8 more...
 

On Oct 28, 10:14*pm, Tosk wrote:
In article 2daf2bfb-bfb9-4b9f-a9a9-1150fbbfb1f9
@o21g2000vbl.googlegroups.com, says...







On Oct 28, 11:49*am, (Richard Casady)
wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 07:57:32 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:

On Oct 28, 10:23*am, Loogypicker wrote:
On Oct 28, 9:03*am, "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!"

wrote:
On Oct 28, 8:59*am, Loogypicker wrote:

On Oct 27, 7:04*pm, Tosk wrote:

American soldiers killed while Obama campaigns for democrats in New
Jersey. Disgusting how the left has no problem with this, after all the
crap they gave Bush.. Double standard and tingles up their legs....

Honest Scott, in your quest to **** on everything not conservative,
you're beginning to sound foolish.

Do you not remember the minority media during the Bush admin. Just
want to see some balanced ideas. This double standard is ridiculous
and dangerous for our country. And yes, I remember clearly Obama
saying clearly "I will listen to my generals in the field" during the
campaign, and clearly, he is not, that is important. Much more
important than Scooter Libby forgetting a date.

I'll tell you a double standard. John claims that anything that
happened during the Bush administration is of now, gone.

No double standard there. *That's exactly what the liberals were
saying as soon as Bush took office.

And yes, he
IS listening to his generals. He met for 25 minutes recently regarding
how best to move forward.

Wow... a whole 25 minutes? *It took him longer than that to clean his
clubs after the last golf outing.

Surely those 8 lives are worth more than 25 minutes. *Stop making
excuses for him. *Obama is failing miserably at the job.

They are no better or worse than the other 4000+ who have died. At
three minutes each it would come to about 1700 hours.

Casady

According to the libs, those others died on Bush's watch, but he can
no longer do anything about it. *These new ones are dieing on BO's
watch. *While he plays golf and... does nothing.

What gets me is the 3000 killed on 911 were blamed only on Bush when
it's obvious most of the planning and execution was started during the
Clinton years. Now the Dems insist that everything happening now is all
on Bush, it's that old double standard again...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But according to John, if it happened on Bush's watch, it's all him!

8 more...
 

In article , says...

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article , says...
Tosk wrote:
In article 2daf2bfb-bfb9-4b9f-a9a9-1150fbbfb1f9
@o21g2000vbl.googlegroups.com, says...
On Oct 28, 11:49 am, (Richard Casady)
wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 07:57:32 -0700 (PDT), Jack

wrote:



On Oct 28, 10:23 am, Loogypicker wrote:
On Oct 28, 9:03 am, "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!"
wrote:
On Oct 28, 8:59 am, Loogypicker wrote:
On Oct 27, 7:04 pm, Tosk wrote:
American soldiers killed while Obama campaigns for democrats in
New
Jersey. Disgusting how the left has no problem with this, after
all the
crap they gave Bush.. Double standard and tingles up their
legs....
Honest Scott, in your quest to **** on everything not
conservative,
you're beginning to sound foolish.
Do you not remember the minority media during the Bush admin. Just
want to see some balanced ideas. This double standard is
ridiculous
and dangerous for our country. And yes, I remember clearly Obama
saying clearly "I will listen to my generals in the field" during
the
campaign, and clearly, he is not, that is important. Much more
important than Scooter Libby forgetting a date.
I'll tell you a double standard. John claims that anything that
happened during the Bush administration is of now, gone.
No double standard there. That's exactly what the liberals were
saying as soon as Bush took office.
And yes, he
IS listening to his generals. He met for 25 minutes recently
regarding
how best to move forward.
Wow... a whole 25 minutes? It took him longer than that to clean
his
clubs after the last golf outing.
Surely those 8 lives are worth more than 25 minutes. Stop making
excuses for him. Obama is failing miserably at the job.
They are no better or worse than the other 4000+ who have died. At
three minutes each it would come to about 1700 hours.

Casady
According to the libs, those others died on Bush's watch, but he can
no longer do anything about it. These new ones are dieing on BO's
watch. While he plays golf and... does nothing.
What gets me is the 3000 killed on 911 were blamed only on Bush when
it's obvious most of the planning and execution was started during the
Clinton years. Now the Dems insist that everything happening now is all
on Bush, it's that old double standard again...
A lot of **** slipped by ol Bill while he was getting his axle greased.
That's not my point. My point is it's time for Obama to man up and take
start making a stand...


No. He's already done that by standing up to people like you.

Lol Lol Right baby. You're on a roll now. Got any more dumb crap to say?

Now you are starting to understand why I plonked this one too. Useless
and I cut down the dimwit posts by about 50% right there. She posts
almost as much as our Harry, and with about as much content.. ZERO...

8 more...
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:26:17 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:


The need isn't to hurry. The need is to get the decision right. Any
troop increases won't be needed until the spring, as the winter weather
in Afghanistan pretty much shuts the Taliban down.

Heh - oh yeah - always an excuse. "The Vietcong won't attack - it's
TET".

Seem like I heard that one before - twice.

Yeah, well, being you brought up Vietnam, there are several things we
should have learned then, that are applicable now. Propping up corrupt
governments doesn't work. Forcing our values on a population that
doesn't share them, is counterproductive. Perhaps, most important,
strictly military solutions are unsuccessful in a counterinsurgency. The
Soviets learned these in Afghanistan, but apparently "Bring 'em on" Bush
was a little slow to learn those lessons.

This country gave GWB seven years with Afghanistan on the back burner.
I'm willing to give Obama some months to sort his strategies out. With
the instability reaching into Pakistan, I want the right decision, not
the quick one.

Yeah, but in the mean time, can we at least defend ourselves?

8 more...
 

In article ,
says...

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Oct 28, 11:52 am, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:24:16 -0700, Jack wrote:
More than fair. The idiot in office now won't make a decision, but
still plays tons of golf while soldiers die. WTF!?!

The need isn't to hurry. The need is to get the decision right. Any
troop increases won't be needed until the spring, as the winter weather
in Afghanistan pretty much shuts the Taliban down.

Tell that to the families of the dead soldiers. Besides, what better
time to hit them than when they are inactive?


You want more dead soldiers and grieving families because of a rushed
decision???

A decision is better than no decision.

Correct. And, a well-thought through decision is significantly better than
one that isn't.

How many men and women will have to die for Obama to make his well-
thought through decision?

Have you ever heard of paralysis through analysis? You are seeing it in
action with Obama.


We've got plenty of recent experience with ill-conceived decisions, like not
focusing on Afganistan and invading Iraq for no good reason. If only we had
some non-political decisions from the Bush administration on just those
issues (not to mention the countless others) that put the country first. If
only....

Every decision Obama makes is a political decision. He is currently
trying to figure out how to keep the ultra left wing of the Democrat
party from rising up against him and at the same time keep the right
wing of the Democrat party from doing the same thing.

How many more will die before Obama figures out how to put himself in
the best political light.

So, in your view no matter what Obama decides, it's purely going to be a
political decision, thus he's unpatriotic. That's where you're headed right?

With Obama it will always be political.

Ask him where his US flag pin was? Why didn't he put his hand over his
heart during the pledge of allegiance? Obama doesn't want to see the USA
thrive.

8 more...
 

On 10/29/09 8:58 AM, Tosk wrote:


Now you are starting to understand why I plonked this one too. Useless
and I cut down the dimwit posts by about 50% right there. She posts
almost as much as our Harry, and with about as much content.. ZERO...


There's nothing funnier on rec.boats than tosk, aka justhate, aka scott
ingersoll, trying so hard to convince everyone else *he* is not the
group's ranking dimwit.

8 more...
 

On 10/29/09 8:59 AM, Tosk wrote:
In inet,
says...

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:26:17 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:


The need isn't to hurry. The need is to get the decision right. Any
troop increases won't be needed until the spring, as the winter weather
in Afghanistan pretty much shuts the Taliban down.

Heh - oh yeah - always an excuse. "The Vietcong won't attack - it's
TET".

Seem like I heard that one before - twice.

Yeah, well, being you brought up Vietnam, there are several things we
should have learned then, that are applicable now. Propping up corrupt
governments doesn't work. Forcing our values on a population that
doesn't share them, is counterproductive. Perhaps, most important,
strictly military solutions are unsuccessful in a counterinsurgency. The
Soviets learned these in Afghanistan, but apparently "Bring 'em on" Bush
was a little slow to learn those lessons.

This country gave GWB seven years with Afghanistan on the back burner.
I'm willing to give Obama some months to sort his strategies out. With
the instability reaching into Pakistan, I want the right decision, not
the quick one.

Yeah, but in the mean time, can we at least defend ourselves?


Morons like you are a bigger threat to this country than your typical
Afghani.

8 more...
 

BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...
"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...
"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Oct 28, 11:52 am, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:24:16 -0700, Jack wrote:
More than fair. The idiot in office now won't make a decision, but
still plays tons of golf while soldiers die. WTF!?!
The need isn't to hurry. The need is to get the decision right. Any
troop increases won't be needed until the spring, as the winter weather
in Afghanistan pretty much shuts the Taliban down.
Tell that to the families of the dead soldiers. Besides, what better
time to hit them than when they are inactive?

You want more dead soldiers and grieving families because of a rushed
decision???
A decision is better than no decision.
Correct. And, a well-thought through decision is significantly better than
one that isn't.

How many men and women will have to die for Obama to make his well-
thought through decision?

Have you ever heard of paralysis through analysis? You are seeing it in
action with Obama.


We've got plenty of recent experience with ill-conceived decisions, like not
focusing on Afganistan and invading Iraq for no good reason. If only we had
some non-political decisions from the Bush administration on just those
issues (not to mention the countless others) that put the country first. If
only....

Every decision Obama makes is a political decision. He is currently
trying to figure out how to keep the ultra left wing of the Democrat
party from rising up against him and at the same time keep the right
wing of the Democrat party from doing the same thing.

How many more will die before Obama figures out how to put himself in
the best political light.
So, in your view no matter what Obama decides, it's purely going to be a
political decision, thus he's unpatriotic. That's where you're headed right?

With Obama it will always be political.

Ask him where his US flag pin was? Why didn't he put his hand over his
heart during the pledge of allegiance? Obama doesn't want to see the USA
thrive.


If you spent 20 years listening to Jeramiah Wright, you'd hate America too.

8 more...
 

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:11:40 -0400, H the K
wrote:

Morons like you are a bigger threat to this country than your typical
Afghani.

Osama is a Saudi. The typical Afghani wants us out, and for the
Talaban to butt out as well.

Casady

8 more...
 

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Oct 28, 11:52 am, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:24:16 -0700, Jack wrote:
More than fair. The idiot in office now won't make a decision, but
still plays tons of golf while soldiers die. WTF!?!

The need isn't to hurry. The need is to get the decision right. Any
troop increases won't be needed until the spring, as the winter
weather
in Afghanistan pretty much shuts the Taliban down.

Tell that to the families of the dead soldiers. Besides, what better
time to hit them than when they are inactive?


You want more dead soldiers and grieving families because of a rushed
decision???

A decision is better than no decision.

Correct. And, a well-thought through decision is significantly better
than
one that isn't.

How many men and women will have to die for Obama to make his well-
thought through decision?

Have you ever heard of paralysis through analysis? You are seeing it in
action with Obama.


We've got plenty of recent experience with ill-conceived decisions, like
not
focusing on Afganistan and invading Iraq for no good reason. If only we
had
some non-political decisions from the Bush administration on just those
issues (not to mention the countless others) that put the country first.
If
only....

Every decision Obama makes is a political decision. He is currently
trying to figure out how to keep the ultra left wing of the Democrat
party from rising up against him and at the same time keep the right
wing of the Democrat party from doing the same thing.

How many more will die before Obama figures out how to put himself in
the best political light.

So, in your view no matter what Obama decides, it's purely going to be a
political decision, thus he's unpatriotic. That's where you're headed
right?

With Obama it will always be political.

Ask him where his US flag pin was? Why didn't he put his hand over his
heart during the pledge of allegiance? Obama doesn't want to see the USA
thrive.

Do you actually believe yourself?

You left out being born in Kenya (or was it Australia?).

You are a right-wing nut!
--
Nom=de=Plume

8 more...
 

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:26:17 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:


The need isn't to hurry. The need is to get the decision right. Any
troop increases won't be needed until the spring, as the winter weather
in Afghanistan pretty much shuts the Taliban down.

Heh - oh yeah - always an excuse. "The Vietcong won't attack - it's
TET".

Seem like I heard that one before - twice.

Yeah, well, being you brought up Vietnam, there are several things we
should have learned then, that are applicable now. Propping up corrupt
governments doesn't work. Forcing our values on a population that
doesn't share them, is counterproductive. Perhaps, most important,
strictly military solutions are unsuccessful in a counterinsurgency. The
Soviets learned these in Afghanistan, but apparently "Bring 'em on" Bush
was a little slow to learn those lessons.

This country gave GWB seven years with Afghanistan on the back burner.
I'm willing to give Obama some months to sort his strategies out. With
the instability reaching into Pakistan, I want the right decision, not
the quick one.

Yeah, but in the mean time, can we at least defend ourselves?


From what do you get the impression that we aren't? Even if he decided to
increase troops today, it'll take months for any to get there.

--
Nom=de=Plume