Gould 0738 wrote:


Nobody is responsible for Harry except Harry.

Nope, you're implicated also as a sycophant.

Stop being the apologist for this asshole. It makes you an asshole also.

-- Charlie


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Nope, you're implicated also as a sycophant.

Stop being the apologist for this asshole. It makes you an asshole also.

-- Charlie


Sigh. Here we go again.

Here's where I say, "Show me how I have apologized for Harry Krause,"

and your only response is, "You do it all the time."

IOW, arguing the point is a total waste of time.

There are 3-4 people who will agree with you- only because of an intense
dislike for me and/or Krause. Everybody else will see your accusation for the
bovine excrement it indeed is.

On 14 Dec 2003 17:55:10 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Jeees. Where did I make this implication to which you refer?

With your comment that you're "still waiting".... (and the implication that you
are likely waiting in vain)....for any comment from several people, myself
specifically named in the group, expressing any satisfaction that Saddam
Hussein has been brought to ground.

Your bud, Harry, has made several posts without comment on the capture of
Saddam.

Nobody is responsible for Harry except Harry.

As yet, jps has had no comment. Wonder why

Could be because he's still asleep? Or, unlike some of us, doesn't respond to
momentous news by making a bee line for rec.boats?



http://www.tomorrowsbestseller.com/w...State/book.asp

jps not making a beeline, come on! If it were bad news, jps would have cut and
pasted a half dozen articles from his favorite newspapers by now!

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

In article ,
88 says...

Your bud, Harry, has made several posts without comment on the capture of
Saddam. As yet, jps has had no comment. Wonder why? Could it be because they
can't come up wit a way to put a negative spin on it?

Wow John, couldn't wait to post this could you?

I've been reading various news sources and really didn't think of
rec.boats this morning. Now that I'm here, I'm happy to comment, as you
would expect.

I'm very pleased that scum bag is out of circulation. I'm surprised
they took him alive and even more surprised they didn't clean him up to
make him look like the leader of the insurgents. I admit that's pretty
cynical but I expect this administration to play a crooked hand.

While I could hope this slows down the conflict I expect it'll only
reinforce the anti-American sentiment in the region.

Go to Aljazeera.net and see what the Arab reaction is. They're happy
that he's caught but ****ed it wasn't Iraqis who caught him. They hate
Bush and, like us liberals, don't want to see anything that causes his
rise in popularity.

They're as aware of the political implications as we are. I expect that
may be a catalyst for increased resistance.

Truth be told, I thought if the US got his hands on Saddam that this
admin. would keep him under wraps until October of 2004. I guess Karl
Rove wasn't making the call.

jps

Go to Aljazeera.net and see what the Arab reaction is.

LOL!

In article ,
says...

Go to Aljazeera.net and see what the Arab reaction is.

LOL!

Yes, God forbid you actually look at the situation from the other camp's
view.

You might learn something.

What arrogance.

"Joe" wrote in message .. .
Go to Aljazeera.net and see what the Arab reaction is.

LOL!

Do tell, what is so funny about that? Seeing how BushCo has there
collectives heads up the collective asses of the Arabs, it should be
interesting. Funny, the arabs are amassing weapons, has much more
capability that Iraq ever had, are just as volitale, but we aren't
screwing with them. Ever wonder why?

Time will tell.

What bothers me is those who seem to *want* an escallation of the conflict
and more dead soldiers to nibble at Bush's aproval ratings. There are
plenty of ways to oppose Bush without counting dead troops like trophies.

-W


"jps" wrote in message

While I could hope this slows down the conflict I expect it'll only
reinforce the anti-American sentiment in the region.

Clams Canino wrote:

Time will tell.

What bothers me is those who seem to *want* an escallation of the conflict
and more dead soldiers to nibble at Bush's aproval ratings. There are
plenty of ways to oppose Bush without counting dead troops like trophies.

-W

Who wants an escalation of the conflict in Iraq?

I do wonder how many more body bags it will take before more Americans
finally realize the idiocy of Bush's political war against Iraq.

Saddam has been out of the picture as a player for many months now.

Do you anticipate a drastic change in the *security* situation in Iraq?
If so, why?

Do you think with the capture of Saddam the attacks against American
troops will cease? If so, why?

Do you think the United States is any safer from international Moslem
terrorists than it was before Saddam was captured? If so, why?

Do you think the "show trial" of Saddam will be scheduled so as to
impact the U.S. election campaigns next year? If not, why not?

What do you think the impact might be of another serious and deadly
Moslem terrorist attack on the U.S. before next fall's elections?
Please elaborate.

As I stated this morning, it is good that we've captured Saddam and can
put him on trial, assuming the trial is run properly, but his capture
has little to do with the terrorist threats against us.














--
Email sent to is never read.

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:46:10 -0500, JohnH wrote:

On 14 Dec 2003 16:30:58 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

John H wrote:

all the congratulatory messages from Harry, jps, basskisser, gould, et al.

our capture of Saddam.

You're not very patient. It's just after 8 AM on the W coast, on a Sunday
morning.

Go and fornicate yourself, John.

Don't you ever dare to post an implication that I don't wish the best for this
country and our 300 million fellow citizens. Your screwed up perspective is
that you, only you, and those who think exactly like you have the only valid
opinions about how our society should run and what direction national policies
should take.

You shouldn't believe everything you hear on Rush Limbaugh. The high percentage
of Americans who disagree with your views are not traitors or national enemies.


Yes, I'm damn glad he's caught.
With the billions of dollars spent on an ill-advised war and the toll the
entire adventure has taken on US credibility throughout the world, it's
gratifiying to see that we have *something* tangible to show for it.

But let me ask you this- does capturing a tyrant suddenly mean that all the
statements Bush made to get us into Iraq
in the firtst place are suddenly any more true than they were this time
yesterday?

Let's hope the insurgency tapers off in Iraq.
If it does not, people will begin questioning the war more than ever - once the
capture of SH is old news.

Jeees. Where did I make this implication to which you refer? How much do I
listen to Rush? I disagree with about 75% of Rush's statements. Catching Saddam
has nothing to do with the truth of the statements Bush made. I believe Bush
made his statements in good faith. You, et al, don't. Or at least you say you
don't to maintain the party line.

John, you can't reasonably know anyone's motivation behind making any statement.

While I agree with your comment with respect to the capture of Saddam, I believe
it is still possible for reasonable people to conclude that our incursion into
Iraq was sold to the Congress and to the country with faulty information.

Did GWB knowingly misrepresent the intelligence available at the time of the
decision to commit our country to war? There's no way to know for certain--but
for anyone who might have some level of distrust about Mr. Bush's motivations
(as a significant segment of our population does have), it is not unreasonable
to infer his motives.

The fact that the inferences of some in that regard might be different from
those of others does not mean that those people who oppose our involvement in
the Middle East (or the way in which our involvement unfolds) are unpatriotic,
unreasonable or unintelligent. It means they have evaluated the available data
and arrived at their own conclusions.

Your bud, Harry, has made several posts without comment on the capture of
Saddam. As yet, jps has had no comment. Wonder why? Could it be because they
can't come up wit a way to put a negative spin on it?

Could it be because they're not particularly interested in the topic? Last time
I looked, no one was obligated to weigh in on *very* topic here.

And while I'm at it, what leads you to believe that Chuck Gould is "buds" with
the bilious Mr. Kraus?

Joe Parsons