An OT question
 

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:31:53 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:26:23 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:50:32 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 23:16:28 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 01:42:10 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:06:50 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 00:25:41 -0400, wrote:


As distasteful as it is, those wackos apparently have the right to
protest.


At a certain point the reach the level of "fire in a crowded theater".



The Supreme Court spoke on this subject. They have the right to do it.


As I said, bikers have become sissies. I would expect Rolling Thunder
to explain they also have the right to get their ass kicked if they
don't take their protest down the road.

They don't have such a right. That's a threat.


Duh ... BIKERS. They are supposed to be a little threatening.

LOL Well, some are some aren't I guess.

Less the "Wild One" and more like the "Wild Hogs".

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.

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 Obama rescinded that.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
 

In article ,
says...

The pedophile Harry Krause using his Boating all out persona is stalking
me again.. Pffftttt...

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.