OT--new candidate
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

Rolling back my tax break will do nothing but **** me off. And where do
you get off calling me "rich"? That's the biggest lie that the
Democtrats have been trying to pull over everyone's eyes. The tax break
was across the board, which means we ALL got a break, proportional to
what we put in. I'd never vote for anyone who is in favor of taking more
money from me.

I don't think the democratic candidates care what you think since there's no
way of capturing your vote.

It's only once they've assumed to office of the President that they're
obligated to take your views into account.

I'm afraid the next president will be elected without your assistance Dave.

OT--new candidate
 

Nor if the current president paid any attention to the repeated messages
that indicated those hostile to the US were contemplating using US carriers
as weapons against our country.


"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...
4 months, 2 years, and 4 years. That's why I want those maniacs dealt
with
now.

3000 people likely wouldn't have died in the WTC if a certain prior
President dealt with bin Laden when he had the chance...and the 300 or so
soldiers that recently were killed in Iraq likely wouldn't have died if
Bush
41 didn't worry so much about what the UN thought, and marched
Schwarzkopff
into Baghdad in the first Gulf War.



"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
om...
Mark,
I think the absolute worst thing that could happen would be if a guy
like
Dean won the Presidency and pulled us out of Iraq too soon. The
repercussions would be awful. "Rack up enough US casualties, get the
media
to play along, and we can control the infidels".

At least if a guy like World War III Wesley was in charge, we could be
sure
he'd probably nuke someone over there before long...and that can't be
*all*
bad.


Hey...you're starting to sound like my father, around 1968-1969, who
thought
we should "throw everything we've got" at North Vietnam. Suddenly, when
I
got my draft card, he got a little antsy about what was going on over
there.

How old are YOUR kids, NOYB?

OT--new candidate
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

Rolling back my tax break will do nothing but **** me off.

How did YOU spend your $400 check, Dave?

And, would it have ****ed you off if Bush had never said a word about a tax
break, so everything remained the same as last year?

OT--new candidate
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Unfortunately, it's the "swing" voters that vote this way. They
make up
less than 7% of the electorate, and there's no common theme that
appeals
to
them. They vote for the guy they like best, many times basing their
vote on
nothing more than charisma.


Of course. How do you think a guy like Clinton could actually win....

Clinton is a prime example of someone who is long on charisma, and
short
on character.

Dave

Once again, your dependence on kindergarten-level news is obvious.

Oh? Where am I wrong then?

You are wrong in assuming that your leader, Nookular Boy, didn't benefit
mightily from the idiot vote, just the same as any other president.


After BOTH Clinton's and Bush's successful elections, NPR sent a
reporter
wandering around a couple of college campuses, asking students why they
voted the way they did. Regarding both candidates, many young women said
they voted for the winner because "he was cute", or they liked the way
his
eyebrows wrinkled when making an important point in a speech.

Thank you for making my point for me.


NOYB was making a generic statement.

Which I applied to a specific individual, as a testiment to the validity
of the point.

Dave



And I supplied you with information indicating that there will always be
numbskulls who vote this way, regardless of the candidate. Your leader ALSO
got votes from people like that.

OT--new candidate
 

The report that terrorists might use commercial aircraft as weapons came in
1998 from some info discovered in the Phillipines. What did Clinton do with
that info from 1998 until 2000 to make our aircraft safer? Both Presidents
"Bush 43" and Clinton were guilty of not taking more action on this
info...but only one of 'em passed up several chances at getting bin Laden.





"jps" wrote in message
...
Nor if the current president paid any attention to the repeated messages
that indicated those hostile to the US were contemplating using US
carriers
as weapons against our country.


"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...
4 months, 2 years, and 4 years. That's why I want those maniacs dealt
with
now.

3000 people likely wouldn't have died in the WTC if a certain prior
President dealt with bin Laden when he had the chance...and the 300 or
so
soldiers that recently were killed in Iraq likely wouldn't have died if
Bush
41 didn't worry so much about what the UN thought, and marched
Schwarzkopff
into Baghdad in the first Gulf War.



"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
om...
Mark,
I think the absolute worst thing that could happen would be if a guy
like
Dean won the Presidency and pulled us out of Iraq too soon. The
repercussions would be awful. "Rack up enough US casualties, get
the
media
to play along, and we can control the infidels".

At least if a guy like World War III Wesley was in charge, we could
be
sure
he'd probably nuke someone over there before long...and that can't
be
*all*
bad.


Hey...you're starting to sound like my father, around 1968-1969, who
thought
we should "throw everything we've got" at North Vietnam. Suddenly,
when
I
got my draft card, he got a little antsy about what was going on over
there.

How old are YOUR kids, NOYB?

OT--new candidate
 

The "idiot vote" has determined 2 of the last three Presidential elections.
Perot pulled the idiots from Bush 41 in 2000. Nader pulled the idiots from
Gore in 2000. That's why a third party candidate is important...he/she
bleeds off most of the idiots, thus leaving a semi-intelligent electorate to
choose the best candidate. Of course, not much can be done to account for
the not-so-bright "semi-intelligent" voters that vote for someone because
"they're sexy" or "charismatic".

The idiot vote is precisely the reason Schwarznegger will win California
(*if* the vote proceeds). He'll get the Republicans and the idiot swing
voters. Bustamante will only get the Democrats. Of course, Larry Flynt and
the porno actress will pull some of the idiots from Schwarznegger...which
may be precisely why they are running.










"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Unfortunately, it's the "swing" voters that vote this way. They
make up
less than 7% of the electorate, and there's no common theme that
appeals
to
them. They vote for the guy they like best, many times basing
their
vote on
nothing more than charisma.


Of course. How do you think a guy like Clinton could actually
win....

Clinton is a prime example of someone who is long on charisma, and
short
on character.

Dave

Once again, your dependence on kindergarten-level news is obvious.

Oh? Where am I wrong then?

You are wrong in assuming that your leader, Nookular Boy, didn't benefit
mightily from the idiot vote, just the same as any other president.


After BOTH Clinton's and Bush's successful elections, NPR sent a
reporter
wandering around a couple of college campuses, asking students why
they
voted the way they did. Regarding both candidates, many young women
said
they voted for the winner because "he was cute", or they liked the way
his
eyebrows wrinkled when making an important point in a speech.

Thank you for making my point for me.


NOYB was making a generic statement.

Which I applied to a specific individual, as a testiment to the validity
of the point.

Dave



And I supplied you with information indicating that there will always be
numbskulls who vote this way, regardless of the candidate. Your leader
ALSO
got votes from people like that.

OT--new candidate
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 07:11:46 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:

In Iraq, there is no superpower supplying arms to the terrorists.
Once
we cut off their supply lines completely, they'll soon be reduced to
throwing rocks.

Point taken about arms supply, but I wouldn't underestimate the power
of a
rock. A motivated and resourceful enemy will find a way to kill. I
think
this has been established in our not so distant past.

Yes. The VC moved quite a lot of material down the Ho Chi Minh trail,
with
the stuff strapped to bicycles and pushcarts. They did it wearing
sandles
and little not much else but rice.

The VC were also being covertly supplied by the former Soviets. The VC
were very determined, and resourceful. The terrorists in Iraq are likely
equally motivated and resourceful. But they lack the "man behind the
curtain" supplying them the arms.

1) Man behind the curtain - Saudi oil money - You bet the Arab kings want
the USA to fail in this adventure.
2) Supply of weapons - Worlds arms market - You name it; it's for sale.
For the right price, I'll bet that there are nukes for sale in the former
Soviet states. For that matter; who knows what Pakistan could do if we lean
on them hard enough on the Taliban thing.

Try a different argument - this dog won't hunt.

Mark Browne

OT--new candidate
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
om...

"Mark Browne" wrote in message
news:9dR9b.369154

Now, back to the issue at hand - you did not answer my question:
What
sorts
of signs would you accept that things are not working out - at what
point
would you make the call that it *is* time to cut and run?


I certainly *did* answer your question:

"We remain in our bases indefinitely to assure that no Baathists seize
the
country via a coup. If the newly democratically-elected government
feels
secure enough and asks us to leave, then we should consider leaving."



You did NOT answer his question:

"What sorts of signs would you accept that things are not working out -
at
what point would you make the call that it *is* time to cut and run?"

I'd cut and run only if Saddam Hussein reemerges and is welcomed with open
arms by the majority of the population.

In any other scenario, we stay.

So you are willing to run the country into the ground for an ideological
point. For details - See the Soviet example in Afghanistan.

Unless of course, you are able to explain how this is going to turn out
different. Please explain in detail, using fully formed concepts. The
underlying truth of the rebel actions is that it is *much* easier to break
things then it is to fix them. We spend weeks of hair pulling effort to get
something working - they blow it up in an hour. It is not physically
possible to guard the infrastructure of an entire country. Efforts to do so
are doomed; we want to use fewer people, not more. What are we going to do
that the Soviets did not? Clams will like the part about the Soviets brutal
punishment of the natives for attacks. The problems is that this provided an
endless stream of converts to the rebel cause.

While we would like the country to see things our way, the "freedom
fighters" in Iraq seem to have other ideas. For the US to win, they have to
do what we want them to do - quit! All the Iraqis fighters have to do is
keep the USA engaged until we spend ourselves to death. With people like you
around, they may be able to pull it off.

Mark Browne

OT--new candidate
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...
4 months, 2 years, and 4 years. That's why I want those maniacs dealt
with
now.

3000 people likely wouldn't have died in the WTC if a certain prior
President dealt with bin Laden when he had the chance...and the 300 or so
soldiers that recently were killed in Iraq likely wouldn't have died if
Bush
41 didn't worry so much about what the UN thought, and marched
Schwarzkopff
into Baghdad in the first Gulf War.
snip
Or if Ray Gun had not built him up in the first place!

I love these what-if games. You have trouble with Clinton telling a few
whoppers? There is enough dirt on Ray Gun to go on forever!

Mark Browne

OT--new candidate
 

Mark Browne wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...
4 months, 2 years, and 4 years. That's why I want those maniacs dealt
with
now.

3000 people likely wouldn't have died in the WTC if a certain prior
President dealt with bin Laden when he had the chance...and the 300 or so
soldiers that recently were killed in Iraq likely wouldn't have died if
Bush
41 didn't worry so much about what the UN thought, and marched
Schwarzkopff
into Baghdad in the first Gulf War.
snip
Or if Ray Gun had not built him up in the first place!

I love these what-if games. You have trouble with Clinton telling a few
whoppers? There is enough dirt on Ray Gun to go on forever!

Mark Browne


Really, and Bush II lies about far more important things than blow jobs,
and he lies much more frequently.

--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.