"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Q wrote:
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 08:24:33 -0400, JohnH
wrote:

CNSNews
flipped and flopped.

Started as "Conservative News Service"
now "Cybertrooper News Service".

Flip-flop
flop-flip
Flip-flop
flop-flipFlip-flop
flop-flipFlip-flop
flop-flipFlip-flop
flop-flipFlip-flop
flop-flipFlip-flop
flop-flipFlip-flop
flop-flipFlip-flop
flop-flipFlip-flop
flop-flip



You know, I was wondering if that trash site had been renamed...
No wonder the righties so like it...


If Harry hates it, then it's definitely the news source for me.

Fair and balanced, unlike the lying scumbag Kerry.

John H

Since you support Bush and Cheney so enthusiastically, I assume you have no
problem with liars. ("I've never met John Edwards before tonight").

Apparently it is the "scumbag" characteristic you're objecting to?

"Jim Donohue" wrote in message
news:k2K8d.13366$mS1.7494@fed1read05...
Ad Nauseum...boy you are a low brow. In this entire interchange you have
utterly failed to make a cogent response.

Either you didn't like the responses...or you didn't understand them. I
suspect the latter.


The useful poplulation of Saudi Arabia is about 65% of Irag. It is spread
over a much wider area. We have a significant presence there to start.
The
royalty has allowed its radical moslem wing to operate in ways that lead
to
9/11. You know hold that there was no relationship between the Saudi
system
and the radicals?

So now it's the "Saudi system" that caused the attack? Before, you were
implying that the Saudi government was responsible. How quickly you've
backed off your assertion once I enlightened you to the fact that the
current Saudi Royal Family is fighting its own war for survival against the
radical Islamic fundamentalists that brought us 9/11.


Wanna buy a bridge?

Not from you. I only do business with people of integrity and intelligence.


I thought you might actually have enough intellectual to engage in an
active
discourse particulary with someone to the right of you. I was wrong.

Sorry you're so easily confused.

JohnH wrote:

Who said I was enthusiastic about Bush and Cheney? Hell, I'm as independent as
you are.


Herring's planning on enrolling in the Cheney School of Veracity, as
soon as he can raise the $5.00 tuition for this semester.


--
"...vice president (Cheney), I'm surprised to hear him talk about
records. When he was one of 435 members of the United States House, he
was one of 10 to vote against Head Start, one of four to vote against
banning plastic weapons that can pass through metal detectors. He voted
against the Department of Education. He voted against funding for
Meals on Wheels for seniors. He voted against a holiday for Martin
Luther King. He voted against a resolution calling for the release of
Nelson Mandela in South Africa. It's amazing to hear him criticize
either my record or John Kerry's."

- Senator John Edwards, 10/05/04

The Saudi Royals allowed the radicals free rain and bribed the hell out of
them to keep control of the country. The strength of the radicals in Saudi
Arabia is directly traceable to malfeasance and nonfeasance by the Royals.
They provided the climate that enabled 9/11 and have still done nothing
significant to end the role of the Saudi radicals. Given their position
their country should have been first on our list of the "degenerate backers
of terrorists". A whole lot better case there then against Saddam.
Strategically much more important and useful as well. Bush just lacked the
balls to sieze control of Mecca. He is afriad of the Terrorists.

The final report out today by the US Arms investigators...No WMDs, No WMD
programs...no hidden WMDs. Apparently the report you are pushing are
considered by the professionals as less than believeable.

Suarely though in your blind allegiance to Bush you will miss all that. No
one so dumb as he who refuses to believe the truth...and NOYB you got a big
dose of that.

Jim Donohue


"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jim Donohue" wrote in message
news:k2K8d.13366$mS1.7494@fed1read05...
Ad Nauseum...boy you are a low brow. In this entire interchange you
have
utterly failed to make a cogent response.

Either you didn't like the responses...or you didn't understand them. I
suspect the latter.


The useful poplulation of Saudi Arabia is about 65% of Irag. It is
spread
over a much wider area. We have a significant presence there to start.
The
royalty has allowed its radical moslem wing to operate in ways that lead
to
9/11. You know hold that there was no relationship between the Saudi
system
and the radicals?

So now it's the "Saudi system" that caused the attack? Before, you were
implying that the Saudi government was responsible. How quickly you've
backed off your assertion once I enlightened you to the fact that the
current Saudi Royal Family is fighting its own war for survival against
the
radical Islamic fundamentalists that brought us 9/11.


Wanna buy a bridge?

Not from you. I only do business with people of integrity and
intelligence.


I thought you might actually have enough intellectual to engage in an
active
discourse particulary with someone to the right of you. I was wrong.

Sorry you're so easily confused.

"Jim Donohue" wrote in message
news:eh09d.167$_a3.74@fed1read05...
The Saudi Royals allowed the radicals free rain and bribed the hell out of
them to keep control of the country. The strength of the radicals in
Saudi
Arabia is directly traceable to malfeasance and nonfeasance by the Royals.
They provided the climate that enabled 9/11 and have still done nothing
significant to end the role of the Saudi radicals. Given their position
their country should have been first on our list of the "degenerate
backers
of terrorists". A whole lot better case there then against Saddam.
Strategically much more important and useful as well. Bush just lacked
the
balls to sieze control of Mecca. He is afriad of the Terrorists.

LOL. Sure he is. Bush was protecting our economy. Following Bush's plan,
we can still seize Mecca...but only after we have secured an oil source from
a country or two *besides* Saudi Arabia.



The final report out today by the US Arms investigators...No WMDs, No WMD
programs...no hidden WMDs. Apparently the report you are pushing are
considered by the professionals as less than believeable.

You've chosen to believe a couple of sound-bites from the liberal news
media. But there is a lot more to the report than you've let on. Hell,
it's 1500 pages. Duelfer wouldn't need 1500 pages to say no WMD, no WMD
programs, and no hidden WMD.