On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 02:12:51 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 21:57:49 -0700, jps wrote:

They will be presidents with no nation changing accomplishments and
each have one interesting anecdote. Bush will be remembere\d for Bush
v Gore and Clinton will be remembered as being the second president to
be impeached, with the blow jobs being the snicker factor that makes
it memorable.

Golly, I don't recall Clinton attempting to bankrupt the country apart
from his support of globalism.

He didn't obsessively pursue spending us into oblivion.

I can't defend Bush and Obama spending a trillion each on useless
wars.

Unfortunately nobody remembers money you didn't spend.

Obama is fighting the war that needs to be fought and it's little to
do with Afghanistan or anything that'd be idetified within a border.

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 02:17:04 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 22:09:11 -0700, jps wrote:

Funny. I see that Rick Sanchez got canned from CNN for saying his
Jewish bosses and Jon Stewart are hardly "oppressed minorities."
He only spoke the truth, and that got him fired.
Maybe he really got fired because he's an asshole who thinks because his
name is Sanchez he is automatically "oppressed," but who knows?

Jim - If ignorance works for you, go for it.

He got fired for spitting in his boss's face.

When was the last time you saw that happen and not have the spitting
fool idiot loose his job?

It was a short number of generations past when Jews were regularly set
apart by this very society, just like blacks, asians, etc. There's a
lot of people still alive who remember. And their children are still
alive who know what was done to their relatives during WWII.

A few have done well for themselves but guys like Sanchez are too
stupid to understand that they're the exception and not part of a
grand scheme of Jews taking over the world.

He played right into well-hewn stereotypes and ****ed into the wind.

It serves him right that he got **** in his face and lost his job. His
"apology" was pathetic and the only crew who'd likely hire him now is
the same group that'd love having Lou Dobbs.

Maybe he can join those idiots on the couch at Fox & Friends.


Hmmm A guy says Jews control the media and gets fired faster than
Shirley Sherrod. That sure proves he was wrong to me.. ;-)

Well, maybe people above him at CNN are Jewish and took exception to
his ignorant rant. I imagine any sentient being would take offense to
his rant and want him fired, Jewish or not.

Sherrod was a knee jerk reaction to a third-party smear. Sanchez
committed professional suicide.

In article ,
says...

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 02:11:05 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 00:38:33 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 21:40:20 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

Iraq all about Israel, as the upcoming Iran war will be.
Afg was and is a useless war. There is nothing to win there.

except the death of al qaida's influence

We are making them more powerful and Pakistan is about ready to kick
US out. They are refusing to let us use their roads now to supply our
troops.

then why are the taliban in negotiations, when our key demand is to
cut ties with AQ?

go ahead. find a resource saying AQ is more powerful today than it was
9 years ago.

i'll wait.

Beating the Taliban is like pushing mercury around in a bowl with your
finger. You can move it but it is still all there and it fills in
behind your finger.
How many years are you planning on being there, pushing these guys
around the mountains? This is Vietnam all over again.
In Vietnam we never lost a battle and we still lost the war.

Well actually I think that is the only war we did win in the 20th
century.
In every other war we had, we still have 50,000+ troops occupying the
country. We are out of Vietnam and they are now trading freely with us
and the rest of the world.

and you're an idiot if you think pakistan is going to kick us out and
lose the billions we bribe them with

They have denied us the use of the only road to Afghanistan.
That is certainly a sign that they want us to stop the war ... in
spite of our bribes. I am sure we will patch that up but the writing
is on the wall.

They haven't denied us the use of the road. They closed it for a couple of
days.


Did they not deny us the use of the road when it was "closed"??

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 02:10:34 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 21:55:42 -0700, jps wrote:

Yeah right, a partisan rant is fair I guess.

BTW history may say the Iraq war deposed one of the worst dictators of
the 20th century and Afghanistan accomplished nothing ... at about the
same price.

Gosh, it's a good thing Idi Amin didn't have oil under his country.

You notice that since Clinton got his nose bloodied in Africa we are
not really doing much war making there.

Oh, if Idi would have had oil to offer in large quantities in the
middle east, he'd have been GW Bush's target.

My point is that it had nothing whatsoever to do with toppling a
dictator and everything to do with what lives under that sand and
where that sand exists on the planet.

Mentioning that we toppled a dictator is humorous and disingenuous.

jps wrote:


He got fired for spitting in his boss's face.

When was the last time you saw that happen and not have the spitting
fool idiot loose his job?


That's always a bad idea, isn't it? Same with burning bridges when you
move on to different work by choice.
I've returned to work for 3 different employers - because I knew not to
flap my jaws for no real purpose when I left them behind.
Still think his bosses fired him more because he was a loose cannon.
They weren't insulted or hurt by his comments, they've heard it all
before. It was just a last straw symptom of Sanchez being an asshole.

It was a short number of generations past when Jews were regularly set
apart by this very society, just like blacks, asians, etc. There's a
lot of people still alive who remember. And their children are still
alive who know what was done to their relatives during WWII.

A few have done well for themselves but guys like Sanchez are too
stupid to understand that they're the exception and not part of a
grand scheme of Jews taking over the world.

He played right into well-hewn stereotypes and ****ed into the wind.


Actually, in the context of the conversation he wasn't saying anything
offensive. He was responding to the comment that Jon Stewart was
an "oppressed minority," which is patent nonsense.
If he had just said "That's nonsense," he would still be working for CNN.
But as you say, some truths are best left unsaid because they have been
soiled by nefarious purpose.

And he probably started it all by claiming he was himself an "oppressed
minority" because he's "Latino."
He's too stupid to realize that his ethnic background and fluency in
Spanish is why he's been making big bucks instead of loading trucks.
I don't know all the details, but Sanchez always struck me as having a
chip on his shoulder.
All this BS can be avoided by not engaging in ethnic/religious
identification in the first place, and viewing people as individuals.
Or at least by remembering mama's rule "If you can't say something nice,
don't say anything."


It serves him right that he got **** in his face and lost his job. His
"apology" was pathetic and the only crew who'd likely hire him now is
the same group that'd love having Lou Dobbs.


Read the wiki on Dobbs. Except for a couple lapses in his judgment you
probably are aligned with his views.
Of course his entertaining the birthers irrevocably destroyed his
reputation.
Some mistakes don't hurt bad, others kill you.
Dobbs made the latter mistake with the birther BS. Fatal.

Maybe he can join those idiots on the couch at Fox & Friends.

Hardly. Maybe Telemundo.

Jim - Clarity of thought only comes with continued thinking. Similar to
getting to Carnegie Hall.

jps wrote:
On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 16:36:48 -0400, Jim wrote:



I never did anything to John's wife. Nor did I make the above-referenced
comment about Israel. I guess one of you assholes is ID copying me too.
That's all you kiddies seem capable of doing, copying the IDs of other
posters.

A careful look at the headers supports your case. Different versions
of Thunderbird.

Forget about that. He's flajim, who first started the spoofing by
becoming Harry, and abandoning his flajim id.
When I came across this newsgroup and decided to post here I took his
old id to post anonymously.
Seemed fitting since my name is Jaime and I'm currently in Florida.
Never called myself flajim though.

The Jim that harassed John's wife was an insurance salesman from Ohio.
Anybody capable of obscene phone calls is also capable of spoofing, and
vice versa, so he might be skulking around here with Loogy.

Doesn't matter. It will be overcome. I have a dream.
I have a dream that rec.boat posters will one day live in a newsgroup
where they will not be judged by the id they use but by the content of
their posts.
You might say about us all "If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you
tickle us, do we not laugh?"
But I'm not sure of that.

Now it seems flajim wants his old id back.
Maybe he's tired of spoofing. Good for him.
I was probably rude to pick it up when he abandoned it.
But I don't feel like changing the id just yet.
Hey, nobody's perfect.
Maybe I will if flajim keeps on using the id.
Rolph Wolfheart might work. Even Wolf Rolphingheart.
Or Urquhart Finstermiesterbothingham III. Pepe LePew?
Kind of like those. Anything but Harry Krause or Loogypicker really.
In the meantime you can easily enough discern the difference between us.
I don't call others here names - directly anyway.
Don't cuss too ****ing much either, that's for damn sure.

Jim - What tangled webs we weave.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 10:22:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 02:11:05 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 00:38:33 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 21:40:20 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

Iraq all about Israel, as the upcoming Iran war will be.
Afg was and is a useless war. There is nothing to win there.

except the death of al qaida's influence

We are making them more powerful and Pakistan is about ready to kick
US out. They are refusing to let us use their roads now to supply our
troops.

then why are the taliban in negotiations, when our key demand is to
cut ties with AQ?

go ahead. find a resource saying AQ is more powerful today than it was
9 years ago.

i'll wait.

Beating the Taliban is like pushing mercury around in a bowl with your
finger. You can move it but it is still all there and it fills in
behind your finger.
How many years are you planning on being there, pushing these guys
around the mountains? This is Vietnam all over again.
In Vietnam we never lost a battle and we still lost the war.

Well actually I think that is the only war we did win in the 20th
century.
In every other war we had, we still have 50,000+ troops occupying the
country. We are out of Vietnam and they are now trading freely with us
and the rest of the world.

and you're an idiot if you think pakistan is going to kick us out and
lose the billions we bribe them with

They have denied us the use of the only road to Afghanistan.
That is certainly a sign that they want us to stop the war ... in
spite of our bribes. I am sure we will patch that up but the writing
is on the wall.

They haven't denied us the use of the road. They closed it for a couple of
days.

Is it open now? Last night CNN was still showing pictures of burning
trucks at 0200 when I went to bed.
I just turned the TV on and they are saying we have Taliban people
integrated in the Afghanis who are supposed to be guarding our bases.
Bob is right, we can't compare this to Vietnam. This is a lot worse.

Don't know... but there's certainly looting and selling the stuff in
markets. Rampant capitalism.. we must wipe it out. Even the Taliban aren't
doing that!

It's not comparable to VN. Come on. We're not carpet bombing villages.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 10:24:04 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 21:57:49 -0700, jps wrote:

They will be presidents with no nation changing accomplishments and
each have one interesting anecdote. Bush will be remembere\d for Bush
v Gore and Clinton will be remembered as being the second president to
be impeached, with the blow jobs being the snicker factor that makes
it memorable.

Golly, I don't recall Clinton attempting to bankrupt the country apart
from his support of globalism.

He didn't obsessively pursue spending us into oblivion.

I can't defend Bush and Obama spending a trillion each on useless
wars.

Unfortunately nobody remembers money you didn't spend.

Obama hasn't spent nor will he spend a trillion in either place or both.

Last I checked, Congress writes the checks, btw.


Oh you are going to use the Pentagon numbers now. When it was Bush's
war you used the most circumspect projections the DNC could come up
with to get to his trillion.

Obama has only been there 20 months, let's project that out several
more years before we say how expensive it will be.
Iraq is far from over and they are still surging in Afghanistan

I never used any Pentagon numbers or any specific agency. Obama won't be
spending a trillion in either place. We're supposed to be drawing down in
Iraq, and Afg. isn't far behind. Sorry, but that's just hysterical nonsense.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 10:25:54 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 16:53:19 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


?? This is your logic not mine. You're trying to equate the US with
Nazi
Germany. It doesn't hold.


You are the one who defines "war" as "troops on the ground".
I am just trying to understand that.
We blockaded Iraq, denied them the use of the air space over their
country with deadly force and killed a lot of innocent civilians.
All of those things are acts of war.
You prefer the "death from the air" method of warfare. In 1940 they
called that "The Blitz"
You are only upset that we actually put some of our people at risk by
taking the next logical step.

Sorry, but you're way off base on this. It's not reasonable to equate
the
two countries.

I am not equating the two wars or the two countries, only pointing out
bombing someone is an act of war. You don't think it is a war unless
we have boots on the ground.

I never said that. I said that the only time we actually had troops on the
ground in Iraq was during Bush I.

Implying that Clinton was not at war with Iraq.

It wasn't a ground war. No implication or otherwise.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 10:28:31 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 16:54:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

And your point? We went in to get bin laden. We would have settled
this
without a war if the Taliban had turned him over. They didn't.

... so we are going to kill men, women and children until they do.

No wonder they hate us there.

We do it less and less. It's against policy and every incident is looked
at.
See Petraeus.

Now it is the CIA flying drones but the death count among the
civilians is still going up.
Haven't you been watching the news at all this week? Pakistan has
blockaded out supplies over this exact thing. They are also not doing
anything to protect the trucks stalled behind the blockade and they
are being blown up as fast as the Taliban can get to them.



You seem mightily concerned about AQ, but not so much with reducing the
violent attacks in Afg. and around the world.

I am concerned about dead Americans and a war that causes more
problems than it fixes. No more no less.

For Iraq, I agree. Talk to Bush. For Afg., it's too early to tell thanks to
Bush.