OT Rush Limbaugh's first sensible words?
 

This was sent to me today. I've got no verification of it's accuracy.
Love him or loathe him, he nailed this one right on the head.............

By Rush Limbaugh:

I think the vast differences in compensation between victims of the
September 11 casualty and those who die serving our country in Uniform are
profound. No one is really talking about it either, because you just don't
criticize anything having to do with September 11. Well, I can't let the
numbers pass by because it says something really disturbing about the
entitlement mentality of this country. If you lost a family member in the
September 11 attack, you're going to get an average of $1,185,000. The range
is a minimum guarantee of $250,000, all the way up to $4.7 million.


If you are a surviving family member of an American soldier killed in
action, the first check you get is a $6,000 direct death benefit, half of
which is taxable.

Next, you get $1,750 for burial costs. If you are the surviving spouse, you
get $833 a month until you remarry. And there's a payment of $211 per month
for each child under 18. When the child hits 18, those payments come to a
screeching halt.

Keep in mind that some of the people who are getting an average of $1.185
million up to $4.7 million are complaining that it's not enough. Their
deaths were tragic, but for most, they were simply in the wrong place at the
wrong time. Soldiers put themselves in harm's way FOR ALL OF US, and they
and their families know the dangers.

We also learned over the weekend that some of the victims from the Oklahoma
City bombing have started an organization asking for the same deal that the
September 11 families are getting. In addition to that! , some o f the
families of those bombed in the embassies are now asking for compensation as
well.

You see where this is going, don't you? Folks, this is part and parcel of
over 50 years of entitlement politics in this country. It's just really sad.
Every time a pay raise comes up for the military, they usually receive next
to nothing of a raise. Now the green machine is in combat in the Middle East
while their families have to survive on food stamps and live in low-rent
housing. Make sense?

However, our own US Congress voted themselves a raise. Many of you don't
know that they only have to be in Congress one time to receive a pension
that is more than $15,000 per month. And most are now equal to being
millionaires plus. They do not receive Social Security on retirement because
they didn't have to pay into the system.

If some of the military people stay in for 20 years and get out as an E-7,
they may receive a pension of $1,000 per month, and the very people who
placed them in harm's way receive a pension of $15,000 per month.

I would like to see our elected officials pick up a weapon and join ranks
before they start cutting out benefits and lowering pay for our sons and
daughters who are now fighting.

Dixon wrote:

This was sent to me today. I've got no verification of it's accuracy.
Love him or loathe him, he nailed this one right on the head.............

One big difference. No one signed up voluntarily for the 9/11 attack.

Those who sign up for military duty should be aware of what they are doing.

Sorry, but the reality is that the risk of getting killed is the reality
of military force.

Dixon wrote:

This was sent to me today. I've got no verification of it's accuracy.
Love him or loathe him, he nailed this one right on the head.............

Conservatives don't want to pay taxes, but have no problem with spending
my tax money.

Big difference here is that no one, on our side, signed up voluntarily
to fight any wars in the World Trade Center.

If anyone signs up VOLUNTARILY to serve in the military, they should be
aware that one of the possible consequences of pointing guns at people
is to get killed.

Sorry, but the realities of what we are doing is being ignored.

Conservatives don't want to pay taxes, but have no problem with
spending
my tax money.



Well, I consider myself a Conservative, and I don't like to pay taxes,
and I really don't like spending anybodys tax money.

Tim wrote:

Conservatives don't want to pay taxes, but have no problem with

spending

my tax money.




Well, I consider myself a Conservative, and I don't like to pay taxes,
and I really don't like spending anybodys tax money.


I consider myself a conservative, but there is not much that I agree
with the Republican Party.

I don't think they are conservative, in any aspect.

To me, the Republican Party is homophobic, free spenders, who want to
force their religious values on everyone. Then there's their attitude
on fighting wars, based on false reasons.

These are not conservative values.

Rush Limbaugh has his head up his ass when he says:

However, our own US Congress voted themselves a raise. Many of you don't
know that they only have to be in Congress one time to receive a pension
that is more than $15,000 per month.

A single congressional term is two years.
It takes five years to vest in the Congressional pension fund, so a congressman
would need to be reelected twice to even receive a dime of pension income.

A Senator elected to a six year term would be eligible toward the end of a
single term, true.

These figures are now a few years old, but not long ago the average pension for
members of the US Congress was between $45-50,000 per year, (about $4k a month,
not $15k) and included in that average are congressmen who served for 20 or 30
years as well as those who served only a single term.

As always, Rush doesn't let the truth get in the way of a sensational lie
disguised as a statistic.

http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly68.htm

So you listen to Rush Chuck?


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Rush Limbaugh has his head up his ass when he says:

However, our own US Congress voted themselves a raise. Many of you don't
know that they only have to be in Congress one time to receive a pension
that is more than $15,000 per month.

A single congressional term is two years.
It takes five years to vest in the Congressional pension fund, so a
congressman
would need to be reelected twice to even receive a dime of pension income.

A Senator elected to a six year term would be eligible toward the end of a
single term, true.

These figures are now a few years old, but not long ago the average
pension for
members of the US Congress was between $45-50,000 per year, (about $4k a
month,
not $15k) and included in that average are congressmen who served for 20
or 30
years as well as those who served only a single term.

As always, Rush doesn't let the truth get in the way of a sensational lie
disguised as a statistic.

http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly68.htm

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 12:50:19 -0500, Dixon wrote:



I would like to see our elected officials pick up a weapon and join ranks
before they start cutting out benefits and lowering pay for our sons and
daughters who are now fighting.

Don't expect any improvement from this administration. Party unity is
more important to them than veterans.

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index....9805517220.xml

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 12:50:19 -0500, Dixon wrote:



I would like to see our elected officials pick up a weapon and join ranks
before they start cutting out benefits and lowering pay for our sons and
daughters who are now fighting.

Don't expect any improvement from this administration. Party unity is
more important to them than veterans.

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index....9805517220.xml


Wow, the *reporter* interjects a biased opinion in the very first sentence
of the story. I thought reporters were to report stories, not editorialize,
but what would one expect from a liberal newspaper?

Do you have more credible links on this Thunder?

So you listen to Rush Chuck?


Almost every day, for a few minutes.

Listening to Rush and Hannity puts you well ahead of the curve when
anticipating what the neo-cons will be excited about for at least the next few
days.

I did screw up my comment, elections are every two years but the terms are four
years for congresspeople, of course, so you only have to be reelected once, not
twice, as I stated carelessly. In any event,
on single-term congressman goes home with $15,000 a month for life in
congressional pension. That's just plain wrong and ridiculous.

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 19:00:37 -0500, JimH wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 12:50:19 -0500, Dixon wrote:



I would like to see our elected officials pick up a weapon and join
ranks before they start cutting out benefits and lowering pay for our
sons and daughters who are now fighting.

Don't expect any improvement from this administration. Party unity is
more important to them than veterans.

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index....9805517220.xml


Wow, the *reporter* interjects a biased opinion in the very first
sentence of the story. I thought reporters were to report stories, not
editorialize, but what would one expect from a liberal newspaper?

Do you have more credible links on this Thunder?

Oh please, the Star-Ledger is a quality newspaper. If you doubt it's
veracity, I'm afraid I won't be able to satisfy your doubts. I don't have
any links to any petroglyphs in that cave you are living in. For those
who can more reasonably access modern information:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...litics/2978757

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/expor...505/smith.html

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/expor.../chairman.html

http://www.indystar.com/articles/0/207112-3120-098.html

http://www.unitedspinal.org/newsroom...tem.php?id=201

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=41345

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?n...= 44551&rfi=6

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 18:46:07 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 12:50:19 -0500, Dixon wrote:



I would like to see our elected officials pick up a weapon and join ranks
before they start cutting out benefits and lowering pay for our sons and
daughters who are now fighting.

Don't expect any improvement from this administration. Party unity is
more important to them than veterans.

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index....9805517220.xml

The previous administration didn't do a whole hell of a lot for us
either!

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 19:00:37 -0500, JimH wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 12:50:19 -0500, Dixon wrote:



I would like to see our elected officials pick up a weapon and join
ranks before they start cutting out benefits and lowering pay for our
sons and daughters who are now fighting.

Don't expect any improvement from this administration. Party unity is
more important to them than veterans.

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index....9805517220.xml


Wow, the *reporter* interjects a biased opinion in the very first
sentence of the story. I thought reporters were to report stories, not
editorialize, but what would one expect from a liberal newspaper?

Do you have more credible links on this Thunder?

Oh please, the Star-Ledger is a quality newspaper.

Your *opinion* but not that of the majority.

Now direct me to another source that provides specific proof that "the move
was prompted by the New Jersey lawmaker's failure to follow the party line
and his insistence on increasing spending for veterans".

None of the links you provided could do so.

Coincidence? ;-)

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 20:20:33 -0500, JohnH wrote:


http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index....9805517220.xml

The previous administration didn't do a whole hell of a lot for us either!

For starters, he kept more of you alive.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 20:20:33 -0500, JohnH wrote:


http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index....9805517220.xml

The previous administration didn't do a whole hell of a lot for us
either!

For starters, he kept more of you alive.

Really? I can think of 3,000 who died on 9-11 thanks to Clinton. I can
also not recall anything he ever did to try and stop terrorism. We are now
paying the price of Clinton *blow job* impeachment Presidency.

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 20:24:02 -0500, JimH wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 19:00:37 -0500, JimH wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 12:50:19 -0500, Dixon wrote:



I would like to see our elected officials pick up a weapon and join
ranks before they start cutting out benefits and lowering pay for our
sons and daughters who are now fighting.

Don't expect any improvement from this administration. Party unity
is more important to them than veterans.

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index....9805517220.xml


Wow, the *reporter* interjects a biased opinion in the very first
sentence of the story. I thought reporters were to report stories, not
editorialize, but what would one expect from a liberal newspaper?

Do you have more credible links on this Thunder?

Oh please, the Star-Ledger is a quality newspaper.

Your *opinion* but not that of the majority.

Now direct me to another source that provides specific proof that "the
move was prompted by the New Jersey lawmaker's failure to follow the party
line and his insistence on increasing spending for veterans".

None of the links you provided could do so.

Coincidence? ;-)

You are living in denial. I'd need a Freedom of Information Act request
to get anything out of the Republican Steering Committee. Keep your eyes
open, you will see more of this under DeLay and Hastert. It's called
"party discipline" and they are good at it. Washington's Farewell Address
comes to mind:

http://mysite.verizon.net/aahpat/pol/gw.htm

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 20:24:02 -0500, JimH wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 19:00:37 -0500, JimH wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 12:50:19 -0500, Dixon wrote:



I would like to see our elected officials pick up a weapon and join
ranks before they start cutting out benefits and lowering pay for our
sons and daughters who are now fighting.

Don't expect any improvement from this administration. Party unity
is more important to them than veterans.

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index....9805517220.xml


Wow, the *reporter* interjects a biased opinion in the very first
sentence of the story. I thought reporters were to report stories, not
editorialize, but what would one expect from a liberal newspaper?

Do you have more credible links on this Thunder?

Oh please, the Star-Ledger is a quality newspaper.

Your *opinion* but not that of the majority.

Now direct me to another source that provides specific proof that "the
move was prompted by the New Jersey lawmaker's failure to follow the
party
line and his insistence on increasing spending for veterans".

None of the links you provided could do so.

Coincidence? ;-)

You are living in denial. I'd need a Freedom of Information Act request
to get anything out of the Republican Steering Committee. Keep your eyes
open, you will see more of this under DeLay and Hastert. It's called
"party discipline" and they are good at it. Washington's Farewell Address
comes to mind:

http://mysite.verizon.net/aahpat/pol/gw.htm



So I see you fail to address my concerns with your initial reply but rather
change the subject to a remote "my site"" internet site.

How clever of you.

JimH wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 19:00:37 -0500, JimH wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 12:50:19 -0500, Dixon wrote:



I would like to see our elected officials pick up a weapon and join
ranks before they start cutting out benefits and lowering pay for our
sons and daughters who are now fighting.

Don't expect any improvement from this administration. Party unity is
more important to them than veterans.


http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index....9805517220.xml


Wow, the *reporter* interjects a biased opinion in the very first
sentence of the story. I thought reporters were to report stories, not
editorialize, but what would one expect from a liberal newspaper?

Do you have more credible links on this Thunder?

Oh please, the Star-Ledger is a quality newspaper.

Your *opinion* but not that of the majority.

Now direct me to another source that provides specific proof that "the
move was prompted by the New Jersey lawmaker's failure to follow the party
line and his insistence on increasing spending for veterans".

None of the links you provided could do so.

Coincidence? ;-)

Here's a place you can look it up yourself while your waiting for your
"Instant Messenger Buddies" to "maybe" sign on again so you can pester them.
If I were you I wouldn't hold my breath. They probibly got you blocked.

Nobody has to prove anything to you.

http://www.google.com/

Good luck with your search.
--
_______m___õ¿~___m_________________________

Gould 0738 wrote:
.... In any event,
on single-term congressman goes home with $15,000 a month for life in
congressional pension. That's just plain wrong and ridiculous.


To a lot of people, if Rush says it, that makes it right. I'm waiting
for him to announce that water flows uphill.

DSK

JimH wrote:

Really? I can think of 3,000 who died on 9-11 thanks to Clinton. I can
also not recall anything he ever did to tray and stop terrorism.......

**********************

Nobody should have to spend the rest of their life so grossly
underinformed:

Each item has one or more links to verfying cites. Have fun.

April 24, 1995 The American Civil Liberties Union today said that the
=93counter-terrorism=94 proposals suggested by President Clinton Sunday
evening threatened to repeat the mistakes of the past and erode
constitutional principles that have shaped our society and remain at
the core of our freedom and liberty.
=85
http://www.aclu.org/ news/n042495.html

April 18, 1996 Congress on Thursday passed a compromise bill boosting
the ability of law enforcement authorities to fight domestic terrorism
.. . . The measure, which the Senate passed overwhelmingly Wednesday
evening, is a watered-down version of the White House's proposal. The
Clinton administration has been critical of the bill, calling it too
weak.
=85
http:/ /www.cnn.com/US/9604/18/anti.terror.bill/ index.html

July 30, 1996 Paris -- A Fact Sheet from the July 30 ministerial
meeting of the P-8 (the industrialized nations of the world plus
Russia) notes that President Clinton for three years has led an
international campaign to combat terrorism in concert with the P-8 as
well as with allies in the Middle East and elsewhere . . . Following is
the official text of the Fact Sheet.
=85
http:// www.fas.org/irp/threat/p8_facta. htm

July 30, 1996 President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly
in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess . . .
But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican
lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed
anti-terrorism measures . . . Clinton said he knew there was Republican
opposition to his proposal on explosive taggants, but it should not be
allowed to block the provisions on which both parties agree.
=85
http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/ clinton.terrorism/

August 25, 1998 The August 20 bombing of Osama bin Laden's terrorist
bases in Afghanistan and the alleged bin Laden-funded chemical weapons
production facility in Khartoum, was a decisive and appropriate U.S.
response to the atrocities in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, and President
Bill Clinton should be commended.
=85
http://www. washingtoninstitute.org/media/schenker. htm

March 21, 2000 US President Bill Clinton said on Tuesday that he would
take up with Pakistan military ruler Gen Pervez Musharraf the issue of
terrorism in the Kashmir valley.
=85
http://www. indiainfo.com/news/2000/03/21/ clin

March 22, 2000 Clinton is pushing General Musharraf to use his
influence with Afghanistan's leaders=97the Taliban=97to bring Bin Laden to
trial . . . Even if Musharraf could convince the Taliban to give Bin
Laden up, there is an abundance of anger, frustration and weapons in
the region, left over from the Afghan war, when thousands of extremists
came together to bring a superpower to its knees . . . That militant
network has built up in this region over two decades of conflict. The
president believes America must get deeply involved in South Asia to
crack the terrorist problem, a process Clinton continues throughout
this week.
=85
http://www.kdka.com/now/ story/0,1597,1747

http://www. washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn? pagename=3Darticle&node=3D&
contentId=3DA8734-2002Jan19

http:// www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/ A62725-2001Dec18

http://www.cnn. com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/24/ pentagon.budget/

http://www.cnn. com/US/9604/18/anti.terror.bill/index. html

http://www9.cnn.com/US/9607/ 30/clinton.terrorism/

http://www. fbi.gov/congress/congress99/freehct2. htm

http://online.securityfocus. com/news/201

http://www.prospect. org/webfeatures/2002/01/page-a-01-23. html

http://www.washingtonpost. com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=3Darticle&node=3D&
contentId=3DA61219-2001Oct2


And don't forget how GW stopped ongoing terrorist investigations:

FBI claims Bin Laden inquiry was frustrated
Officials told to 'back off' on Saudis before September 11
Greg Palast and David Pallister
The Guardian Wednesday November 7, 2001
http://www.guardian. co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4293682,00. html

FBI and military intelligence officials in Washington say they were
prevented for political reasons from carrying out full investigations
into members of the Bin Laden family in the US before the terrorist
attacks of September 11.

US intelligence agencies have come under criticism for their wholesale
failure to predict the catastrophe at the World Trade Centre. But some
are complaining that their hands were tied.
=85
They said the restrictions became worse after the Bush administration
took over this year. The intelligence agencies had been told to =93back
off=94 from investigations involving other members of the Bin Laden
family, the Saudi royals, and possible Saudi links to the acquisition
of nuclear weapons by Pakistan.

=93There were particular investigations that were effectively killed.=94
Only after the September 11 attacks was the stance of political and
commercial closeness reversed towards the other members of the large
Bin Laden clan, who have classed Osama bin Laden as their =93black
sheep=94.

Hart-Rudman
Not only did Clinton's actions prevent Y2K terrorist acts (eg, a bomber
headed off on his way to the celebration in Seattle), but much more
occurred in his administration to ward off terrorism ~ only to be
scuttled by the Bushistas:

Commission warned Bush
But White House passed on recommendations by a bipartisan, Defense
department-ordered commission on domestic terrorism.
by Jake Tapper

Sept. 12, 2001 | WASHINGTON -- They went to great pains not to sound as
though they were telling the president =93We told you so.=94

But on Wednesday, two former senators, the bipartisan co-chairs of a
Defense Department-chartered commission on national security, spoke
with something between frustration and regret about how White House
officials failed to embrace any of the recommendations to prevent acts
of domestic terrorism delivered earlier this year.

Bush administration officials told former Sens. Gary Hart, D-Colo., and
Warren Rudman, R-N.H., that they preferred instead to put aside the
recommendations issued in the January report by the U.S. Commission on
National Security/21st Century. Instead, the White House announced in
May that it would have Vice President Dick Cheney study the potential
problem of domestic terrorism -- which the bipartisan group had already
spent two and a half years studying -- while assigning responsibility
for dealing with the issue to the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
headed by former Bush campaign manager Joe Allbaugh.
=85
Before the White House decided to go in its own direction, Congress
seemed to be taking the commission's suggestions seriously, according
to Hart and Rudman. =93Frankly, the White House shut it down,=94 Hart says.
=93The president said 'Please wait, we're going to turn this over to the
vice president. We believe FEMA is competent to coordinate this
effort.' And so Congress moved on to other things, like tax cuts and
the issue of the day.=94

=93We predicted it,=94 Hart says of Tuesday's horrific events. =93We said
Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers
-- that's a quote (from the commission's Phase One Report) from the
fall of 1999. =94
=85
http://www.salon.com/politics/ feature/2001/09/12/bush/

The Gore Commission
also known as the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and
Security.
http://www.airportnet.org/ depts/regulatory/gorecom.htm

Here is what seems to have happened to the recomendations of the Gore
Commission:
We begin our news with a quote: =93The federal government should consider
aviation security as a national security issue, and provide substantial
funding for capital improvements. The Commission believes that
terrorist attacks on civil aviation are directed at the United States,
and that there should be an ongoing federal commitment to reducing the
threats that they pose.=94

If you think that comes from a recent Bush White House report, guess
again. In the summer of 1996, shortly after the cra

wrote in message
oups.com...
JimH wrote:

Really? I can think of 3,000 who died on 9-11 thanks to Clinton. I can
also not recall anything he ever did to tray and stop terrorism.......

**********************

Nobody should have to spend the rest of their life so grossly
underinformed:

Gee Chuck, and just how did those actions stop 9-11?

JimH wrote:
Really? I can think of 3,000 who died on 9-11 thanks to Clinton. I
can
also not recall anything he ever did to tray and stop
terrorism.......
**********************
Nobody should have to spend the rest of their life so grossly
underinformed:


Gee Chuck, and just how did those actions stop 9-11?

******************************

If you had the ability to see your own weasly flip-flop here, you'd
(hopefully) be ashamed.

Note: Your first bitch was that you could not "recall anything
(Clinton) ever did to
(try) and stop terrorism...."

After being presented with a long list of actions, including several
that were specifically stonewalled by a Republican congress, and after
being presented with the fact that the Gore Commission specifically
discovered and warned about a credible threat that terrorists were
planning to use hijacked commercial aircraft as weapons against US
facilities....YOU CHANGE THE QUESTION!

You reject the answer to your previous question and then attempt to
pretend that your initial question was whether Clinton had effectively
"stopped" 9-11.

I would say that since 9-11 happened after Clinton no longer had the
power to "stop it" and his successor had been in place for about eight
months- Clinton did a good job of preventing 9-11 on his watch.

You guys have the funniest standards. You are eager to blame the first
terrorist attack that took place *six weeks* after Clinton took office
squarely on Bill Clinton, and you never hear any of the right wing
reactionaries even suggest that Bush the First could have been to blame
in any manner. The attack that took place eight months after your boy
slid into office, (and immediately appointed his campaign manager as
head of anti terrorist operations), that attack?
That has to be the fault of the preceding administration, obviously.

Neo-Conservatism will subside because it is intellectually dishonest.
The kool-aid drinking disciples who fail to recognize that may be
intellectually honest enough in their own right- merely intellectually
challenged.

wrote in message
ups.com...
JimH wrote:
Really? I can think of 3,000 who died on 9-11 thanks to Clinton. I
can
also not recall anything he ever did to tray and stop
terrorism.......
**********************
Nobody should have to spend the rest of their life so grossly
underinformed:


Gee Chuck, and just how did those actions stop 9-11?

******************************

If you had the ability to see your own weasly flip-flop here, you'd
(hopefully) be ashamed.

Note: Your first bitch was that you could not "recall anything
(Clinton) ever did to
(try) and stop terrorism...."

After being presented with a long list of actions, including several
that were specifically stonewalled by a Republican congress, and after
being presented with the fact that the Gore Commission specifically
discovered and warned about a credible threat that terrorists were
planning to use hijacked commercial aircraft as weapons against US
facilities....YOU CHANGE THE QUESTION!

You reject the answer to your previous question and then attempt to
pretend that your initial question was whether Clinton had effectively
"stopped" 9-11.

I would say that since 9-11 happened after Clinton no longer had the
power to "stop it" and his successor had been in place for about eight
months- Clinton did a good job of preventing 9-11 on his watch.

You guys have the funniest standards. You are eager to blame the first
terrorist attack that took place *six weeks* after Clinton took office
squarely on Bill Clinton, and you never hear any of the right wing
reactionaries even suggest that Bush the First could have been to blame
in any manner. The attack that took place eight months after your boy
slid into office, (and immediately appointed his campaign manager as
head of anti terrorist operations), that attack?
That has to be the fault of the preceding administration, obviously.

Neo-Conservatism will subside because it is intellectually dishonest.
The kool-aid drinking disciples who fail to recognize that may be
intellectually honest enough in their own right- merely intellectually
challenged.

wrote in message
ups.com...
JimH wrote:
Really? I can think of 3,000 who died on 9-11 thanks to Clinton. I
can
also not recall anything he ever did to tray and stop
terrorism.......
**********************
Nobody should have to spend the rest of their life so grossly
underinformed:


Gee Chuck, and just how did those actions stop 9-11?

******************************

If you had the ability to see your own weasly flip-flop here, you'd
(hopefully) be ashamed.

Note: Your first bitch was that you could not "recall anything
(Clinton) ever did to
(try) and stop terrorism...."

After being presented with a long list of actions, including several
that were specifically stonewalled by a Republican congress, and after
being presented with the fact that the Gore Commission specifically
discovered and warned about a credible threat that terrorists were
planning to use hijacked commercial aircraft as weapons against US
facilities....YOU CHANGE THE QUESTION!

You reject the answer to your previous question and then attempt to
pretend that your initial question was whether Clinton had effectively
"stopped" 9-11.

I would say that since 9-11 happened after Clinton no longer had the
power to "stop it" and his successor had been in place for about eight
months- Clinton did a good job of preventing 9-11 on his watch.

You guys have the funniest standards. You are eager to blame the first
terrorist attack that took place *six weeks* after Clinton took office
squarely on Bill Clinton, and you never hear any of the right wing
reactionaries even suggest that Bush the First could have been to blame
in any manner. The attack that took place eight months after your boy
slid into office, (and immediately appointed his campaign manager as
head of anti terrorist operations), that attack?
That has to be the fault of the preceding administration, obviously.

Neo-Conservatism will subside because it is intellectually dishonest.
The kool-aid drinking disciples who fail to recognize that may be
intellectually honest enough in their own right- merely intellectually
challenged.


You really need to calm down Chuck. This is just a discussion.

If it makes you feel any better (I don't want you having a heart attack over
this thread) you won this discussion.

Better now?

" Tuuk" wrote in message
...
So what your saying is that those who joined the military are
ignoramuses,,,,


Actually,,,,,,,that's, not what Harry,,,,,,,,,said at all, you pathetic
excuse for a crash test dummy.

JimH wrote:

You really need to calm down Chuck. This is just a discussion.

If it makes you feel any better (I don't want you having a heart attack
over
this thread) you won this discussion.


Better now?


*********

I've been better all along, thanks. :-)

Points to you for recognizing when had painted yourself into a corner.
There's hope you you yet.

Ok krause,,, lets look at what you said,,,

First off,, would you happen to know a chap named Mr. Hoeflich ?? hmmm,, I
do,,, lol,, I do now and he cannot believe what he is learning,, apparently
he used to look up to you,,, lol,,,
And our conversations are just beginning,, I am sending him some cut and
pastes and some other email addresses he has given me,, he thinks some
others may be interested in some of your comments,,,

Second off,,, lets look closer at what you said,, real quick today krause as
I gotta go,,

"'"""DumTuuk is likely to start threatening you and
then show up at your front door and attempt to break it down.''''""


krause,,, you ****ing liar,,, I never once threatened you,,,, you liar,,,
never once,, you invited me to your home,, I found your home and accepted
your invitation.. guess what krause,,, I accept your invitation,,, and I am
looking at very near future krause,,, very near,,, lol,,, and it is my
pleasure,,

"'''"'Bob sez he only
attacks what he eats,''''"


So you threatening to sick your animal on me krause ??? lol,,,,


"'''''and since he converted to Judaism from Buddhism,'""'"


are you retarded krause/???


"'''''So I held a meeting of the other housepets and
Panda, the Siamese, agreed to remove Tuuk's face."""""


hmmmm,,, another threat from krause,,, lol,,,

what would Nathan, Abe or Murray think about that,, lets ask them,,, lol,,,


See you soon krause











"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
" Tuuk" wrote in message
...

So what your saying is that those who joined the military are
ignoramuses,,,,



Actually,,,,,,,that's, not what Harry,,,,,,,,,said at all, you pathetic
excuse for a crash test dummy.

Watch it there, fella. DumTuuk is likely to start threatening you and then
show up at your front door and attempt to break it down. Or, worse, his
equally pooched-in-the-head mother, Karen Smith of Oz, will show up.

I've already discussed Tuuk with Bob, our pet bobcat. Bob sez he only
attacks what he eats, and since he converted to Judaism from Buddhism, he
no longer eats tref. So I held a meeting of the other housepets and Panda,
the Siamese, agreed to remove Tuuk's face.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
snip
I've already discussed Tuuk with Bob, our pet bobcat. Bob sez he only
attacks what he eats, and since he converted to Judaism from Buddhism,
he no longer eats tref. So I held a meeting of the other housepets and
Panda, the Siamese, agreed to remove Tuuk's face.


I'd be more worried about Tuuk eating your pets...probably raw!

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
snip
DumTuuk is a real piece of work, and apparently doesn't realize he is
being egged on and used by the right-wing trashmeisters here he claimed
at one point were supplying him with "information." I should look at a
few of his recent posts to see how crazy he has become.

He has actually calmed down a bit and now is mostly silly. I notice that
his 'handle' is now Tuuuk rather than Tuuk.
Wonder if he got into a spot of trouble for his foolishness over the
holidays.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
snip

DumTuuk is a real piece of work, and apparently doesn't realize he is
being egged on and used by the right-wing trashmeisters here he claimed
at one point were supplying him with "information." I should look at a
few of his recent posts to see how crazy he has become.


He has actually calmed down a bit and now is mostly silly. I notice that
his 'handle' is now Tuuuk rather than Tuuk.
Wonder if he got into a spot of trouble for his foolishness over the
holidays.



Tuuk has transmogrified himself into Tuuuk?
I wonder if that means he is about to self-destruct?

The ****** will probably claim the extra "U" came from the same source as
the extra commas. I don't recall the cockamamy excuse he gave last week.

What cockamamy excuse krause


I said I work CW a lot,, about 20 WPM,, and my typing speed is probably 30
WPM,, I said it,,, it isn't cockamamy,,, I do what I say and say what I
do,,, I don't make nothing up,,,Have you ever heard me type something about
your mother krause,, or your father/??? or your sister or whatever??? Do you
think I am worried about my spelling errors while I talk to you krause??
krause ,,, if I said it,, it will happen,, it will happen,,,,,












"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
snip

DumTuuk is a real piece of work, and apparently doesn't realize he is
being egged on and used by the right-wing trashmeisters here he claimed
at one point were supplying him with "information." I should look at a
few of his recent posts to see how crazy he has become.


He has actually calmed down a bit and now is mostly silly. I notice
that
his 'handle' is now Tuuuk rather than Tuuk.
Wonder if he got into a spot of trouble for his foolishness over the
holidays.



Tuuk has transmogrified himself into Tuuuk?
I wonder if that means he is about to self-destruct?

The ****** will probably claim the extra "U" came from the same source as
the extra commas. I don't recall the cockamamy excuse he gave last week.

" Tuuuk" wrote in message
...
What cockamamy excuse krause


I said I work CW a lot,, about 20 WPM,, and my typing speed is probably 30
WPM,, I said it,,, it isn't cockamamy,,, I do what I say and say what I
do,,, I don't make nothing up,,,Have you ever heard me type something
about your mother krause,, or your father/??? or your sister or
whatever??? Do you think I am worried about my spelling errors while I
talk to you krause?? krause ,,, if I said it,, it will happen,, it will
happen,,,,,

Focus, ******. Focus. It is I who bitched about your little affectation with
the commas. Your CW excuse has been invalidated. It's like saying "Today,
I'm banging my stapler on the desk because yesterday, I was nailing shingles
on my garage roof".

"JimH" wrote in message
...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 19:00:37 -0500, JimH wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 12:50:19 -0500, Dixon wrote:



I would like to see our elected officials pick up a weapon and join
ranks before they start cutting out benefits and lowering pay for our
sons and daughters who are now fighting.

Don't expect any improvement from this administration. Party unity is
more important to them than veterans.

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index....9805517220.xml


Wow, the *reporter* interjects a biased opinion in the very first
sentence of the story. I thought reporters were to report stories, not
editorialize, but what would one expect from a liberal newspaper?

Do you have more credible links on this Thunder?

Oh please, the Star-Ledger is a quality newspaper.

Your *opinion* but not that of the majority.

Now direct me to another source that provides specific proof that "the
move was prompted by the New Jersey lawmaker's failure to follow the party
line and his insistence on increasing spending for veterans".

None of the links you provided could do so.

Coincidence? ;-)


After reading ALL the links provided, why do YOU think the guy was ousted,
monkey face?

"JimH" wrote in message
...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 20:24:02 -0500, JimH wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 19:00:37 -0500, JimH wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 12:50:19 -0500, Dixon wrote:



I would like to see our elected officials pick up a weapon and join
ranks before they start cutting out benefits and lowering pay for
our
sons and daughters who are now fighting.

Don't expect any improvement from this administration. Party unity
is more important to them than veterans.

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index....9805517220.xml


Wow, the *reporter* interjects a biased opinion in the very first
sentence of the story. I thought reporters were to report stories,
not
editorialize, but what would one expect from a liberal newspaper?

Do you have more credible links on this Thunder?

Oh please, the Star-Ledger is a quality newspaper.

Your *opinion* but not that of the majority.

Now direct me to another source that provides specific proof that "the
move was prompted by the New Jersey lawmaker's failure to follow the
party
line and his insistence on increasing spending for veterans".

None of the links you provided could do so.

Coincidence? ;-)

You are living in denial. I'd need a Freedom of Information Act request
to get anything out of the Republican Steering Committee. Keep your eyes
open, you will see more of this under DeLay and Hastert. It's called
"party discipline" and they are good at it. Washington's Farewell
Address
comes to mind:

http://mysite.verizon.net/aahpat/pol/gw.htm



So I see you fail to address my concerns with your initial reply but
rather change the subject to a remote "my site"" internet site.

How clever of you.


Why do YOU suppose the guy was ousted? Because nobody likes his ties?

No kanter

I didn't think you would understand,,, CW means Continuous Wave,, it is
something radio people do and you wouldn't understand. Morse Code or the
key, and my thought to hand coordination is very fast (not bragging, just
explaining) and my typing is very fast, about 30 or more WPM (Words Per
Minute) based on about a 5 word average. Kanter, if you are going to be a
long lost son of krause,, a puppet in the making,, you better kick it up a
notch.. So,, to explain it to you again kanter,,, next time read my
statement before the drinking or what ever it is that is forcing you to
follow krause or disturb your mind thought process,,, but again, I do not
have time to proof read my posting, especially the ones I have to say twice
because you didn't understand them the first time,,,,,,

So,, if you do not understand or like my posts,, please add me to your
ignore list,,,,,,,and normally I don't respond to your posts, this time
again I felt the need as some students I have need extra attention, repeat,
remedial, some flowers bloom late,,,,

krause,,, you are 76 years old already,,, when might we see something of
value coming from you??? I mean your lies and stories simply value you and
your puppets,, why don't you people jump in on the rec.liar or rec.senile or
rec.puppet newsgroup and let the rec.boat newsgroup do what a rec.boat
newsgroup does....................






"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
" Tuuuk" wrote in message
.. .
What cockamamy excuse krause


I said I work CW a lot,, about 20 WPM,, and my typing speed is probably
30 WPM,, I said it,,, it isn't cockamamy,,, I do what I say and say what
I do,,, I don't make nothing up,,,Have you ever heard me type something
about your mother krause,, or your father/??? or your sister or
whatever??? Do you think I am worried about my spelling errors while I
talk to you krause?? krause ,,, if I said it,, it will happen,, it will
happen,,,,,

Focus, ******. Focus. It is I who bitched about your little affectation
with the commas. Your CW excuse has been invalidated. It's like saying
"Today, I'm banging my stapler on the desk because yesterday, I was
nailing shingles on my garage roof".

" Tuuuk" wrote in message
...
No kanter

I didn't think you would understand,,, CW means Continuous Wave,, it is
something radio people do and you wouldn't understand. Morse Code or the
key, and my thought to hand coordination is very fast (not bragging, just
explaining) and my typing is very fast, about 30 or more WPM (Words Per
Minute) based on about a 5 word average.

You mentioned,,,,,,,,CW as the reason,,,,,,,,why you u,,se all the
commas,,,,,,,,. It is NOT an excuse or a valid justification. Not now. Not
ever. And, stop bragging about your typing speed. Any decent typist can work
at double or triple that speed without trying hard.


In-Line/Non-Offset Octopus Circle Hook

With the ever increasing popularity of circle hooks and their new found
success, some fisheries have gone to circle hook only regulations. Along
with that, the regulations call for a limited degree of offset or not offset
at all. Some feel that too much offset on a circle hook negates its ability
to set only in the corner of the jaw and can result in a few fish being hook
too deep. Gamakatsu's new "in-line" circle hook is design to meet those
regulations that call for a non-offset circle hook. Based on the same design
as the very popular Octopus Circle Hook, the In-Line Circle Hook features no
offset. This new version of the Octopus Circle hook will not replace the
existing Octopus Circle Hook, but will be offered in addition to it. The
In-Line Circle Hook has an up eye for snelling and the sticky sharp point is
set at a 90 degree angle from the shank of the hook. In addition to the new
non-offset style, this new circle hook is also available in a Red finish as
well as the corrosion resistant NS Black finish. Available in sizes 1/0
through 8/0. A barbless version in NS Black is available in sizes 3/0, 4/0,
5/0.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
" Tuuuk" wrote in message
...

No kanter

I didn't think you would understand,,, CW means Continuous Wave,, it is
something radio people do and you wouldn't understand. Morse Code or the
key, and my thought to hand coordination is very fast (not bragging, just
explaining) and my typing is very fast, about 30 or more WPM (Words Per
Minute) based on about a 5 word average.


You mentioned,,,,,,,,CW as the reason,,,,,,,,why you u,,se all the
commas,,,,,,,,. It is NOT an excuse or a valid justification. Not now.
Not ever. And, stop bragging about your typing speed. Any decent typist
can work at double or triple that speed without trying hard.


There are some who can type 30 wpm one-handed. And some who can do math.
Odiously, Tuuuuu,,,,k is not among either group.





In-Line/Non-Offset Octopus Circle Hook

With the ever increasing popularity of circle hooks and their new found
success, some fisheries have gone to circle hook only regulations. Along
with that, the regulations call for a limited degree of offset or not
offset at all. Some feel that too much offset on a circle hook negates
its ability to set only in the corner of the jaw and can result in a few
fish being hook too deep. Gamakatsu's new "in-line" circle hook is design
to meet those regulations that call for a non-offset circle hook. Based
on the same design as the very popular Octopus Circle Hook, the In-Line
Circle Hook features no offset. This new version of the Octopus Circle
hook will not replace the existing Octopus Circle Hook, but will be
offered in addition to it. The In-Line Circle Hook has an up eye for
snelling and the sticky sharp point is set at a 90 degree angle from the
shank of the hook. In addition to the new non-offset style, this new
circle hook is also available in a Red finish as well as the corrosion
resistant NS Black finish. Available in sizes 1/0 through 8/0. A barbless
version in NS Black is available in sizes 3/0, 4/0, 5/0.

These red finish hooks seem really hot in fresh water fishing...but in the
murky salt water, I dunno. Anyone used them with success?

I've never used 'em, but I understand that the Daichii bleeding bait hooks
are pretty weak and break rather easily (at least according to the tarpon
guys).

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
" Tuuuk" wrote in message
...

No kanter

I didn't think you would understand,,, CW means Continuous Wave,, it is
something radio people do and you wouldn't understand. Morse Code or the
key, and my thought to hand coordination is very fast (not bragging, just
explaining) and my typing is very fast, about 30 or more WPM (Words Per
Minute) based on about a 5 word average.


You mentioned,,,,,,,,CW as the reason,,,,,,,,why you u,,se all the
commas,,,,,,,,. It is NOT an excuse or a valid justification. Not now.
Not ever. And, stop bragging about your typing speed. Any decent typist
can work at double or triple that speed without trying hard.


There are some who can type 30 wpm one-handed. And some who can do math.
Odiously, Tuuuuu,,,,k is not among either group.





In-Line/Non-Offset Octopus Circle Hook

With the ever increasing popularity of circle hooks and their new found
success, some fisheries have gone to circle hook only regulations. Along
with that, the regulations call for a limited degree of offset or not
offset at all. Some feel that too much offset on a circle hook negates
its ability to set only in the corner of the jaw and can result in a few
fish being hook too deep. Gamakatsu's new "in-line" circle hook is design
to meet those regulations that call for a non-offset circle hook. Based
on the same design as the very popular Octopus Circle Hook, the In-Line
Circle Hook features no offset. This new version of the Octopus Circle
hook will not replace the existing Octopus Circle Hook, but will be
offered in addition to it. The In-Line Circle Hook has an up eye for
snelling and the sticky sharp point is set at a 90 degree angle from the
shank of the hook. In addition to the new non-offset style, this new
circle hook is also available in a Red finish as well as the corrosion
resistant NS Black finish. Available in sizes 1/0 through 8/0. A barbless
version in NS Black is available in sizes 3/0, 4/0, 5/0.

These red finish hooks seem really hot in fresh water fishing...but in the
murky salt water, I dunno. Anyone used them with success?

They work in the murky Genesee River, as well as a number of bayou-like
creeks here.