| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
( OT ) Berkshire Hathaway CEO Blasts 'Sharecropper's Society'
Faces In The News
Buffett: Berkshire Hathaway CEO Blasts 'Sharecropper's Society' Chris Noon, 03.07.05, 7:57 AM ET NEW YORK - Doers and doings in business, entertainment and technology: Is the Oracle of Omaha losing his touch? Billionaire investor Warren Buffett apologized to Berkshire Hathaway investors for a dud deal year. "My hope was to make several multibillion-dollar acquisitions that would add new and significant streams of earnings to the many we already have," he wrote in his much-anticipated annual letter to shareholders. "But I have struck out." Buffett promised to act quickly on good investments in the $5 billion to $20 billion ballpark, but Jeremiahs are already predicting a gloomy 2005 for Buffet and Berkshire's vice chairman, Charlie Munger. "He won't find anything this year," said Steve Kaplan, a professor at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business. "Since he likes to buy things cheap, it's harder to find." Of course we all should have Buffett's batting average: Even without deal making, Berkshire Hathaway's net worth rose $8.3 billion in 2004. And tossing the Berkshire Hathaway hair shirt aside, Buffett blasted the U.S. for its continued trade deficit. "A country that is now aspiring to an 'Ownership Society' will not find happiness in--and I'll use hyperbole here for emphasis--a 'Sharecropper's Society,'" Buffett wrote, "But that's precisely where our trade policies, supported by Republicans and Democrats alike, are taking us." Boating tie in -- is Warren related to Jimmy? -- Note also he is critical of BOTH major parties. |
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 15:05:38 GMT, "Jim," wrote:
Chris Noon, 03.07.05, 7:57 AM ET Good grief man, old news. It's been out since before 8:00 AM. How far back to you have to dig to find damning things to say about the current state of the nation? On a positive side, no car bombs have gone off in Iraq in over 10 minutes. Purple fingers rule, doode. bb |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... bb wrote: On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 15:05:38 GMT, "Jim," wrote: Chris Noon, 03.07.05, 7:57 AM ET Good grief man, old news. It's been out since before 8:00 AM. How far back to you have to dig to find damning things to say about the current state of the nation? On a positive side, no car bombs have gone off in Iraq in over 10 minutes. Purple fingers rule, doode. bb You think the BushBORGs have already written their rationalizations for the aftermath of the next big terrorist attack on the US homeland? I don't know about the rationalizations...but the retaliatory strike plans are certainly already written. |
NOYB wrote:
I don't know about the rationalizations...but the retaliatory strike plans are certainly already written. ************************ "What this country needs is another Pearl Harbor" (Project for the New American Century) You guys need to be careful what you wish for. |
|
wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: I don't know about the rationalizations...but the retaliatory strike plans are certainly already written. ************************ "What this country needs is another Pearl Harbor" (Project for the New American Century) You guys need to be careful what you wish for. *You guys*? I guess you mean the left as those are the only ones hoping for bad things to happen, including in the Middle East. After all, aren't politics more important than Country for many on the left? |
JimH wrote:
*You guys*? I guess you mean the left as those are the only ones hoping for bad things to happen, including in the Middle East. After all, aren't politics more important than Country for many on the left? ************** That's a very poor guess. "You guys" refers to people who endorse the principles and recommended policies of the PNAC- a positon NOYB has taken in this forum several times. We're about one terrorist attack on the US away from a lot of moderates joining the rabid right wingers in calling for an all-out, WWII, bring back the draft, drop the nukes style obliteration of the middle east. I'm convinced that radical reactionaries on the right are praying for such an event every night. The "first" modern Pearl Harbor, 9-11, didn't quite get the job done as far as the PNAC is concerned, so if one is desirable ("what this country needs") then two or more must be even better. |
wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: I don't know about the rationalizations...but the retaliatory strike plans are certainly already written. ************************ "What this country needs is another Pearl Harbor" (Project for the New American Century) You guys need to be careful what you wish for. PNAC never said such a thing. |
wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: *You guys*? I guess you mean the left as those are the only ones hoping for bad things to happen, including in the Middle East. After all, aren't politics more important than Country for many on the left? ************** That's a very poor guess. "You guys" refers to people who endorse the principles and recommended policies of the PNAC- a positon NOYB has taken in this forum several times. We're about one terrorist attack on the US away from a lot of moderates joining the rabid right wingers in calling for an all-out, WWII, bring back the draft, drop the nukes style obliteration of the middle east. I'm convinced that radical reactionaries on the right are praying for such an event every night. I'd like to see us do that *before* another attack on US soil...not afterwards. The "first" modern Pearl Harbor, 9-11, didn't quite get the job done as far as the PNAC is concerned, so if one is desirable ("what this country needs") then two or more must be even better. If anything, it's the left that is hoping for another attack on US soil. Then they can say "See! Bush's war on terror isn't working." |
"Netsock" wrote in message news:1110216217.f916afaa004210101d53b689bd17252a@t eranews... wrote: We're about one terrorist attack on the US away from a lot of moderates joining the rabid right wingers in calling for an all-out, WWII, bring back the draft I'm all for the draft, so long as there are NO exemptions for the sons of wealthy rightwingers. Every male out of high school, eligible for the draft. No college hall pass. The more sones of rightwing warmongers coming home in body bags, You liberals are a sick bunch...hoping for "more sons...coming home in body bags" to teach us bad conservatives that war isn't the answer. I don't know about you, but I pray for as few casualties as possible on our side. (and I include even Democrats on "our side"). |
"Jim," wrote in message ... wrote: NOYB wrote: I don't know about the rationalizations...but the retaliatory strike plans are certainly already written. ************************ "What this country needs is another Pearl Harbor" (Project for the New American Century) You guys need to be careful what you wish for. I thought 9/11 was considered the modern Pearl Harbor? It was worse. Pearl Harbor was a legitimate military target. 9/11 was the murder of civilians. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... wrote: NOYB wrote: I don't know about the rationalizations...but the retaliatory strike plans are certainly already written. ************************ "What this country needs is another Pearl Harbor" (Project for the New American Century) You guys need to be careful what you wish for. I cannot understand why Nobby thinks "retaliation" is adequate payback for thousands of dead US residents. Perhaps you don't understand exactly what I mean by "retaliation". We know that Syria and Iran continue to *openly* support terrorist organizations that commit international acts of terror. It wouldn't take much effort (or cost many US lives) to launch an all-out aerial assault on the leadership of both of those countries We were attacked by a bunch of Non Governmental Organization Saudis, and we retaliated by invading Afghanistan and Iraq, and killing tens of thousands of Iraqis. We removed the governments of two countries which provided training and/or funding to terrorists. Big whoop. "Well, Mrs. Smith, we're sorry you lost your husband in the destruction of the WTC. Don't you feel better now that we've killed 20,000 Iraqi children?" The point is, after we're attacked again, do you think there is any chance Bush will step up to the plate and admit he failed us...again? Maybe he and his supporters will try to play the "Well, we can't stop them all" game. And you guys play the "Well, we can't kill 'em all" game. We certainly have a better chance of "stopping them" by "killing them" than by trying to seal our borders to keep them from coming into this country. "You've got to kill people, and when you've killed enough they stop fighting." --Curtis LeMay |
NOYB wrote:
You liberals are a sick bunch ******** Netsock is a liberal? Who would have guessed? I'd be in favor of no casualties at all. On any side. Including Republicans. After all, if your whole tribe disappeared it would be a lot more difficult for us moderate progressives to appear so absolutely right on all subjects by comparison. :-) |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: I don't know about the rationalizations...but the retaliatory strike plans are certainly already written. ************************ "What this country needs is another Pearl Harbor" (Project for the New American Century) You guys need to be careful what you wish for. PNAC never said such a thing. How would you possibly know that? Maybe it did. Gould put quotes around the statement, implying that he took the quote directly from PNAC. It's up to him to cite the source. Otherwise, it's horsepoop. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... First of all, you've mixed statements made in the PNAC document with opinions stated in the American Free Press article. Post the PNAC document and let people decide for themselves. “The process of transformation,” the plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.” That's a far cry from saying "What this country needs is another Pearl Harbor." BTW--if you think that PNAC has the wherewithal to make something like that happen, then you're as nutty as Cynthia McKinney. |
wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: You liberals are a sick bunch ******** Netsock is a liberal? Who would have guessed? I'd be in favor of no casualties at all. On any side. Including Republicans. After all, if your whole tribe disappeared it would be a lot more difficult for us moderate progressives to appear so absolutely right on all subjects by comparison. :-) But the last few elections have shown that my tribe is growing, while your tribe is shrinking. |
"JimH" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: I don't know about the rationalizations...but the retaliatory strike plans are certainly already written. ************************ "What this country needs is another Pearl Harbor" (Project for the New American Century) You guys need to be careful what you wish for. *You guys*? I guess you mean the left as those are the only ones hoping for bad things to happen, including in the Middle East. After all, aren't politics more important than Country for many on the left? I'm not sure what Chuck meant, but I can add something useful: Boys like NOYB want something bad to happen because it means they'll see footage on TV from cameras mounted on cruise missiles and stealth bombers, and he'll be able to have sex again for a week or two afterward. |
|
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 12:23:32 -0500, Netsock wrote:
wrote: We're about one terrorist attack on the US away from a lot of moderates joining the rabid right wingers in calling for an all-out, WWII, bring back the draft I'm all for the draft, so long as there are NO exemptions for the sons of wealthy rightwingers. Every male out of high school, eligible for the draft. No college hall pass. The more sones of rightwing warmongers coming home in body bags, the better chance there will be that wiser heads will prevail and we'll come to the realization that warmongering ain't he answer. I'm not hoping for lots of body bags, but I agree that a draft should be 'without' exemptions that are in any way class related. I can see exemptions for married persons with children. Of course, females should be included in the draft also. Lastly, the ability to pass an entrance exam should not be a requirement. That will let the high school dropouts and non-English speakers qualify. John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
|
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 18:42:46 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "JimH" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: I don't know about the rationalizations...but the retaliatory strike plans are certainly already written. ************************ "What this country needs is another Pearl Harbor" (Project for the New American Century) You guys need to be careful what you wish for. *You guys*? I guess you mean the left as those are the only ones hoping for bad things to happen, including in the Middle East. After all, aren't politics more important than Country for many on the left? I'm not sure what Chuck meant, but I can add something useful: Boys like NOYB want something bad to happen because it means they'll see footage on TV from cameras mounted on cruise missiles and stealth bombers, and he'll be able to have sex again for a week or two afterward. It's a shame I agreed to stopping personal insults. John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"John H" wrote in message ... On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 18:42:46 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "JimH" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: I don't know about the rationalizations...but the retaliatory strike plans are certainly already written. ************************ "What this country needs is another Pearl Harbor" (Project for the New American Century) You guys need to be careful what you wish for. *You guys*? I guess you mean the left as those are the only ones hoping for bad things to happen, including in the Middle East. After all, aren't politics more important than Country for many on the left? I'm not sure what Chuck meant, but I can add something useful: Boys like NOYB want something bad to happen because it means they'll see footage on TV from cameras mounted on cruise missiles and stealth bombers, and he'll be able to have sex again for a week or two afterward. It's a shame I agreed to stopping personal insults. You are just seeing the liebral mindset spin out of control as as their numbers dwindle even further. John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... wrote: NOYB wrote: I don't know about the rationalizations...but the retaliatory strike plans are certainly already written. ************************ "What this country needs is another Pearl Harbor" (Project for the New American Century) You guys need to be careful what you wish for. I cannot understand why Nobby thinks "retaliation" is adequate payback for thousands of dead US residents. Perhaps you don't understand exactly what I mean by "retaliation". We know that Syria and Iran continue to *openly* support terrorist organizations that commit international acts of terror. It wouldn't take much effort (or cost many US lives) to launch an all-out aerial assault on the leadership of both of those countries We were attacked by a bunch of Non Governmental Organization Saudis, and we retaliated by invading Afghanistan and Iraq, and killing tens of thousands of Iraqis. We removed the governments of two countries which provided training and/or funding to terrorists. Big whoop. "Well, Mrs. Smith, we're sorry you lost your husband in the destruction of the WTC. Don't you feel better now that we've killed 20,000 Iraqi children?" The point is, after we're attacked again, do you think there is any chance Bush will step up to the plate and admit he failed us...again? Maybe he and his supporters will try to play the "Well, we can't stop them all" game. And you guys play the "Well, we can't kill 'em all" game. We certainly have a better chance of "stopping them" by "killing them" than by trying to seal our borders to keep them from coming into this country. "You've got to kill people, and when you've killed enough they stop fighting." --Curtis LeMay Curtis LeMay was a psychotic. He was an effective psycho though...and one of the main reasons why we won the war against the Japanese. I'm glad he was on our side. |
NOYB wrote:
If anything, it's the left that is hoping for another attack on US soil. Really? I guess it's "the left" that has reaped enormous profits, including outright theft of hundreds of millions of dollars along with fraud, price gouging, etc etc. Then they can say "See! Bush's war on terror isn't working." Let's see... were more people killed by terrorists in 2002 or 2004? Are numbers & fatalities of terrorist attacks going up or down? Fact: President Bush's "war on terror" is not working. DSK |
"John H" wrote in message ... On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 18:42:46 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "JimH" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: I don't know about the rationalizations...but the retaliatory strike plans are certainly already written. ************************ "What this country needs is another Pearl Harbor" (Project for the New American Century) You guys need to be careful what you wish for. *You guys*? I guess you mean the left as those are the only ones hoping for bad things to happen, including in the Middle East. After all, aren't politics more important than Country for many on the left? I'm not sure what Chuck meant, but I can add something useful: Boys like NOYB want something bad to happen because it means they'll see footage on TV from cameras mounted on cruise missiles and stealth bombers, and he'll be able to have sex again for a week or two afterward. It's a shame I agreed to stopping personal insults. But John....it's true. You know that. How else can one explain spastic foreign policy decisions? Over the past couple of years, I've given you a number of possible explanations including complete incompetence, or a sick need for sexual excitement derived from violence. Pick one. |
Doug Kanter wrote:
... How else can one explain spastic foreign policy decisions? Over the past couple of years, I've given you a number of possible explanations including complete incompetence, or a sick need for sexual excitement derived from violence. Pick one. You're pretty cynical. Remember the rule of thumb: 'Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.' Besides, you're overlooking the one thing that President Bush's policies have been hugely successful at... generating profits for certain favored corporations... DSK |
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 20:27:24 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 18:42:46 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "JimH" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: I don't know about the rationalizations...but the retaliatory strike plans are certainly already written. ************************ "What this country needs is another Pearl Harbor" (Project for the New American Century) You guys need to be careful what you wish for. *You guys*? I guess you mean the left as those are the only ones hoping for bad things to happen, including in the Middle East. After all, aren't politics more important than Country for many on the left? I'm not sure what Chuck meant, but I can add something useful: Boys like NOYB want something bad to happen because it means they'll see footage on TV from cameras mounted on cruise missiles and stealth bombers, and he'll be able to have sex again for a week or two afterward. It's a shame I agreed to stopping personal insults. But John....it's true. You know that. How else can one explain spastic foreign policy decisions? Over the past couple of years, I've given you a number of possible explanations including complete incompetence, or a sick need for sexual excitement derived from violence. Pick one. I'm posting this only to show basskisser that it is possible to ignore written material. Also, it is possible to entertain thoughts without resorting to personal insults. John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"John H" wrote in message ... On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 20:27:24 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H" wrote in message . .. On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 18:42:46 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "JimH" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: I don't know about the rationalizations...but the retaliatory strike plans are certainly already written. ************************ "What this country needs is another Pearl Harbor" (Project for the New American Century) You guys need to be careful what you wish for. *You guys*? I guess you mean the left as those are the only ones hoping for bad things to happen, including in the Middle East. After all, aren't politics more important than Country for many on the left? I'm not sure what Chuck meant, but I can add something useful: Boys like NOYB want something bad to happen because it means they'll see footage on TV from cameras mounted on cruise missiles and stealth bombers, and he'll be able to have sex again for a week or two afterward. It's a shame I agreed to stopping personal insults. But John....it's true. You know that. How else can one explain spastic foreign policy decisions? Over the past couple of years, I've given you a number of possible explanations including complete incompetence, or a sick need for sexual excitement derived from violence. Pick one. I'm posting this only to show basskisser that it is possible to ignore written material. Also, it is possible to entertain thoughts without resorting to personal insults. I haven't insulted you, unless you're one of those guys who takes it personally when someone disagrees with his choice of TV, lawnmower or car. I'm simply pointing out that when you strip away all the valid, sane reasons (which do not apply to our foreign policy lately), the only ones left are the bizarre. |
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 21:21:55 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 20:27:24 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 18:42:46 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "JimH" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: I don't know about the rationalizations...but the retaliatory strike plans are certainly already written. ************************ "What this country needs is another Pearl Harbor" (Project for the New American Century) You guys need to be careful what you wish for. *You guys*? I guess you mean the left as those are the only ones hoping for bad things to happen, including in the Middle East. After all, aren't politics more important than Country for many on the left? I'm not sure what Chuck meant, but I can add something useful: Boys like NOYB want something bad to happen because it means they'll see footage on TV from cameras mounted on cruise missiles and stealth bombers, and he'll be able to have sex again for a week or two afterward. It's a shame I agreed to stopping personal insults. But John....it's true. You know that. How else can one explain spastic foreign policy decisions? Over the past couple of years, I've given you a number of possible explanations including complete incompetence, or a sick need for sexual excitement derived from violence. Pick one. I'm posting this only to show basskisser that it is possible to ignore written material. Also, it is possible to entertain thoughts without resorting to personal insults. I haven't insulted you, unless you're one of those guys who takes it personally when someone disagrees with his choice of TV, lawnmower or car. I'm simply pointing out that when you strip away all the valid, sane reasons (which do not apply to our foreign policy lately), the only ones left are the bizarre. No, no. I didn't mean to imply that you had insulted me. I was attempting to show basskisser that it was possible to write something *other than* the personal insult one might feel like making upon reading a disagreeable post. John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"DSK" wrote in message .. . NOYB wrote: If anything, it's the left that is hoping for another attack on US soil. Really? I guess it's "the left" that has reaped enormous profits, including outright theft of hundreds of millions of dollars along with fraud, price gouging, etc etc. Then they can say "See! Bush's war on terror isn't working." Let's see... were more people killed by terrorists in 2002 or 2004? Are numbers & fatalities of terrorist attacks going up or down? Where? Fact: President Bush's "war on terror" is not working. That's an opinion again, Doug. |
"DSK" wrote in message .. . Doug Kanter wrote: ... How else can one explain spastic foreign policy decisions? Over the past couple of years, I've given you a number of possible explanations including complete incompetence, or a sick need for sexual excitement derived from violence. Pick one. You're pretty cynical. Remember the rule of thumb: 'Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.' Besides, you're overlooking the one thing that President Bush's policies have been hugely successful at... generating profits for certain favored corporations... "Favored corporations"? You mean US corporations...instead of the French, German, Russian, and Chinese corporations that were benefitting from skirting the UN sanctions against Iraq. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "John H" wrote in message ... On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 20:27:24 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 18:42:46 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "JimH" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: I don't know about the rationalizations...but the retaliatory strike plans are certainly already written. ************************ "What this country needs is another Pearl Harbor" (Project for the New American Century) You guys need to be careful what you wish for. *You guys*? I guess you mean the left as those are the only ones hoping for bad things to happen, including in the Middle East. After all, aren't politics more important than Country for many on the left? I'm not sure what Chuck meant, but I can add something useful: Boys like NOYB want something bad to happen because it means they'll see footage on TV from cameras mounted on cruise missiles and stealth bombers, and he'll be able to have sex again for a week or two afterward. It's a shame I agreed to stopping personal insults. But John....it's true. You know that. How else can one explain spastic foreign policy decisions? Over the past couple of years, I've given you a number of possible explanations including complete incompetence, or a sick need for sexual excitement derived from violence. Pick one. I'm posting this only to show basskisser that it is possible to ignore written material. Also, it is possible to entertain thoughts without resorting to personal insults. I haven't insulted you, unless you're one of those guys who takes it personally when someone disagrees with his choice of TV, lawnmower or car. I'm simply pointing out that when you strip away all the valid, sane reasons (which do not apply to our foreign policy lately), the only ones left are the bizarre. What's bizarre is the inability to see the good things happening in the Middle East right now as a result of Bush's policies. One would have to be stupid or ignorant to not see it. Which are you? (Pick one). |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "DSK" wrote in message .. . NOYB wrote: If anything, it's the left that is hoping for another attack on US soil. Really? I guess it's "the left" that has reaped enormous profits, including outright theft of hundreds of millions of dollars along with fraud, price gouging, etc etc. Then they can say "See! Bush's war on terror isn't working." Let's see... were more people killed by terrorists in 2002 or 2004? Are numbers & fatalities of terrorist attacks going up or down? Where? Fact: President Bush's "war on terror" is not working. That's an opinion again, Doug. Where doesn't matter. It's a small planet. Does he mean in Iraq? |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "John H" wrote in message ... On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 20:27:24 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H" wrote in message om... On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 18:42:46 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "JimH" wrote in message ... wrote in message news:1110214761.754015.126700@o13g2000cwo. googlegroups.com... NOYB wrote: I don't know about the rationalizations...but the retaliatory strike plans are certainly already written. ************************ "What this country needs is another Pearl Harbor" (Project for the New American Century) You guys need to be careful what you wish for. *You guys*? I guess you mean the left as those are the only ones hoping for bad things to happen, including in the Middle East. After all, aren't politics more important than Country for many on the left? I'm not sure what Chuck meant, but I can add something useful: Boys like NOYB want something bad to happen because it means they'll see footage on TV from cameras mounted on cruise missiles and stealth bombers, and he'll be able to have sex again for a week or two afterward. It's a shame I agreed to stopping personal insults. But John....it's true. You know that. How else can one explain spastic foreign policy decisions? Over the past couple of years, I've given you a number of possible explanations including complete incompetence, or a sick need for sexual excitement derived from violence. Pick one. I'm posting this only to show basskisser that it is possible to ignore written material. Also, it is possible to entertain thoughts without resorting to personal insults. I haven't insulted you, unless you're one of those guys who takes it personally when someone disagrees with his choice of TV, lawnmower or car. I'm simply pointing out that when you strip away all the valid, sane reasons (which do not apply to our foreign policy lately), the only ones left are the bizarre. What's bizarre is the inability to see the good things happening in the Middle East right now as a result of Bush's policies. One would have to be stupid or ignorant to not see it. Which are you? (Pick one). The best thing that has happened to the Middle East is the death of Yassar Arafat. That one event has changed the status of the "situation" between Israel and Palestine for once and for all, and is helping to deflate the pressure in the entire region. What bearing did Arafat's death have on the decisions to hold elections in Egypt and Saudi Arabia? How did Arafat's death influence the Lebanese desire to see Syrian troops removed from their country? How did Arafat's death lead to a democratic election in Iraq? How did Arafat's death to Qaddafi's sudden change of heart? I agree that "one event" has changed the Middle East. But it wasn't Arafat's death. It was Bush's decision to oust the government of any nation that supports terrorism. |
Let's see... were more people killed by terrorists in 2002 or 2004? Are
numbers & fatalities of terrorist attacks going up or down? NOYB wrote: Where? Does it matter, if Americans are getting killed by terrorists? Fact: President Bush's "war on terror" is not working. That's an opinion again, Doug. Well, it's an opinion that is backed by numbers in the the real world. I guess in your opinion, that Bush/Cheney's "war on terror" is a success despite evidence to the contrary? Do you believe that water flows up hill, too? DSK |
Besides, you're overlooking the one thing that President Bush's policies
have been hugely successful at... generating profits for certain favored corporations... NOYB wrote: "Favored corporations"? You mean US corporations...instead of the French, German, Russian, and Chinese corporations that were benefitting from skirting the UN sanctions against Iraq. No, I mean corporations other than the ones that make needed body armor for U.S. troops, for example. DSK |
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 17:39:15 -0500, DSK wrote:
Let's see... were more people killed by terrorists in 2002 or 2004? Are numbers & fatalities of terrorist attacks going up or down? NOYB wrote: Where? Does it matter, if Americans are getting killed by terrorists? Fact: President Bush's "war on terror" is not working. That's an opinion again, Doug. Well, it's an opinion that is backed by numbers in the the real world. I guess in your opinion, that Bush/Cheney's "war on terror" is a success despite evidence to the contrary? Do you believe that water flows up hill, too? DSK It ain't over! John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"John H" wrote in message ... On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 17:39:15 -0500, DSK wrote: Let's see... were more people killed by terrorists in 2002 or 2004? Are numbers & fatalities of terrorist attacks going up or down? NOYB wrote: Where? Does it matter, if Americans are getting killed by terrorists? Fact: President Bush's "war on terror" is not working. That's an opinion again, Doug. Well, it's an opinion that is backed by numbers in the the real world. I guess in your opinion, that Bush/Cheney's "war on terror" is a success despite evidence to the contrary? Do you believe that water flows up hill, too? DSK Has there ever been a war where the opposition did not wear uniforms? Has there ever been a war where the opposition fights from Mosques? Has there ever been a war where the opposition uses children, straps bombs to them, and has them walk into crowded streets killing their own people? Has there ever been a war with no casualties? Hmmm. |
JimH wrote:
Has there ever been a war where the opposition did not wear uniforms? Has there ever been a war where the opposition fights from Mosques? Has there ever been a war where the opposition uses children, straps bombs to them, and has them walk into crowded streets killing their own people? Yes. Ignorance is not strength, Orwell notwithstanding. ... Has there ever been a war with no casualties? Has there ever been a war with lots and lots of casualties, for no purpose, which could have been avoided with better planning & better equipment, in which the side suffering all these avoidable casualties made a credible claim to be "winning"? DSK |
"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "John H" wrote in message ... On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 20:27:24 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H" wrote in message m... On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 18:42:46 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "JimH" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: I don't know about the rationalizations...but the retaliatory strike plans are certainly already written. ************************ "What this country needs is another Pearl Harbor" (Project for the New American Century) You guys need to be careful what you wish for. *You guys*? I guess you mean the left as those are the only ones hoping for bad things to happen, including in the Middle East. After all, aren't politics more important than Country for many on the left? I'm not sure what Chuck meant, but I can add something useful: Boys like NOYB want something bad to happen because it means they'll see footage on TV from cameras mounted on cruise missiles and stealth bombers, and he'll be able to have sex again for a week or two afterward. It's a shame I agreed to stopping personal insults. But John....it's true. You know that. How else can one explain spastic foreign policy decisions? Over the past couple of years, I've given you a number of possible explanations including complete incompetence, or a sick need for sexual excitement derived from violence. Pick one. I'm posting this only to show basskisser that it is possible to ignore written material. Also, it is possible to entertain thoughts without resorting to personal insults. I haven't insulted you, unless you're one of those guys who takes it personally when someone disagrees with his choice of TV, lawnmower or car. I'm simply pointing out that when you strip away all the valid, sane reasons (which do not apply to our foreign policy lately), the only ones left are the bizarre. What's bizarre is the inability to see the good things happening in the Middle East right now as a result of Bush's policies. One would have to be stupid or ignorant to not see it. Which are you? (Pick one). I'm someone who does not agree with this statement of foreign policy: U.S. to Arab World: "Stop hating us, or suffer the consequences". You know it's true, although you're too small to admit it publicly. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:34 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com