|
An OT question
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:33:06 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:28:45 -0700, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 09:48:04 -0400, John H wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:47:45 -0400, Gene wrote: On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 13:35:47 -0400, John H wrote: On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:33:40 -0400, Gene wrote: On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:52:09 -0400, John H wrote: On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:31:43 -0600, Canuck57 wrote: On 18/03/2011 2:10 PM, wrote: On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:48:24 -0400, John wrote: Last night I heard Oprah saying the war in Afghanistan had very little impact on her because there was little to remind her it was going on. That made me wonder...why don't we see the pictures of the dead, their caskets, etc, like we did when Bush was president. We used to see their pictures on NBC and other newscasts, and even in the big papers. Now we see nothing of the sort. Anyone? Are you stupid or just lying? Bush was the one who banned photography of the caskets. Obama rescinded that. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20090226/index.htm emdeplume, kick you butt off your shoulders, you will see the real situation a lot better. I believe the policy banning of the casket photography was in effect during the Clinton administration. Bush simply enforced it. In any case, so what? Why is this liberal president not showing all the caskets? Why not write Fox News and ask them.... you could post their response here.... The question had to do with the major media, not Fox. Fox wasn't, as far as I know, broadcasting pictures of dead soldiers like the major media were. Why is the major media not doing the same now? I suppose that's a rough question for a liberal. Maybe you should define "major media." Since FOX leads what I would call major media by at least a 2 to 1 margin, I thought they were major media.... silly me..... http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/201...-17-2011/86214 Too much of a challenge? Major television media, to me, include NBC, ABC, and CBS, not the cable news networks such as CNN, MSNBC, or FOX. Major newsprint media include the Washington Post, NY Times, LA Times, USA Today, etc. None of them are pushing pictures of dead soldiers as they were when Bush was president. Nothing challenging there. None of them were ever "pushing" pictures of our dead soldiers. You're just a right wing nut. Why did MSNBC fight for the right to show Dover? Which has nothing to do with showing our dead soldiers and it has little to do with the guidelines set forth by the current administration, which basically say you can if you get family's permission. I'm sure they were interested in both free speech issues and their bottom line. |
An OT question
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:34:04 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:31:11 -0700, wrote: He was just one player in a 20 year Bush/Clinton/Bush ... now Obama government. The policy differences are largely cosmetic. ... and it starts again in Libya No, he wasn't just "one player." He started a war of choice. He did more than anyone else (unless you count Cheney) to undermine the US economically, socially, and with foreign policy. Feel free to keep defending him. Nothing is starting "again" in Libya. More right-wing nonsense. Fee free to ignore the contribution of the rest. Huh? What contribution? The nuts don't contribute very much. |
An OT question
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:35:17 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 12:31:43 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 12:18:37 -0400, Ernie wrote: On 3/20/2011 11:46 AM, wrote: Will there be any outrage about dead kids coming home from Libya? The whole topic *bores* Krause. I am always amused when the democrats sit idly by as a democratic president prosecutes an idiotic war but they get all over a republican for the same war. Looks like you're about to join the traitors. Are you seriously comparing Iraq to Libya? It appears you just called them "the same war." Are you anticipating the death of American military in Libya? Will that happening "prove you right?" Do you want to be "right?" You just dropped 97 notches on the intelligence scale. I'm surprised. But as I said in another post, low politics has no morality or sense of judgement. As soon as you start talking "democrat" and "republican" you forfeit the right to be taken seriously. You become a puppet to those labels. But it's amusing to see you join the ranks of Mike Moore and Scotty Ingersoll in one fell swoop. Iraq started as a no fly zone, as did Bosnia. We are still in both countries. It did not start as a no-fly zone. It started with Bush I rolling back the Iraqi advance into Kuwait. Perhaps Bosnia was worth it? Or, do you think ethnic cleansing is ok... |
An OT question
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:37:39 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:35:09 -0700, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 11:46:47 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 11:06:25 -0400, Harryk wrote: wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:04:41 -0400, wrote: I was wrong, I did misread the first note. John does have a point though. The media fought Bush for the right to go out to Dover and take pictures of coffins from the Iraq war and now that they have that right, they are not showing the coffins coming home from Afghanistan. I don't really think it is a liberal conspiracy though. I think the TV networks just figured out they sell more products if they don't show coffins and they like the American public to be as blissfully ignorant of this war as Oprah. It does demonstrate how phony the righteous indignation of the left was when Bush was the president. It was never about the war. It was only about Bush. That's about as simple-minded an analysis as I've seen. Maybe there's less reportage about the bodies because it's been reported and it's boring. So you are saying Bush made war a safe prospect for Democrats? Now nobody cares that our kids are being killed for no particular reason and they can stay in the blissful ignorance Oprah is so proud of. No, I am not saying that Bush made way a "safe prospect." What I posted, in plain English, is easy enough to understand: maybe there is less reportage about the bodies because it's been reported and it's boring. The young U.S. men and women who died in Iraq during Bush's war were killed for no particular reason. The last time large numbers of U.S. troops died for a particular reason was in World War II. The question still stands, where is the outrage from the left about the kids who are still coming home from Afghanistan in a box? Will there be any outrage about dead kids coming home from Libya? Why does there have to be outrage from the left? Where are the Republicans who want the Afg. war to end right now? There aren't many. Sounds to me like you're bitter about something. Perhaps you should write Bush a letter and tell him how you feel about the two wars he started, one of choice, while he pretty much ignored the one that had some justification. Actually I would write Obama a letter and ask him what happened to his 2007 and early 2008 promise to end BOTH wars. He would probably write back, saying he's trying, but Bush left quite a mess. Where's all the outrage about the Bosnian conflict? Oh wait, that was Clinton's war.. I was never happy about Bosnia and we still have troops on the ground there. Sure... ethnic cleansing is ok with you... we have no reason to protect people who are being persecuted because of that. |
An OT question
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:54:36 -0400, Harryk
wrote: wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:35:09 -0700, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 11:46:47 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 11:06:25 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:04:41 -0400, wrote: I was wrong, I did misread the first note. John does have a point though. The media fought Bush for the right to go out to Dover and take pictures of coffins from the Iraq war and now that they have that right, they are not showing the coffins coming home from Afghanistan. I don't really think it is a liberal conspiracy though. I think the TV networks just figured out they sell more products if they don't show coffins and they like the American public to be as blissfully ignorant of this war as Oprah. It does demonstrate how phony the righteous indignation of the left was when Bush was the president. It was never about the war. It was only about Bush. That's about as simple-minded an analysis as I've seen. Maybe there's less reportage about the bodies because it's been reported and it's boring. So you are saying Bush made war a safe prospect for Democrats? Now nobody cares that our kids are being killed for no particular reason and they can stay in the blissful ignorance Oprah is so proud of. No, I am not saying that Bush made way a "safe prospect." What I posted, in plain English, is easy enough to understand: maybe there is less reportage about the bodies because it's been reported and it's boring. The young U.S. men and women who died in Iraq during Bush's war were killed for no particular reason. The last time large numbers of U.S. troops died for a particular reason was in World War II. The question still stands, where is the outrage from the left about the kids who are still coming home from Afghanistan in a box? Will there be any outrage about dead kids coming home from Libya? Why does there have to be outrage from the left? Where are the Republicans who want the Afg. war to end right now? There aren't many. Sounds to me like you're bitter about something. Perhaps you should write Bush a letter and tell him how you feel about the two wars he started, one of choice, while he pretty much ignored the one that had some justification. Actually I would write Obama a letter and ask him what happened to his 2007 and early 2008 promise to end BOTH wars. Where's all the outrage about the Bosnian conflict? Oh wait, that was Clinton's war.. I was never happy about Bosnia and we still have troops on the ground there. We still have troops in Germany, Korea, and Japan. I guess there might be some good that's come out of having troops in Japan, given all the help they need. The troops in Bosnia are engaged in peacekeeping activities. Iraq seems an "iffy" proposition. Many believe open warfare will break out there as we begin pulling out in large numbers. I've always thought Iraq was and would remain a disaster. Afghanistan, now there's the rub. I have no idea why we are in Afghanistan, and it is one of the issues I have with the Obama administration. I think it's come down to try and stabilizing the situation in both places, thanks to Bush's screw ups. Beyond that, we should get out as quickly as possible. Sometimes I think we maintain these overseas positions in order to give our boys in uniform something to do, possibilities for promotion, and the ability to remain in uniform. After all, if we weren't so active, we could cut the military budget in half, at least, and muster out hundreds of thousands of marginal troops like Herring. Even being so active, we don't need all the cold war era hardware. There's still a lot to cut. |
An OT question
|
An OT question
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:06:51 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:13:00 -0700, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:31:53 -0400, wrote: I do wonder how this plays in a "fighting words" state where it is determined that some speech is egregious enough to justify assault. It depends a lot on the presiding authority. Different places define them differently. Basically, it's when they're used to incite violence or express hatred by the person to whom they're directed, but that's very broad. I think standing next to a funeral telling some family that their son died because god killed him for supporting fags is "inciting violence". I agree, but the Supreme's disagreed. It was one of the few times that I actually agreed with Alito. They decided that it was a public statement vs. one to specific person. |
An OT question
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:12:05 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:15:24 -0700, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:34:04 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:31:11 -0700, wrote: He was just one player in a 20 year Bush/Clinton/Bush ... now Obama government. The policy differences are largely cosmetic. ... and it starts again in Libya No, he wasn't just "one player." He started a war of choice. He did more than anyone else (unless you count Cheney) to undermine the US economically, socially, and with foreign policy. Feel free to keep defending him. Nothing is starting "again" in Libya. More right-wing nonsense. Fee free to ignore the contribution of the rest. Huh? What contribution? The nuts don't contribute very much. The contribution to all of the ills you blame on GWB. Clinton signed all of the legislation that allowed and even encouraged the financial co,llapse. GHWB is the one who got the Iraq war started with no exit plan and both democrats have done nothing to get us out of Iraq, Obama doubled down in Afghanistan with pretty much nothing to show for it. He has also been in lock step with the GW financial program. The people running our financial policy today are the same ones who ran it in the ditch. Bob would point out, they all come from Wall Street. No. Never said that. Again, you just love to make things up. Read what I said, and get back to us. GHWB didn't go after Saddam over a lie. Afg. is a lot more stable, but it's a long, hard slog. If Bush had stuck to it, we wouldn't be in this mess. I'm not completely happy with the way Obama has handled the Republican intransigence. |
An OT question
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:23:45 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:16:41 -0700, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:35:17 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 12:31:43 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 12:18:37 -0400, Ernie wrote: On 3/20/2011 11:46 AM, wrote: Will there be any outrage about dead kids coming home from Libya? The whole topic *bores* Krause. I am always amused when the democrats sit idly by as a democratic president prosecutes an idiotic war but they get all over a republican for the same war. Looks like you're about to join the traitors. Are you seriously comparing Iraq to Libya? It appears you just called them "the same war." Are you anticipating the death of American military in Libya? Will that happening "prove you right?" Do you want to be "right?" You just dropped 97 notches on the intelligence scale. I'm surprised. But as I said in another post, low politics has no morality or sense of judgement. As soon as you start talking "democrat" and "republican" you forfeit the right to be taken seriously. You become a puppet to those labels. But it's amusing to see you join the ranks of Mike Moore and Scotty Ingersoll in one fell swoop. Iraq started as a no fly zone, as did Bosnia. We are still in both countries. It did not start as a no-fly zone. It started with Bush I rolling back the Iraqi advance into Kuwait. No that mission ended when we wisely abandoned the pursuit of the Republican guard into Iraq. We were supposed to come home, only leaving a token force behind to protect Kuwait ... for a short period of time. The whole no fly zone thing came about as a totally different policy when some moron decided if we could keep Saddam's air force down, the Kurds would topple Saddam. It sounds like what we are doing in Libya today. Under which presidency was that? Hmmm... GHWB. As I said, it started as a roll-back from Kuwait. Perhaps Bosnia was worth it? Or, do you think ethnic cleansing is ok... I am not sure we did much more than postpone the next round of ethnic cleansing. If we really thought we had fixed anything we would come home but we have just created another Korea where we keep 50,000 troops to keep people who want to kill each other from killing each other, basically replacing the Soviets who did that for 45 years. Really? I guess you haven't been keeping up on the current events. Do a Google search and get back to us. |
An OT question
|
An OT question
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:29:11 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:18:00 -0700, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:37:39 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:35:09 -0700, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 11:46:47 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 11:06:25 -0400, Harryk wrote: wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:04:41 -0400, wrote: I was wrong, I did misread the first note. John does have a point though. The media fought Bush for the right to go out to Dover and take pictures of coffins from the Iraq war and now that they have that right, they are not showing the coffins coming home from Afghanistan. I don't really think it is a liberal conspiracy though. I think the TV networks just figured out they sell more products if they don't show coffins and they like the American public to be as blissfully ignorant of this war as Oprah. It does demonstrate how phony the righteous indignation of the left was when Bush was the president. It was never about the war. It was only about Bush. That's about as simple-minded an analysis as I've seen. Maybe there's less reportage about the bodies because it's been reported and it's boring. So you are saying Bush made war a safe prospect for Democrats? Now nobody cares that our kids are being killed for no particular reason and they can stay in the blissful ignorance Oprah is so proud of. No, I am not saying that Bush made way a "safe prospect." What I posted, in plain English, is easy enough to understand: maybe there is less reportage about the bodies because it's been reported and it's boring. The young U.S. men and women who died in Iraq during Bush's war were killed for no particular reason. The last time large numbers of U.S. troops died for a particular reason was in World War II. The question still stands, where is the outrage from the left about the kids who are still coming home from Afghanistan in a box? Will there be any outrage about dead kids coming home from Libya? Why does there have to be outrage from the left? Where are the Republicans who want the Afg. war to end right now? There aren't many. Sounds to me like you're bitter about something. Perhaps you should write Bush a letter and tell him how you feel about the two wars he started, one of choice, while he pretty much ignored the one that had some justification. Actually I would write Obama a letter and ask him what happened to his 2007 and early 2008 promise to end BOTH wars. He would probably write back, saying he's trying, but Bush left quite a mess. Are you saying he wasn't up to the job he was running for? That is what Hillary was saying all through the spring of 2008. This may be the first president in history who is still blaming the previous president 4 years later. I'm saying that Bush was a lying asshole and he and Cheney are war criminals. Where's all the outrage about the Bosnian conflict? Oh wait, that was Clinton's war.. I was never happy about Bosnia and we still have troops on the ground there. Sure... ethnic cleansing is ok with you... we have no reason to protect people who are being persecuted because of that. We only seem to care about "cleansing" white people. The world is full of genocide and we conveniently ignore it everywhere else. So, you do or don't want us to get involved in those situations? Time to get off the fence. |
An OT question
On 20/03/2011 6:42 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:01:48 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:54:36 -0400, wrote: Why does there have to be outrage from the left? Where are the Republicans who want the Afg. war to end right now? There aren't many. Sounds to me like you're bitter about something. Perhaps you should write Bush a letter and tell him how you feel about the two wars he started, one of choice, while he pretty much ignored the one that had some justification. Actually I would write Obama a letter and ask him what happened to his 2007 and early 2008 promise to end BOTH wars. Where's all the outrage about the Bosnian conflict? Oh wait, that was Clinton's war.. I was never happy about Bosnia and we still have troops on the ground there. We still have troops in Germany, Korea, and Japan. I don't understand Germany and Japan either. Maybe we should remove them right now? Would that make you feel better? We are still at war with Korea ... as much as we ever were, this is just a cease fire in an undeclared war. So, we should just leave, right? The troops in Bosnia are engaged in peacekeeping activities. What the hell does that mean? If this is really "peace keeping", send the peace corps, other wise it is a military adventure. Really? Who have we shot at recently in Bosnia? Iraq seems an "iffy" proposition. Many believe open warfare will break out there as we begin pulling out in large numbers. I've always thought Iraq was and would remain a disaster. Count on it. No, you count on it... the rest of us will go with the facts on the ground. Afghanistan, now there's the rub. I have no idea why we are in Afghanistan, and it is one of the issues I have with the Obama administration. We have always agreed there. Sometimes I think we maintain these overseas positions in order to give our boys in uniform something to do, possibilities for promotion, and the ability to remain in uniform. After all, if we weren't so active, we could cut the military budget in half, at least, and muster out hundreds of thousands of marginal troops like Herring. We could still cut the budget in half but the real problem is, most of the DoD budget is a pork barrel jobs program. Which is, of course, Obama's fault. Certainly not Reagan's. Hey, if anyone thinks Reagan is to blame for the curent mess I suggest they see a doctor a the logic and rationality centers of the brain must be dead. Their that or too many bad drugs. -- In Debt We Trust - Obama and the Democrats. |
An OT question
In article ,
says... On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:13:00 -0700, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:31:53 -0400, wrote: I do wonder how this plays in a "fighting words" state where it is determined that some speech is egregious enough to justify assault. It depends a lot on the presiding authority. Different places define them differently. Basically, it's when they're used to incite violence or express hatred by the person to whom they're directed, but that's very broad. I think standing next to a funeral telling some family that their son died because god killed him for supporting fags is "inciting violence". A few thugs in masks should pop out of a crowd and give a few of them hideous beat downs and disappear back into the crowd.. A couple incidents like that and the cowards would go find something else to do to try to impress each other... That is when they got out of the hospital. |
An OT question
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:50:32 -0400, wrote:
Duh ... BIKERS. They are supposed to be a little threatening. Most of the bikers around here are on social security. |
An OT question
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:17:27 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 17:40:48 -0700, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:23:45 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:16:41 -0700, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:35:17 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 12:31:43 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 12:18:37 -0400, Ernie wrote: On 3/20/2011 11:46 AM, wrote: Will there be any outrage about dead kids coming home from Libya? The whole topic *bores* Krause. I am always amused when the democrats sit idly by as a democratic president prosecutes an idiotic war but they get all over a republican for the same war. Looks like you're about to join the traitors. Are you seriously comparing Iraq to Libya? It appears you just called them "the same war." Are you anticipating the death of American military in Libya? Will that happening "prove you right?" Do you want to be "right?" You just dropped 97 notches on the intelligence scale. I'm surprised. But as I said in another post, low politics has no morality or sense of judgement. As soon as you start talking "democrat" and "republican" you forfeit the right to be taken seriously. You become a puppet to those labels. But it's amusing to see you join the ranks of Mike Moore and Scotty Ingersoll in one fell swoop. Iraq started as a no fly zone, as did Bosnia. We are still in both countries. It did not start as a no-fly zone. It started with Bush I rolling back the Iraqi advance into Kuwait. No that mission ended when we wisely abandoned the pursuit of the Republican guard into Iraq. We were supposed to come home, only leaving a token force behind to protect Kuwait ... for a short period of time. The whole no fly zone thing came about as a totally different policy when some moron decided if we could keep Saddam's air force down, the Kurds would topple Saddam. It sounds like what we are doing in Libya today. Under which presidency was that? Hmmm... GHWB. As I said, it started as a roll-back from Kuwait. The no fly zones had nothing to do with rolling back from Kuwait. It was all about supporting the Northern Alliance. Huh? I never said they did. Bush I ordered the attack after Kuwait. That's when it started. But, of course, Bush is a Republican, so it's ok. Perhaps Bosnia was worth it? Or, do you think ethnic cleansing is ok... I am not sure we did much more than postpone the next round of ethnic cleansing. If we really thought we had fixed anything we would come home but we have just created another Korea where we keep 50,000 troops to keep people who want to kill each other from killing each other, basically replacing the Soviets who did that for 45 years. Really? I guess you haven't been keeping up on the current events. Do a Google search and get back to us. Enlighten me. Tell me something different. Are you saying the Soviets didn't tamp down this 500 year feud? Are you saying it didn't start back up shortly after they left? We did all celebrate their freedom from communism, until we figured out what they were going to do with their freedom. I'm saying that the Bosnian war was successful in stopping the genocide. Do you really think they suddenly are going to let bygones be bygones and forget the feud? As soon as we leave they will be back at it. According to you, international and all-things expert. |
An OT question
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:32:28 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:20:05 -0700, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:54:36 -0400, Harryk wrote: wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:35:09 -0700, wrote: We still have troops in Germany, Korea, and Japan. I guess there might be some good that's come out of having troops in Japan, given all the help they need. Most of the US help is coming from the Navy, not the army troops on the ground. Both are helping, but you don't really care about us helping them do you. |
An OT question
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 19:14:41 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 20/03/2011 6:42 PM, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:01:48 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:54:36 -0400, wrote: Why does there have to be outrage from the left? Where are the Republicans who want the Afg. war to end right now? There aren't many. Sounds to me like you're bitter about something. Perhaps you should write Bush a letter and tell him how you feel about the two wars he started, one of choice, while he pretty much ignored the one that had some justification. Actually I would write Obama a letter and ask him what happened to his 2007 and early 2008 promise to end BOTH wars. Where's all the outrage about the Bosnian conflict? Oh wait, that was Clinton's war.. I was never happy about Bosnia and we still have troops on the ground there. We still have troops in Germany, Korea, and Japan. I don't understand Germany and Japan either. Maybe we should remove them right now? Would that make you feel better? We are still at war with Korea ... as much as we ever were, this is just a cease fire in an undeclared war. So, we should just leave, right? The troops in Bosnia are engaged in peacekeeping activities. What the hell does that mean? If this is really "peace keeping", send the peace corps, other wise it is a military adventure. Really? Who have we shot at recently in Bosnia? Iraq seems an "iffy" proposition. Many believe open warfare will break out there as we begin pulling out in large numbers. I've always thought Iraq was and would remain a disaster. Count on it. No, you count on it... the rest of us will go with the facts on the ground. Afghanistan, now there's the rub. I have no idea why we are in Afghanistan, and it is one of the issues I have with the Obama administration. We have always agreed there. Sometimes I think we maintain these overseas positions in order to give our boys in uniform something to do, possibilities for promotion, and the ability to remain in uniform. After all, if we weren't so active, we could cut the military budget in half, at least, and muster out hundreds of thousands of marginal troops like Herring. We could still cut the budget in half but the real problem is, most of the DoD budget is a pork barrel jobs program. Which is, of course, Obama's fault. Certainly not Reagan's. Hey, if anyone thinks Reagan is to blame for the curent mess I suggest they see a doctor a the logic and rationality centers of the brain must be dead. Their that or too many bad drugs. Hey, you're an idiot. |
An OT question
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:23:57 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 17:42:45 -0700, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:01:48 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:54:36 -0400, Harryk wrote: Why does there have to be outrage from the left? Where are the Republicans who want the Afg. war to end right now? There aren't many. Sounds to me like you're bitter about something. Perhaps you should write Bush a letter and tell him how you feel about the two wars he started, one of choice, while he pretty much ignored the one that had some justification. Actually I would write Obama a letter and ask him what happened to his 2007 and early 2008 promise to end BOTH wars. Where's all the outrage about the Bosnian conflict? Oh wait, that was Clinton's war.. I was never happy about Bosnia and we still have troops on the ground there. We still have troops in Germany, Korea, and Japan. I don't understand Germany and Japan either. Maybe we should remove them right now? Would that make you feel better? It's a start when we want to chip away at the $600 billion DoD budget We are still at war with Korea ... as much as we ever were, this is just a cease fire in an undeclared war. So, we should just leave, right? Maybe. Sure thing. Screw the Japanese. Let them suffer. You're quite a humanitarian. The troops in Bosnia are engaged in peacekeeping activities. What the hell does that mean? If this is really "peace keeping", send the peace corps, other wise it is a military adventure. Really? Who have we shot at recently in Bosnia? Are you saying we shouldn't be there either. Now we are getting somewhere. I'm saying we're doing a valuable job there, whether or not you like it. Iraq seems an "iffy" proposition. Many believe open warfare will break out there as we begin pulling out in large numbers. I've always thought Iraq was and would remain a disaster. Count on it. No, you count on it... the rest of us will go with the facts on the ground. The "facts on the ground" are that as soon as we pull back from a place in Afghanistan, it goes back to the way it was like pulling your foot out of a bucket of mud. Maybe, but of course you're the expert in all things, so it's got to be true. Afghanistan, now there's the rub. I have no idea why we are in Afghanistan, and it is one of the issues I have with the Obama administration. We have always agreed there. Sometimes I think we maintain these overseas positions in order to give our boys in uniform something to do, possibilities for promotion, and the ability to remain in uniform. After all, if we weren't so active, we could cut the military budget in half, at least, and muster out hundreds of thousands of marginal troops like Herring. We could still cut the budget in half but the real problem is, most of the DoD budget is a pork barrel jobs program. Which is, of course, Obama's fault. Certainly not Reagan's. Probably more like George Washington, certainly FDR. Eisenhower tried to warn us but JFK cranked up the arms race (on a lie about a nonexistent missile gap) and it never stopped Sure... Reagan, the God, couldn't be at fault. |
An OT question
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:29:54 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 17:44:11 -0700, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:29:11 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:18:00 -0700, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:37:39 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:35:09 -0700, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 11:46:47 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 11:06:25 -0400, Harryk wrote: wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:04:41 -0400, wrote: I was wrong, I did misread the first note. John does have a point though. The media fought Bush for the right to go out to Dover and take pictures of coffins from the Iraq war and now that they have that right, they are not showing the coffins coming home from Afghanistan. I don't really think it is a liberal conspiracy though. I think the TV networks just figured out they sell more products if they don't show coffins and they like the American public to be as blissfully ignorant of this war as Oprah. It does demonstrate how phony the righteous indignation of the left was when Bush was the president. It was never about the war. It was only about Bush. That's about as simple-minded an analysis as I've seen. Maybe there's less reportage about the bodies because it's been reported and it's boring. So you are saying Bush made war a safe prospect for Democrats? Now nobody cares that our kids are being killed for no particular reason and they can stay in the blissful ignorance Oprah is so proud of. No, I am not saying that Bush made way a "safe prospect." What I posted, in plain English, is easy enough to understand: maybe there is less reportage about the bodies because it's been reported and it's boring. The young U.S. men and women who died in Iraq during Bush's war were killed for no particular reason. The last time large numbers of U.S. troops died for a particular reason was in World War II. The question still stands, where is the outrage from the left about the kids who are still coming home from Afghanistan in a box? Will there be any outrage about dead kids coming home from Libya? Why does there have to be outrage from the left? Where are the Republicans who want the Afg. war to end right now? There aren't many. Sounds to me like you're bitter about something. Perhaps you should write Bush a letter and tell him how you feel about the two wars he started, one of choice, while he pretty much ignored the one that had some justification. Actually I would write Obama a letter and ask him what happened to his 2007 and early 2008 promise to end BOTH wars. He would probably write back, saying he's trying, but Bush left quite a mess. Are you saying he wasn't up to the job he was running for? That is what Hillary was saying all through the spring of 2008. This may be the first president in history who is still blaming the previous president 4 years later. I'm saying that Bush was a lying asshole and he and Cheney are war criminals. That seems to be your only thought about anything. It sure doesn't say much about that $100,000 education. It sure does say much about your unwillingness to face the facts. Feel free to attack me personally if it makes you feel better. The facts are pretty clear that the two of them should be in jail. Where's all the outrage about the Bosnian conflict? Oh wait, that was Clinton's war.. I was never happy about Bosnia and we still have troops on the ground there. Sure... ethnic cleansing is ok with you... we have no reason to protect people who are being persecuted because of that. We only seem to care about "cleansing" white people. The world is full of genocide and we conveniently ignore it everywhere else. So, you do or don't want us to get involved in those situations? Time to get off the fence. NO, clear enough? It is none of our business. Perfectly clear. You don't care about your fellow human beings. Got it. I do notice the hypocrisy that we did only went after the genocide in (white) Bosnia and we don't give a **** about genocide in Tibet, or sub saharan Africa. You didn't care about what was going on in Iraq either. At least I am consistent. Yep. We should have done more there. Not less elsewhere. I didn't care about Iraq? Where are you getting that? You have yet to be consistent about much... perhaps false equivalency and an unwillingness to get past right-wing ideology. |
An OT question
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 02:09:51 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:17:37 -0700, wrote: Under which presidency was that? Hmmm... GHWB. As I said, it started as a roll-back from Kuwait. The no fly zones had nothing to do with rolling back from Kuwait. It was all about supporting the Northern Alliance. Huh? I never said they did. Bush I ordered the attack after Kuwait. That's when it started. But, of course, Bush is a Republican, so it's ok. You said it 6 lines up. The no fly zones had nothing to do with rolling back from Kuwait. They did. They started after that in August 1992. Bush I was in office. The second NFZ started in 1996 under Clinton. You're going to claim that the NFZ had no relationship to the Kuwait invasion? Take you're head out of the sand. Perhaps Bosnia was worth it? Or, do you think ethnic cleansing is ok... I am not sure we did much more than postpone the next round of ethnic cleansing. If we really thought we had fixed anything we would come home but we have just created another Korea where we keep 50,000 troops to keep people who want to kill each other from killing each other, basically replacing the Soviets who did that for 45 years. Really? I guess you haven't been keeping up on the current events. Do a Google search and get back to us. Enlighten me. Tell me something different. Are you saying the Soviets didn't tamp down this 500 year feud? Are you saying it didn't start back up shortly after they left? We did all celebrate their freedom from communism, until we figured out what they were going to do with their freedom. I'm saying that the Bosnian war was successful in stopping the genocide. Do you really think they suddenly are going to let bygones be bygones and forget the feud? As soon as we leave they will be back at it. According to you, international and all-things expert. If there was no ongoing threat, why are we still there? Never said there was "no threat." I said that we're on a peacekeeping mission. Try again. |
An OT question
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 02:16:24 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:20:34 -0700, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:23:57 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 17:42:45 -0700, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:01:48 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:54:36 -0400, Harryk wrote: Why does there have to be outrage from the left? Where are the Republicans who want the Afg. war to end right now? There aren't many. Sounds to me like you're bitter about something. Perhaps you should write Bush a letter and tell him how you feel about the two wars he started, one of choice, while he pretty much ignored the one that had some justification. Actually I would write Obama a letter and ask him what happened to his 2007 and early 2008 promise to end BOTH wars. Where's all the outrage about the Bosnian conflict? Oh wait, that was Clinton's war.. I was never happy about Bosnia and we still have troops on the ground there. We still have troops in Germany, Korea, and Japan. I don't understand Germany and Japan either. Maybe we should remove them right now? Would that make you feel better? It's a start when we want to chip away at the $600 billion DoD budget We are still at war with Korea ... as much as we ever were, this is just a cease fire in an undeclared war. So, we should just leave, right? Maybe. Sure thing. Screw the Japanese. Let them suffer. You're quite a humanitarian. What does Korea have to do with Japan? Not a thing, but the same argument applies. Should we just abandon the Koreans? You're quite a humanitarian. Are you changing the subject again? The troops in Bosnia are engaged in peacekeeping activities. What the hell does that mean? If this is really "peace keeping", send the peace corps, other wise it is a military adventure. Really? Who have we shot at recently in Bosnia? Are you saying we shouldn't be there either. Now we are getting somewhere. I'm saying we're doing a valuable job there, whether or not you like it. Didn't you just get through saying we stopped all the genocide and scolded me because I said they still had two populations who hate each other. We stopped it, and we're preventing a redux. It's called peacekeeping. It's a worthy job. FYI, it's a UN operation, not just the US, but of course, the facts don't really matter, right? Mostly, it's monitoring, but like I said, facts don't matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...eping_missions What is this "valuable job"? Iraq seems an "iffy" proposition. Many believe open warfare will break out there as we begin pulling out in large numbers. I've always thought Iraq was and would remain a disaster. Count on it. No, you count on it... the rest of us will go with the facts on the ground. The "facts on the ground" are that as soon as we pull back from a place in Afghanistan, it goes back to the way it was like pulling your foot out of a bucket of mud. Maybe, but of course you're the expert in all things, so it's got to be true. I know a little about the history there. Evidently you don't. So far, you haven't demonstrated that in this thread. Afghanistan, now there's the rub. I have no idea why we are in Afghanistan, and it is one of the issues I have with the Obama administration. We have always agreed there. Sometimes I think we maintain these overseas positions in order to give our boys in uniform something to do, possibilities for promotion, and the ability to remain in uniform. After all, if we weren't so active, we could cut the military budget in half, at least, and muster out hundreds of thousands of marginal troops like Herring. We could still cut the budget in half but the real problem is, most of the DoD budget is a pork barrel jobs program. Which is, of course, Obama's fault. Certainly not Reagan's. Probably more like George Washington, certainly FDR. Eisenhower tried to warn us but JFK cranked up the arms race (on a lie about a nonexistent missile gap) and it never stopped Sure... Reagan, the God, couldn't be at fault. What does Reagan have to do with the arms race? It started in 1960. Reagan was still making movies. Nothing. He just increased the Navy to... what was it... 600 ships or something like that. He was a dove, according to you. |
An OT question
On Mar 21, 1:24*am, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 02:09:51 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:17:37 -0700, wrote: Under which presidency was that? Hmmm... GHWB. As I said, it started as a roll-back from Kuwait. The no fly zones had nothing to do with rolling back from Kuwait. It was all about supporting the Northern Alliance. Huh? I never said they did. Bush I ordered the attack after Kuwait. That's when it started. But, of course, Bush is a Republican, so it's ok. You said it 6 lines up. The no fly zones had nothing to do with rolling back from Kuwait. They did. They started after that in August 1992. Bush I was in office. The second NFZ started in 1996 under Clinton. You're going to claim that the NFZ had no relationship to the Kuwait invasion? Take you're head out of the sand. Perhaps Bosnia was worth it? Or, do you think ethnic cleansing is ok... I am not sure we did much more than postpone the next round of ethnic cleansing. If we really thought we had fixed anything we would come home but we have just created another Korea where we keep 50,000 troops to keep people who want to kill each other from killing each other, basically replacing the Soviets who did that for 45 years. Really? I guess you haven't been keeping up on the current events. Do a Google search and get back to us. Enlighten me. Tell me something different. Are you saying the Soviets didn't tamp down this 500 year feud? Are you saying it didn't start back up shortly after they left? We did all celebrate their freedom from communism, until we figured out what they were going to do with their freedom. I'm saying that the Bosnian war was successful in stopping the genocide. Do you really think they suddenly are going to let bygones be bygones and forget the feud? As soon as we leave they will be back at it. According to you, international and all-things expert. If there was no ongoing threat, why are we still there? Never said there was "no threat." I said that we're on a peacekeeping mission. Try again. bull****. If Mr. Fretwell said there was no threat then you say there is one. If he says there is a threat then you challenge him for proof. D'Plume, you're a moron. |
An OT question
|
An OT question
In article ,
says... On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:47:04 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:50:32 -0400, wrote: Duh ... BIKERS. They are supposed to be a little threatening. Most of the bikers around here are on social security. If you get up there on the dirt roads in North Ft Myers you can find the real deal. It is still nothing like the PG county Md bikers. You have the guys who are really Pagans, the guys who hang around the Pagans and the guys who know those guys. When I was flipping Harleys I knew a few of the latter. They are the people who know the most about Harleys and I had some grudging respect because I had a knack for transmissions and I could get a Bendix carb working. We had a nice little restaurant new where I grew up that was taken over by the Pagans, it slowly turned into a titty bar but nobody went to it except the Pagans and some idiot young soldiers from Ft Belvior. Then there was the False Alarm down in Woodbridge |
An OT question
On Mar 21, 6:34*am, Gene wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:48:24 -0400, John H wrote: Last night I heard Oprah saying the war in Afghanistan had very little impact on her because there was little to remind her it was going on. Anyone? Anybody that watches (or can STAND to watch) Oprah has problems....... -- Forté Agent 6.00 Build 1186 "Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So, throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." * - Unknown Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC. Homepage *http://pamandgene.tranquilrefuge.net/boating/the_boat/my_boat.htm i never saw much benefit in watching Oprah. |
An OT question
Gene wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:48:24 -0400, John wrote: Last night I heard Oprah saying the war in Afghanistan had very little impact on her because there was little to remind her it was going on. Anyone? Anybody that watches (or can STAND to watch) Oprah has problems....... That's absurd. Watching Oprah would be a terrific idea for some of the righties here, who are totally devoid of compassion. |
An OT question
On 3/21/2011 7:49 AM, Harryk wrote:
Gene wrote: On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:48:24 -0400, John wrote: Last night I heard Oprah saying the war in Afghanistan had very little impact on her because there was little to remind her it was going on. Anyone? Anybody that watches (or can STAND to watch) Oprah has problems....... That's absurd. Watching Oprah would be a terrific idea for some of the righties here, who are totally devoid of compassion. Would you think so if she were a fat white lady |
An OT question
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 07:34:00 -0400, Gene
wrote: On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:48:24 -0400, John H wrote: Last night I heard Oprah saying the war in Afghanistan had very little impact on her because there was little to remind her it was going on. Anyone? Anybody that watches (or can STAND to watch) Oprah has problems....... I keep telling my wife that, but she doesn't listen to me. Besides, that wasn't the point. (As you well know.) |
An OT question
John H wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 07:34:00 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:48:24 -0400, John wrote: Last night I heard Oprah saying the war in Afghanistan had very little impact on her because there was little to remind her it was going on. Anyone? Anybody that watches (or can STAND to watch) Oprah has problems....... I keep telling my wife that, but she doesn't listen to me. Your wife seems to be a decent person. You are a piece of ****. That probably explains it, eh? |
An OT question
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:04:18 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 23:24:00 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 02:09:51 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:17:37 -0700, wrote: Under which presidency was that? Hmmm... GHWB. As I said, it started as a roll-back from Kuwait. The no fly zones had nothing to do with rolling back from Kuwait. It was all about supporting the Northern Alliance. Huh? I never said they did. Bush I ordered the attack after Kuwait. That's when it started. But, of course, Bush is a Republican, so it's ok. You said it 6 lines up. The no fly zones had nothing to do with rolling back from Kuwait. They did. They started after that in August 1992. Bush I was in office. The second NFZ started in 1996 under Clinton. You're going to claim that the NFZ had no relationship to the Kuwait invasion? Take you're head out of the sand. OK explain the relationship (other than the fact that we had the power in the region to do it) There was no direct connection to Kuwait in any way. To start with the first NFZs were in NORTHERN Iraq. Kuwait is south. The NFZs were sold to us as humanitarian, saving the Kurds with the back story that if they could move freely they would topple Saddam. Where was your head when this story was all over the media? The NFZs followed the Kuwait roll-back. So, I guess humanitarian goals aren't valid, according to you anyway. Then, Bush I abandoned the Shiite in the south. Saddam was contained and he made no further attempts at regional conquest under Clinton. Then Bush II/Cheney decided to "finish" the job, and we got a war we didn't need. Perhaps Bosnia was worth it? Or, do you think ethnic cleansing is ok... I am not sure we did much more than postpone the next round of ethnic cleansing. If we really thought we had fixed anything we would come home but we have just created another Korea where we keep 50,000 troops to keep people who want to kill each other from killing each other, basically replacing the Soviets who did that for 45 years. Really? I guess you haven't been keeping up on the current events. Do a Google search and get back to us. Enlighten me. Tell me something different. Are you saying the Soviets didn't tamp down this 500 year feud? Are you saying it didn't start back up shortly after they left? We did all celebrate their freedom from communism, until we figured out what they were going to do with their freedom. I'm saying that the Bosnian war was successful in stopping the genocide. Do you really think they suddenly are going to let bygones be bygones and forget the feud? As soon as we leave they will be back at it. According to you, international and all-things expert. If there was no ongoing threat, why are we still there? Never said there was "no threat." I said that we're on a peacekeeping mission. Try again. "Peacekeeping"? Nice euphemism, ... and what happens when we stop "keeping peace"? Exactly what I said will happen. They will start killing each other again. According to you. Have you actually looked at who's in Bosnia right now? Wow... so many US troops there... it's shocking! http://www.stripes.com/news/imminent...roatia-1.62196 Keep claiming all your nonsense, but I think you're a bit behind the times. |
An OT question
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:19:19 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 23:30:42 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 02:16:24 -0400, wrote: Sure thing. Screw the Japanese. Let them suffer. You're quite a humanitarian. What does Korea have to do with Japan? Not a thing, but the same argument applies. Should we just abandon the Koreans? You're quite a humanitarian. Like I said, changing the subject again. Like you said, nothing. Sounds to me like you're just unable to keep up with the conversation. I guess the real question in Korea is, would the US support another Korean war right now (perhaps a nuclear war) Would we have really been better off if we had let the big dog eat in 1950? So, wipe out S. Korean, forget all the economic benefit that's come from that country... The fall of Vietnam did not cause all the problems the hawks predicted to justify killing 60,000 Americans and a couple million Vietnamese. So? Your point? Are you changing the subject again? The troops in Bosnia are engaged in peacekeeping activities. What the hell does that mean? If this is really "peace keeping", send the peace corps, other wise it is a military adventure. Really? Who have we shot at recently in Bosnia? Are you saying we shouldn't be there either. Now we are getting somewhere. I'm saying we're doing a valuable job there, whether or not you like it. Didn't you just get through saying we stopped all the genocide and scolded me because I said they still had two populations who hate each other. We stopped it, and we're preventing a redux. It's called peacekeeping. It's a worthy job. FYI, it's a UN operation, not just the US, but of course, the facts don't really matter, right? Mostly, it's monitoring, but like I said, facts don't matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...eping_missions The UN is the US. If we are not providing the lion's share of the military force, it is a farce. No, it isn't. Even though you want to believe it it's not true. Talk to the UK and France about who's been flying. What is this "valuable job"? Iraq seems an "iffy" proposition. Many believe open warfare will break out there as we begin pulling out in large numbers. I've always thought Iraq was and would remain a disaster. Count on it. No, you count on it... the rest of us will go with the facts on the ground. The "facts on the ground" are that as soon as we pull back from a place in Afghanistan, it goes back to the way it was like pulling your foot out of a bucket of mud. Maybe, but of course you're the expert in all things, so it's got to be true. I know a little about the history there. Evidently you don't. So far, you haven't demonstrated that in this thread. You tell me a story about anyone who has imposed any real influence over the tribes in Afghanistan Ms history major. Which has nothing to do with the subject of stabilization, which takes time Mr. I Know Everything about Everything. Afghanistan, now there's the rub. I have no idea why we are in Afghanistan, and it is one of the issues I have with the Obama administration. We have always agreed there. Sometimes I think we maintain these overseas positions in order to give our boys in uniform something to do, possibilities for promotion, and the ability to remain in uniform. After all, if we weren't so active, we could cut the military budget in half, at least, and muster out hundreds of thousands of marginal troops like Herring. We could still cut the budget in half but the real problem is, most of the DoD budget is a pork barrel jobs program. Which is, of course, Obama's fault. Certainly not Reagan's. Probably more like George Washington, certainly FDR. Eisenhower tried to warn us but JFK cranked up the arms race (on a lie about a nonexistent missile gap) and it never stopped Sure... Reagan, the God, couldn't be at fault. What does Reagan have to do with the arms race? It started in 1960. Reagan was still making movies. Nothing. He just increased the Navy to... what was it... 600 ships or something like that. He was a dove, according to you. No I am just saying he continued the policy started by JFK Nope. He didn't. His goal was to increase the military. That wasn't JFK's goal and you know it. |
An OT question
Gene wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:21:46 -0400, John wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 07:34:00 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:48:24 -0400, John wrote: Last night I heard Oprah saying the war in Afghanistan had very little impact on her because there was little to remind her it was going on. Anyone? Anybody that watches (or can STAND to watch) Oprah has problems....... I keep telling my wife that, but she doesn't listen to me. Besides, that wasn't the point. (As you well know.) My guess: News sells.... bad news sells good. When the troop casualties were increasing, it was salable news. Now that they have dropped significantly, it isn't the moneymaker it was... and the supply has diminished... ..... yes, it is macabre and disgusting... but that is what keeps a news corporation in the black.... http://icasualties.org/oef/ByYear.aspx Getting back to the other issue here, which is more interesting... ....and that is the expressions of disdain and even disgust some have posted here about Oprah. I've been a fan of Oprah since she won the libel suit brought against her in the late 1990's by those Texas cattlemen. I don't watch her show, but I am aware of her presence and many of the good deeds she does with her money and influence. She publishes a classy magazine, too. I know that because my wife subscribes and I look through it every month. My gut tells me Oprah is not liked by a certain element here because: A. She's black and, even worse, a black woman. B. She's very influential in many areas, perhaps the most influential woman in the world. C. She's a self-made billionaire. D. She's pretty much dedicated to liberal causes. E. She helped Obama get elected. These, to me, are all reasons to admire her, and reasons for the wigged-out righties to hate her. Live long and prosper, Oprah. |
An OT question
In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says... Getting back to the other issue here, which is more interesting... Interesting. Sure. What about Jessica Simpson? Or Jaylo? ...and that is the expressions of disdain and even disgust some have posted here about Oprah. I've been a fan of Oprah since she won the libel suit brought against her in the late 1990's by those Texas cattlemen. I don't watch her show, but I am aware of her presence and many of the good deeds she does with her money and influence. She publishes a classy magazine, too. I know that because my wife subscribes and I look through it every month. My gut tells me Oprah is not liked by a certain element here because: A. She's black and, even worse, a black woman. B. She's very influential in many areas, perhaps the most influential woman in the world. C. She's a self-made billionaire. D. She's pretty much dedicated to liberal causes. E. She helped Obama get elected. These, to me, are all reasons to admire her, and reasons for the wigged-out righties to hate her. I'm not a righty, and don't care one way or the other about Oprah. Oprah is totally boring to me. It's a chick show for Chist's sake. You go ahead and be a fan, Harriet. More power to ya. Live long and prosper, Oprah. |
An OT question
On 3/21/2011 5:27 PM, Harryk wrote:
Gene wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:21:46 -0400, John wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 07:34:00 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:48:24 -0400, John wrote: Last night I heard Oprah saying the war in Afghanistan had very little impact on her because there was little to remind her it was going on. Anyone? Anybody that watches (or can STAND to watch) Oprah has problems....... I keep telling my wife that, but she doesn't listen to me. Besides, that wasn't the point. (As you well know.) My guess: News sells.... bad news sells good. When the troop casualties were increasing, it was salable news. Now that they have dropped significantly, it isn't the moneymaker it was... and the supply has diminished... ..... yes, it is macabre and disgusting... but that is what keeps a news corporation in the black.... http://icasualties.org/oef/ByYear.aspx Getting back to the other issue here, which is more interesting... ...and that is the expressions of disdain and even disgust some have posted here about Oprah. I've been a fan of Oprah since she won the libel suit brought against her in the late 1990's by those Texas cattlemen. I don't watch her show, but I am aware of her presence and many of the good deeds she does with her money and influence. She publishes a classy magazine, too. I know that because my wife subscribes and I look through it every month. My gut tells me Oprah is not liked by a certain element here because: A. She's black and, even worse, a black woman. B. She's very influential in many areas, perhaps the most influential woman in the world. C. She's a self-made billionaire. D. She's pretty much dedicated to liberal causes. E. She helped Obama get elected. These, to me, are all reasons to admire her, and reasons for the wigged-out righties to hate her. Live long and prosper, Oprah. Sounds to me that you are overcompensating for shameful atrocities you and your ancestors perpetrated on blacks and Jews. Are you a former KKK Klansman? BTW D and E is all that's needed to make her one of those steeenkin groupies. |
An OT question
In article ,
says... On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:21:46 -0400, John H wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 07:34:00 -0400, Gene wrote: On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:48:24 -0400, John H wrote: Last night I heard Oprah saying the war in Afghanistan had very little impact on her because there was little to remind her it was going on. Anyone? Anybody that watches (or can STAND to watch) Oprah has problems....... I keep telling my wife that, but she doesn't listen to me. Besides, that wasn't the point. (As you well know.) My guess: News sells.... bad news sells good. When the troop casualties were increasing, it was salable news. Now that they have dropped significantly, it isn't the moneymaker it was... and the supply has diminished... ..... yes, it is macabre and disgusting... but that is what keeps a news corporation in the black.... http://icasualties.org/oef/ByYear.aspx OH for **** sake Gene.. The pictures stopped in the news on Jan 21, 2008... Why keep acting like you don't see it? |
An OT question
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:24:34 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:48:09 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:04:18 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 23:24:00 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 02:09:51 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:17:37 -0700, wrote: Under which presidency was that? Hmmm... GHWB. As I said, it started as a roll-back from Kuwait. The no fly zones had nothing to do with rolling back from Kuwait. It was all about supporting the Northern Alliance. Huh? I never said they did. Bush I ordered the attack after Kuwait. That's when it started. But, of course, Bush is a Republican, so it's ok. You said it 6 lines up. The no fly zones had nothing to do with rolling back from Kuwait. They did. They started after that in August 1992. Bush I was in office. The second NFZ started in 1996 under Clinton. You're going to claim that the NFZ had no relationship to the Kuwait invasion? Take you're head out of the sand. OK explain the relationship (other than the fact that we had the power in the region to do it) There was no direct connection to Kuwait in any way. To start with the first NFZs were in NORTHERN Iraq. Kuwait is south. The NFZs were sold to us as humanitarian, saving the Kurds with the back story that if they could move freely they would topple Saddam. Where was your head when this story was all over the media? The NFZs followed the Kuwait roll-back. So, I guess humanitarian goals aren't valid, according to you anyway. Then, Bush I abandoned the Shiite in the south. Saddam was contained and he made no further attempts at regional conquest under Clinton. Then Bush II/Cheney decided to "finish" the job, and we got a war we didn't need. I agree we should have simply come home, right after desert storm in 1991. Any further involvement was just going to result in more involvement. We did what was appropriate at the time of the UN resolution. Clinton did as best he could, and he certainly didn't make things worse. What was the logical conclusion of this operation going to be? Were we still going to be "flying the box" there 20 years later enforcing that NFZ and bombing them a few times a week? According to you.. Perhaps Bosnia was worth it? Or, do you think ethnic cleansing is ok... I am not sure we did much more than postpone the next round of ethnic cleansing. If we really thought we had fixed anything we would come home but we have just created another Korea where we keep 50,000 troops to keep people who want to kill each other from killing each other, basically replacing the Soviets who did that for 45 years. Really? I guess you haven't been keeping up on the current events. Do a Google search and get back to us. Enlighten me. Tell me something different. Are you saying the Soviets didn't tamp down this 500 year feud? Are you saying it didn't start back up shortly after they left? We did all celebrate their freedom from communism, until we figured out what they were going to do with their freedom. I'm saying that the Bosnian war was successful in stopping the genocide. Do you really think they suddenly are going to let bygones be bygones and forget the feud? As soon as we leave they will be back at it. According to you, international and all-things expert. If there was no ongoing threat, why are we still there? Never said there was "no threat." I said that we're on a peacekeeping mission. Try again. "Peacekeeping"? Nice euphemism, ... and what happens when we stop "keeping peace"? Exactly what I said will happen. They will start killing each other again. According to you. Have you actually looked at who's in Bosnia right now? Wow... so many US troops there... it's shocking! http://www.stripes.com/news/imminent...roatia-1.62196 Keep claiming all your nonsense, but I think you're a bit behind the times. It is still a couple thousand guys according to your article which could not provide the number for Croatia. I assume they gave this to NATO so we could send the troops to Afghanistan. How horrible... we're a successful peacekeeping force. It's a national disgrace. Call CNN. |
An OT question
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:38:49 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:51:59 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:19:19 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 23:30:42 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 02:16:24 -0400, wrote: Sure thing. Screw the Japanese. Let them suffer. You're quite a humanitarian. What does Korea have to do with Japan? Not a thing, but the same argument applies. Should we just abandon the Koreans? You're quite a humanitarian. Like I said, changing the subject again. Like you said, nothing. Sounds to me like you're just unable to keep up with the conversation. I guess the real question in Korea is, would the US support another Korean war right now (perhaps a nuclear war) Would we have really been better off if we had let the big dog eat in 1950? So, wipe out S. Korean, forget all the economic benefit that's come from that country... The fall of Vietnam did not cause all the problems the hawks predicted to justify killing 60,000 Americans and a couple million Vietnamese. So? Your point? See above. We don't know what would have happened if we had not intervened in ther civil war. Oh come on. You're just trying to support an untenable argument at this point. You're not making much sense... see what happens??? Are you changing the subject again? The troops in Bosnia are engaged in peacekeeping activities. What the hell does that mean? If this is really "peace keeping", send the peace corps, other wise it is a military adventure. Really? Who have we shot at recently in Bosnia? Are you saying we shouldn't be there either. Now we are getting somewhere. I'm saying we're doing a valuable job there, whether or not you like it. Didn't you just get through saying we stopped all the genocide and scolded me because I said they still had two populations who hate each other. We stopped it, and we're preventing a redux. It's called peacekeeping. It's a worthy job. FYI, it's a UN operation, not just the US, but of course, the facts don't really matter, right? Mostly, it's monitoring, but like I said, facts don't matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...eping_missions The UN is the US. If we are not providing the lion's share of the military force, it is a farce. No, it isn't. Even though you want to believe it it's not true. Talk to the UK and France about who's been flying. Bull**** The US is the hammer for the UN. Nobody else can come close to providing the logistic support, the air power or the mechanized ground troops. We're supplying logistics and air power. We are part of the UN force. So, no bull****, as you put it. No other country has a credible naval force either. (Reagan's 600 ships) Basically we go in, clear the zone and the UN/NATO puts in guys in blue helmets when the place is so safe we don't even want to pay "danger pay" to our troops. (according to your article) Yet there are other ships in the area, and they've launched missiles. What is this "valuable job"? Iraq seems an "iffy" proposition. Many believe open warfare will break out there as we begin pulling out in large numbers. I've always thought Iraq was and would remain a disaster. Count on it. No, you count on it... the rest of us will go with the facts on the ground. The "facts on the ground" are that as soon as we pull back from a place in Afghanistan, it goes back to the way it was like pulling your foot out of a bucket of mud. Maybe, but of course you're the expert in all things, so it's got to be true. I know a little about the history there. Evidently you don't. So far, you haven't demonstrated that in this thread. You tell me a story about anyone who has imposed any real influence over the tribes in Afghanistan Ms history major. Which has nothing to do with the subject of stabilization, which takes time Mr. I Know Everything about Everything. If the place has never been stable and the only places that are stable now are the places where we have overwhelming force on the ground, I do sound like I know. I am not the only person who thinks Afghanistan is a fools errand, unfortunately Obama is just not listening to them. Give him a call. I'm sure he'll take your views under advisement, since you're such an expert! Afghanistan, now there's the rub. I have no idea why we are in Afghanistan, and it is one of the issues I have with the Obama administration. We have always agreed there. Sometimes I think we maintain these overseas positions in order to give our boys in uniform something to do, possibilities for promotion, and the ability to remain in uniform. After all, if we weren't so active, we could cut the military budget in half, at least, and muster out hundreds of thousands of marginal troops like Herring. We could still cut the budget in half but the real problem is, most of the DoD budget is a pork barrel jobs program. Which is, of course, Obama's fault. Certainly not Reagan's. Probably more like George Washington, certainly FDR. Eisenhower tried to warn us but JFK cranked up the arms race (on a lie about a nonexistent missile gap) and it never stopped Sure... Reagan, the God, couldn't be at fault. What does Reagan have to do with the arms race? It started in 1960. Reagan was still making movies. Nothing. He just increased the Navy to... what was it... 600 ships or something like that. He was a dove, according to you. No I am just saying he continued the policy started by JFK Nope. He didn't. His goal was to increase the military. That wasn't JFK's goal and you know it. Of course it was JFKs goal. What other reason would he have to continue lying about a missile gap, after he got his presidential briefing? The fact was that the Soviets only had about 6 missiles capable of hitting any part of the US and the process of fueling and firing them was more like a moon shot than pushing a button. Kennedy knew this on January 20 1961 but it was not public knowledge because we did not want to disclose the fact that we were still illegally flying over USSR and taking pictures. We also did not want to expose the Corona program (space surveillance) Feel free to blame JFK for all your problems. I don't think he cares at this point. |
An OT question
On Mar 21, 4:09*pm, Gene wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:21:46 -0400, John H wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 07:34:00 -0400, Gene wrote: On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:48:24 -0400, John H wrote: Last night I heard Oprah saying the war in Afghanistan had very little impact on her because there was little to remind her it was going on. Anyone? Anybody that watches (or can STAND to watch) Oprah has problems....... I keep telling my wife that, but she doesn't listen to me. Besides, that wasn't the point. (As you well know.) My guess: News sells.... bad news sells good. When the troop casualties were increasing, it was salable news. Now that they have dropped significantly, it isn't the moneymaker it was... and the supply has diminished... ..... yes, it is macabre and disgusting... but that is what keeps a news corporation in the black.... http://icasualties.org/oef/ByYear.aspx -- Fort Agent 6.00 Build 1186 "Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So, throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." * - Unknown Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC. Homepage *http://pamandgene.tranquilrefuge.net/boating/the_boat/my_boat.htm Like the old newspaper motto...."If it bleeds, it reads" |
An OT question
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com