess he was just following the polls. Here's one from Rasmussen, which doesn't exactly have a liberal bias: The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 57% oppose the plan if it doesn't include a government-run health insurance plan to compete with private insurers. Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...T2009101902502 SurveyUSA (#2): http://www.surveyusa.com/client/Poll...8-62b9d1ba8693 Have a nice day! |
Obama and Hitler
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:37:18 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "jps" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:24:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:30:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "jps" wrote in message om... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:49:44 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:1ai1e5phkh2kracoqs1nk0oi9v46n3j6lo@4ax .com... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:01:22 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:08:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:b561e5h8vdu25gp5p170bvvdh61i7sn9p4@ 4ax.com... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:28:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:fumud51a1t69p69popunial2ellms0ovh ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:38:18 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:iqptd5hu679nglvuhk4dvbjsciar6tk ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p2 ... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? Possibly, unless the local gov't has/gets some credibility and takes action. Who used the word "crusade" about fighting over there? I don't think it was Obama. I've no idea who said 'crusade'. This is the first I've seen it used in this context. George W. Bush did. 'Bama said this was a war of necessity. I would think that means we should win it, not cut and run like we did in Vietnam. If we do that, then you liberals will say, "We lost". And, please show how or when we've "cut and run" if you're able. Keep trying the attack "you liberals" if you think that'll give your argument merit. We cut and ran from Vietnam. What would you have called it? I use the term 'you liberals', because you liberals are so quick to say the military 'lost' the Vietnam war. Losing. The US lost the war. If you don't understand that simple statement of fact, there's not much else I can add. No one that I know says "the military" lost the war in Vietnam. The war in Vietnam wasn't winnable, just like in Afghanistan. I guess you've really never met Harry, so you 'could' say you don't know him. He's said it multiple times, and you've never mentioned a differing opinion. The United States did lose the war in Vietnam. Bull****. The US cut and run. ?? I think you need to make your complaint to Richard M. Nixon for that one. We lost. Nixon ended the war, and we would have lost even more of our soldiers if we would have stayed... for no reason whatsoever. What's the definition of losing? Do you fight 'til the last man, 'til the last bomb, plane, ship? What's the difference between cutting and running and losing? Maybe we just haven't parsed the terms to their essence? We should never have been there in the first place, just like Iraq. We had a good reason to be in Iraq. ?? Really? What was the reason? WMDs? Saddam was training jihadists? He had a Winnebago, some balsa wood drones and a lot of oil. Plus, he slandered our CIC's daddy. We should have attacked Afghanistan with schools and hospitals. We'd have won that war already. Agreed, and we should have built the schools and hospitals as soon as the Russians left. We funded the bin laden crowd to get the Russians to leave. So, your statement makes no sense. That would be par for his course. I was thinking A Hole in one. Sorry, bad pun. Maybe the A-hole but never the one. His index is 23, which means on his best day he'd shoot 1.5 strokes over par each hole. That means his game is nearly as excruciating to him as he is to us. That's beyond duffer. Doofus perhaps. He'd be a good twosome with Disney's Goofy. Would probably get along very well with Walt as well. I don't know much about golf, unless you're talking minature golf. lol All you need to know is that it likely frustrates the **** out of Herring. At least you know he's getting his. He seems to be loling about now... lol lol lol |
Obama and Hitler
These lengthy, he said she said, posts certainly present a good case for
top posting. John H. wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:37:18 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:24:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:30:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:49:44 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:01:22 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:08:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:28:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:38:18 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? Possibly, unless the local gov't has/gets some credibility and takes action. Who used the word "crusade" about fighting over there? I don't think it was Obama. I've no idea who said 'crusade'. This is the first I've seen it used in this context. George W. Bush did. 'Bama said this was a war of necessity. I would think that means we should win it, not cut and run like we did in Vietnam. If we do that, then you liberals will say, "We lost". And, please show how or when we've "cut and run" if you're able. Keep trying the attack "you liberals" if you think that'll give your argument merit. We cut and ran from Vietnam. What would you have called it? I use the term 'you liberals', because you liberals are so quick to say the military 'lost' the Vietnam war. Losing. The US lost the war. If you don't understand that simple statement of fact, there's not much else I can add. No one that I know says "the military" lost the war in Vietnam. The war in Vietnam wasn't winnable, just like in Afghanistan. I guess you've really never met Harry, so you 'could' say you don't know him. He's said it multiple times, and you've never mentioned a differing opinion. The United States did lose the war in Vietnam. Bull****. The US cut and run. ?? I think you need to make your complaint to Richard M. Nixon for that one. We lost. Nixon ended the war, and we would have lost even more of our soldiers if we would have stayed... for no reason whatsoever. What's the definition of losing? Do you fight 'til the last man, 'til the last bomb, plane, ship? What's the difference between cutting and running and losing? Maybe we just haven't parsed the terms to their essence? We should never have been there in the first place, just like Iraq. We had a good reason to be in Iraq. ?? Really? What was the reason? WMDs? Saddam was training jihadists? He had a Winnebago, some balsa wood drones and a lot of oil. Plus, he slandered our CIC's daddy. We should have attacked Afghanistan with schools and hospitals. We'd have won that war already. Agreed, and we should have built the schools and hospitals as soon as the Russians left. We funded the bin laden crowd to get the Russians to leave. So, your statement makes no sense. That would be par for his course. I was thinking A Hole in one. Sorry, bad pun. Maybe the A-hole but never the one. His index is 23, which means on his best day he'd shoot 1.5 strokes over par each hole. That means his game is nearly as excruciating to him as he is to us. That's beyond duffer. Doofus perhaps. He'd be a good twosome with Disney's Goofy. Would probably get along very well with Walt as well. I don't know much about golf, unless you're talking minature golf. lol All you need to know is that it likely frustrates the **** out of Herring. At least you know he's getting his. He seems to be loling about now... lol lol lol |
Obama and Hitler
On Oct 22, 9:36*pm, "Bill McKee" wrote:
He is being like Clinton. *Following the polls. *CNN, etc poll says people prefer this, then O seems to follow along. *Clinton should have made the hard decisions instead of the popular decisions and he would have gone in to the books as one of the great Presidents.- guess billy doesnt follow the news. the polls show the american public wants us to get out of afghanistan...obama sent more troops...something bush didn't have the balls to do, all the while dick sucker cheney whimpers that obama's making him look bad. |
Obama and Hitler
On Oct 22, 11:43*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message news:5I2dnZqir9OSd0LXnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@earthlink. com... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message m... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21bcaib@4a x.com... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick.. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in charge. -- Nom=de=Plume There is no problem with his changing his mind. *Unless it is because a CNN poll says he should change his stance. * We did not hire him to be an arbitrator of popularity. *He needs to learn the "Buck Stops Here" part of the Presidency. I agree. What makes you think he's being an arbiter of popularity? -- Nom=de=Plume He is being like Clinton. *Following the polls. *CNN, etc poll says people prefer this, then O seems to follow along. *Clinton should have made the hard decisions instead of the popular decisions and he would have gone in to the books as one of the great Presidents. And, you know this because? Which polls do you think he's following? Perhaps you're talking about the "public option" that 70ish % of the population supports? Yup, he's following the polls! Which hard decisions didn't Clinton make? Ummm... let's see.. Bosnia, Somalia, gay in the military, a balanced budget, a surplus.... and every time clinton did something the GOP said it was 'political'... damned if you do.... |
Obama and Hitler
On Oct 22, 11:50*pm, Tosk wrote:
Scrrrrreeeeeech.. Hold on there. Some polls have been taken out of context by the minority media, but 70% of the people do not want "the public option". nope. just the reverse: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n5098517.shtml clear majority of Americans -- 72 percent -- support a government- sponsored health care plan to compete with private insurers, a new CBS News/New York Times poll finds http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101902451.html A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that support for a government-run health-care plan to compete with private insurers has rebounded from its summertime lows and wins clear majority support from the public. try again. |
Obama and Hitler
On Oct 23, 12:25*am, "Bill McKee" wrote:
He did not leave a surplus! *The National debt did not go down. he left a balanced budget which is more than the GOP can say *The dot.com bubble just poured more money in to the coffers than they could spend right away. *Lots of that money was committed to future spending, which is hurting us now. gee you'd think that a GOP president and a GOP congress would have fixed it...they had all the power. *Same thing with California. *So much extra cash that the budget has doubled in the last 8 years before now, and lots of that money was committed as if the gobs of extra money was a permanent source. *Bosnia was and is a disaster. *Still an ongoing disaster, and was a European problem. *Did not concern us. *Somalia. *He refused the heavy tanks, etc that were requested. Black Hawk down was a disaster because of no heavy armor. * as was the war in iraq when bush fired gen. shinseki for asking for more troops.... .. *Barrack is listening to some polls on the healthcare. *Those who think they should have free healthcare. *Same ones who thought he was going to pay their mortgage and put gas in the tank. we have the most expensive and least efficient healthcare in the world. socialized medicine seems to work in countries like the UK, france, germany and canada. but the american right, wedded to the failed idea of 'efficient markets' tells fairy tales about the economy (see the recent article by MIT prof. simon johnson in the 'new republic') |
Obama and Hitler
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:50:07 -0400, Tosk wrote:
They did have a poll that came out last week but it was illegitimate with them polling 30% less republicans, but that's what they call "news", fair and balanced.. Those numbers may not be all that illegitimate. These days, only 20% of adults self identify themselves as Republican. |
Obama and Hitler
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 04:51:11 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote: On Oct 22, 11:50*pm, Tosk wrote: Scrrrrreeeeeech.. Hold on there. Some polls have been taken out of context by the minority media, but 70% of the people do not want "the public option". nope. just the reverse: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n5098517.shtml clear majority of Americans -- 72 percent -- support a government- sponsored health care plan to compete with private insurers, a new CBS News/New York Times poll finds Gosh, and there were only 14% more Democrats than Republicans in the poll. |
Obama and Hitler
In article ,
says... On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 04:51:11 -0700 (PDT), wf3h wrote: On Oct 22, 11:50*pm, Tosk wrote: Scrrrrreeeeeech.. Hold on there. Some polls have been taken out of context by the minority media, but 70% of the people do not want "the public option". nope. just the reverse: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n5098517.shtml clear majority of Americans -- 72 percent -- support a government- sponsored health care plan to compete with private insurers, a new CBS News/New York Times poll finds Gosh, and there were only 14% more Democrats than Republicans in the poll. My my, but the minority media is getting a lot like talk radio.. Maybe MSNBC should be silenced and sent home to get their tingles up their legs...;) |
Obama and Hitler
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:32:03 -0400, John H. wrote:
Gosh, and there were only 14% more Democrats than Republicans in the poll. That is low. Currently, only 20% of adults self identify themselves as Republicans, 36% self identify themselves as Democrats. There should have been 16% more Democrats polled. |
Obama and Hitler
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:59:54 -0500, thunder
wrote: On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:32:03 -0400, John H. wrote: Gosh, and there were only 14% more Democrats than Republicans in the poll. That is low. Currently, only 20% of adults self identify themselves as Republicans, 36% self identify themselves as Democrats. There should have been 16% more Democrats polled. I'm surprised they poll anything besides Democrats. Wouldn't that be the ultimate 'proof'? |
Obama and Hitler
"Jim" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in charge. -- Nom=de=Plume There is no problem with his changing his mind. Unless it is because a CNN poll says he should change his stance. We did not hire him to be an arbitrator of popularity. He needs to learn the "Buck Stops Here" part of the Presidency. I agree. What makes you think he's being an arbiter of popularity? -- Nom=de=Plume He is being like Clinton. Following the polls. CNN, etc poll says people prefer this, then O seems to follow along. Clinton should have made the hard decisions instead of the popular decisions and he would have gone in to the books as one of the great Presidents. And, you know this because? Which polls do you think he's following? Perhaps you're talking about the "public option" that 70ish % of the population supports? Yup, he's following the polls! Which hard decisions didn't Clinton make? Ummm... let's see.. Bosnia, Somalia, gay in the military, a balanced budget, a surplus.... During his worst nightmare aka Monica he retained high public support. I guess he was just following the polls. -- Nom=de=Plume He did not leave a surplus! The National debt did not go down. The dot.com bubble just poured more money in to the coffers than they could spend right away. Lots of that money was committed to future spending, which is hurting us now. Same thing with California. So much extra cash that the budget has doubled in the last 8 years before now, and lots of that money was committed as if the gobs of extra money was a permanent source. Bosnia was and is a disaster. Still an ongoing disaster, and was a European problem. Did not concern us. Somalia. He refused the heavy tanks, etc that were requested. Black Hawk down was a disaster because of no heavy armor. Why didn't Clinton authorize gays in the military, instead of pushing under the rug? Man up Clinton. Make a ruling. Just like Truman ruled the military was desegregated. Make the ruling. As to gays destroying the military. Seems to work ok in the UK and some other European countries. Clinton was extremely lucky on the financial front. It was already starting to crash, before the election. And Gore accelerated the meltdown with his election claims. Clinton should have fired Greenspan or at least had looked at the overheated market. But Clintons choice of advisors was lacking a lot of knowledge. Barrack is listening to some polls on the healthcare. Those who think they should have free healthcare. Same ones who thought he was going to pay their mortgage and put gas in the tank. Too many problems just now to tackle healthcare. Man Up. Tell the country we need health care, and we will take a year or two and get it correct. Not a 1000 page bill no one is allowed to read, or have 15 minutes to look at it and vote. Direct the justice Department to prosecute any body who was in charge of Naked Shorts and uncovered short sales on Wall Street, and force them to return all profits and 10x punitive damages. Including Paulson's buddies. Fire the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac officials, not give them a $2 mega buck signing bonus. He is listening the polls (slanted polls) and doing leadership that way. He is not stupid, he is also not an Einstein, but he is naive as hell. You might want to trim your rants or at least break them up into intelligible paragraphs. Too much jumble for me to even try to respond to without wasting lots of time. Believe what you want. It's a free country (expecting another rant any second.....). He presented you with a lot of food for thought and you complain that he didn't make a neat little finger sandwich out of it. If I were him I'd let you go hungry rather than trying to spoon feed you. Not really. Mostly just rants about Clinton, intermixed with a bunch of nonsense. Why don't you feed yourself... seems like you need some intellectual nutrients. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Obama and Hitler
"Jim" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in charge. -- Nom=de=Plume There is no problem with his changing his mind. Unless it is because a CNN poll says he should change his stance. We did not hire him to be an arbitrator of popularity. He needs to learn the "Buck Stops Here" part of the Presidency. I agree. What makes you think he's being an arbiter of popularity? -- Nom=de=Plume He is being like Clinton. Following the polls. CNN, etc poll says people prefer this, then O seems to follow along. Clinton should have made the hard decisions instead of the popular decisions and he would have gone in to the books as one of the great Presidents. And, you know this because? Which polls do you think he's following? Perhaps you're talking about the "public option" that 70ish % of the population supports? Yup, he's following the polls! Which hard decisions didn't Clinton make? Ummm... let's see.. Bosnia, Somalia, gay in the military, a balanced budget, a surplus.... During his worst nightmare aka Monica he retained high public support. I guess he was just following the polls. Another "woman" who suffers from Monika envy. You're another guy who who confuses cigars with themselves. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Obama and Hitler
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:32:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "Jim" wrote in message .. . nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in charge. -- Nom=de=Plume There is no problem with his changing his mind. Unless it is because a CNN poll says he should change his stance. We did not hire him to be an arbitrator of popularity. He needs to learn the "Buck Stops Here" part of the Presidency. I agree. What makes you think he's being an arbiter of popularity? -- Nom=de=Plume He is being like Clinton. Following the polls. CNN, etc poll says people prefer this, then O seems to follow along. Clinton should have made the hard decisions instead of the popular decisions and he would have gone in to the books as one of the great Presidents. And, you know this because? Which polls do you think he's following? Perhaps you're talking about the "public option" that 70ish % of the population supports? Yup, he's following the polls! Which hard decisions didn't Clinton make? Ummm... let's see.. Bosnia, Somalia, gay in the military, a balanced budget, a surplus.... During his worst nightmare aka Monica he retained high public support. I guess he was just following the polls. Another "woman" who suffers from Monika envy. You're another guy who who confuses cigars with themselves. lol |
Obama and Hitler
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:32:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "Jim" wrote in message .. . nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in charge. -- Nom=de=Plume There is no problem with his changing his mind. Unless it is because a CNN poll says he should change his stance. We did not hire him to be an arbitrator of popularity. He needs to learn the "Buck Stops Here" part of the Presidency. I agree. What makes you think he's being an arbiter of popularity? -- Nom=de=Plume He is being like Clinton. Following the polls. CNN, etc poll says people prefer this, then O seems to follow along. Clinton should have made the hard decisions instead of the popular decisions and he would have gone in to the books as one of the great Presidents. And, you know this because? Which polls do you think he's following? Perhaps you're talking about the "public option" that 70ish % of the population supports? Yup, he's following the polls! Which hard decisions didn't Clinton make? Ummm... let's see.. Bosnia, Somalia, gay in the military, a balanced budget, a surplus.... During his worst nightmare aka Monica he retained high public support. I guess he was just following the polls. Another "woman" who suffers from Monika envy. You're another guy who who confuses cigars with themselves. Waste of good energy interacting with this fool. At least Herring is just delusional and misguided, this asshole is mean spirited. |
Obama and Hitler
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:06:17 -0700, jps wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:32:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jim" wrote in message . .. nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in charge. -- Nom=de=Plume There is no problem with his changing his mind. Unless it is because a CNN poll says he should change his stance. We did not hire him to be an arbitrator of popularity. He needs to learn the "Buck Stops Here" part of the Presidency. I agree. What makes you think he's being an arbiter of popularity? -- Nom=de=Plume He is being like Clinton. Following the polls. CNN, etc poll says people prefer this, then O seems to follow along. Clinton should have made the hard decisions instead of the popular decisions and he would have gone in to the books as one of the great Presidents. And, you know this because? Which polls do you think he's following? Perhaps you're talking about the "public option" that 70ish % of the population supports? Yup, he's following the polls! Which hard decisions didn't Clinton make? Ummm... let's see.. Bosnia, Somalia, gay in the military, a balanced budget, a surplus.... During his worst nightmare aka Monica he retained high public support. I guess he was just following the polls. Another "woman" who suffers from Monika envy. You're another guy who who confuses cigars with themselves. Waste of good energy interacting with this fool. At least Herring is just delusional and misguided, this asshole is mean spirited. Thanks. |
Obama and Hitler
On 10/23/09 7:51 AM, wf3h wrote:
On Oct 22, 11:50 pm, wrote: Scrrrrreeeeeech.. Hold on there. Some polls have been taken out of context by the minority media, but 70% of the people do not want "the public option". nope. just the reverse: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n5098517.shtml clear majority of Americans -- 72 percent -- support a government- sponsored health care plan to compete with private insurers, a new CBS News/New York Times poll finds http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101902451.html A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that support for a government-run health-care plan to compete with private insurers has rebounded from its summertime lows and wins clear majority support from the public. try again. A larger percentage of the public now recognizes that the right wing and its corporate sponsors have been trying to **** them over...again. |
Obama and Hitler
H the K wrote:
On 10/23/09 7:51 AM, wf3h wrote: On Oct 22, 11:50 pm, wrote: Scrrrrreeeeeech.. Hold on there. Some polls have been taken out of context by the minority media, but 70% of the people do not want "the public option". nope. just the reverse: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n5098517.shtml clear majority of Americans -- 72 percent -- support a government- sponsored health care plan to compete with private insurers, a new CBS News/New York Times poll finds http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101902451.html A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that support for a government-run health-care plan to compete with private insurers has rebounded from its summertime lows and wins clear majority support from the public. try again. A larger percentage of the public now recognizes that the right wing and its corporate sponsors have been trying to **** them over...again. Ah, that's the way to get you point across, foul language. |
Obama and Hitler
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Jim" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in charge. -- Nom=de=Plume There is no problem with his changing his mind. Unless it is because a CNN poll says he should change his stance. We did not hire him to be an arbitrator of popularity. He needs to learn the "Buck Stops Here" part of the Presidency. I agree. What makes you think he's being an arbiter of popularity? -- Nom=de=Plume He is being like Clinton. Following the polls. CNN, etc poll says people prefer this, then O seems to follow along. Clinton should have made the hard decisions instead of the popular decisions and he would have gone in to the books as one of the great Presidents. And, you know this because? Which polls do you think he's following? Perhaps you're talking about the "public option" that 70ish % of the population supports? Yup, he's following the polls! Which hard decisions didn't Clinton make? Ummm... let's see.. Bosnia, Somalia, gay in the military, a balanced budget, a surplus.... During his worst nightmare aka Monica he retained high public support. I guess he was just following the polls. -- Nom=de=Plume He did not leave a surplus! The National debt did not go down. The dot.com bubble just poured more money in to the coffers than they could spend right away. Lots of that money was committed to future spending, which is hurting us now. Same thing with California. So much extra cash that the budget has doubled in the last 8 years before now, and lots of that money was committed as if the gobs of extra money was a permanent source. Bosnia was and is a disaster. Still an ongoing disaster, and was a European problem. Did not concern us. Somalia. He refused the heavy tanks, etc that were requested. Black Hawk down was a disaster because of no heavy armor. Why didn't Clinton authorize gays in the military, instead of pushing under the rug? Man up Clinton. Make a ruling. Just like Truman ruled the military was desegregated. Make the ruling. As to gays destroying the military. Seems to work ok in the UK and some other European countries. Clinton was extremely lucky on the financial front. It was already starting to crash, before the election. And Gore accelerated the meltdown with his election claims. Clinton should have fired Greenspan or at least had looked at the overheated market. But Clintons choice of advisors was lacking a lot of knowledge. Barrack is listening to some polls on the healthcare. Those who think they should have free healthcare. Same ones who thought he was going to pay their mortgage and put gas in the tank. Too many problems just now to tackle healthcare. Man Up. Tell the country we need health care, and we will take a year or two and get it correct. Not a 1000 page bill no one is allowed to read, or have 15 minutes to look at it and vote. Direct the justice Department to prosecute any body who was in charge of Naked Shorts and uncovered short sales on Wall Street, and force them to return all profits and 10x punitive damages. Including Paulson's buddies. Fire the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac officials, not give them a $2 mega buck signing bonus. He is listening the polls (slanted polls) and doing leadership that way. He is not stupid, he is also not an Einstein, but he is naive as hell. You might want to trim your rants or at least break them up into intelligible paragraphs. Too much jumble for me to even try to respond to without wasting lots of time. Believe what you want. It's a free country (expecting another rant any second.....). He presented you with a lot of food for thought and you complain that he didn't make a neat little finger sandwich out of it. If I were him I'd let you go hungry rather than trying to spoon feed you. Not really. Mostly just rants about Clinton, intermixed with a bunch of nonsense. Why don't you feed yourself... seems like you need some intellectual nutrients. -- Nom=de=Plume Can not help it if you are reading comprehension challenged. |
Obama and Hitler
"jps" wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:25:55 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: He is not stupid, he is also not an Einstein, but he is naive as hell. And you've had so many years on the planet and governed millions in that time, taking into account all factors, contingencies and predictions and you'd do a better job. It's damned funny that I never heard you bitch so succinctly during Bush's presidency. Come on Bill, you haven't been a Dem in decades. Isn't time to stop fooling yourself? I amn not a current Dem, as they are so far to the left, is impossible to be one. Also am not Repub as they are too far to the right. More Libertarian view, but staying a registered Dem, allows me some say in trying to get the Dem's more to the middle. More Fiscal Conservative, and keep the social liberal. You on the other hand want the Government to take care of you cradle to grave. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:37 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com