| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
( OT ) U.S. to support European efforts on Iran
Is this a flip or a flop?
By Anne Gearan March 11, 2005 | Washington -- The Bush administration will support European diplomatic efforts to end Iran 's nuclear weapons ambitions by offering modest economic incentives to the Tehran regime, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday. The administration agreed to drop objections to Iran's eventual membership in the World Trade Organization and agreed to allow some sales of civilian aircraft parts to Tehran, she said in a statement released by the State Department. Rice said the administration will consider allowing the spare parts sales on a case-by-case basis. Many of the sales would be from European Union countries. "We share the desire of European governments to secure Iran's adherence to its obligations through peace and diplomatic means," the secretary said, referring to Iran's commitments under the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty. |
It is not a one size fits all situation. Iraq and Iran are different
animals. However, we did try the diplomatic route in Iraq, similar to what we are doing in Iran, prior to the invasion. Sometimes diplomacy and discussions work, sometimes not. They did not work with Iraq. They may work with Iran. So what is your point Jim? |
JimH wrote:
It is not a one size fits all situation. Iraq and Iran are different animals. However, we did try the diplomatic route in Iraq, similar to what we are doing in Iran, prior to the invasion. Sometimes diplomacy and discussions work, sometimes not. They did not work with Iraq. They may work with Iran. So what is your point Jim? Did you forget that last week Bush declined to join the Europeans in negotiations. He was going to be the lone Cowboy who did things HIS way? |
"Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: It is not a one size fits all situation. Iraq and Iran are different animals. However, we did try the diplomatic route in Iraq, similar to what we are doing in Iran, prior to the invasion. Sometimes diplomacy and discussions work, sometimes not. They did not work with Iraq. They may work with Iran. So what is your point Jim? Did you forget that last week Bush declined to join the Europeans in negotiations. He was going to be the lone Cowboy who did things HIS way? No I do not remember. I am not saying you are wrong, but perhaps you can provide a link. Regardless, what is wrong with him deciding to join in with Europe in the negotiations? You see this as a bad thing? |
JimH wrote:
"Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: It is not a one size fits all situation. Iraq and Iran are different animals. However, we did try the diplomatic route in Iraq, similar to what we are doing in Iran, prior to the invasion. Sometimes diplomacy and discussions work, sometimes not. They did not work with Iraq. They may work with Iran. So what is your point Jim? Did you forget that last week Bush declined to join the Europeans in negotiations. He was going to be the lone Cowboy who did things HIS way? No I do not remember. I am not saying you are wrong, but perhaps you can provide a link. Regardless, what is wrong with him deciding to join in with Europe in the negotiations? You see this as a bad thing? Convienent memory! -- I see this as a good thing, but last week it was a bad thing. The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? From your favorite news source http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148304,00.html "The United States has refused to get involved in the bargaining with Tehran or to make commitments about incentives, insisting that Tehran abandon its program." http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03564569.htm Supporting Europe on the incentives would mark a significant shift in strategy for Bush, who has been reluctant to consider them before to avoid being seen as rewarding Iran for bad behavior. During his first term Bush branded Iran part of an "axis of evil," along with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. And Tehran has been an antagonist of Washington since the 1979 Iranian revolution and the seizure that year of more than 60 hostages in the U.S. Embassy in a crisis that lasted 444 days. |
"Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: It is not a one size fits all situation. Iraq and Iran are different animals. However, we did try the diplomatic route in Iraq, similar to what we are doing in Iran, prior to the invasion. Sometimes diplomacy and discussions work, sometimes not. They did not work with Iraq. They may work with Iran. So what is your point Jim? Did you forget that last week Bush declined to join the Europeans in negotiations. He was going to be the lone Cowboy who did things HIS way? No I do not remember. I am not saying you are wrong, but perhaps you can provide a link. Regardless, what is wrong with him deciding to join in with Europe in the negotiations? You see this as a bad thing? Convienent memory! -- No, I simply did not remember. Why the slam? I see this as a good thing, but last week it was a bad thing. The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Nope, things change, especially when dealing with international politics. Would you rather that a President have one and only one way to deal with other Countries? From your favorite news source http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148304,00.html "The United States has refused to get involved in the bargaining with Tehran or to make commitments about incentives, insisting that Tehran abandon its program." Thank you for the link. And what makes you think that Fox is my favorite news source? Just because I am a political conservative? Again, another attempted slam on your part. Can you discuss things without the attempted personal attacks Jimcomma? http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03564569.htm Supporting Europe on the incentives would mark a significant shift in strategy for Bush, who has been reluctant to consider them before to avoid being seen as rewarding Iran for bad behavior. Great. Bush is doing good....eh? During his first term Bush branded Iran part of an "axis of evil," along with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nothing has changed. Your point is? And Tehran has been an antagonist of Washington since the 1979 Iranian revolution and the seizure that year of more than 60 hostages in the U.S. Embassy in a crisis that lasted 444 days. Correct. And that would include Carter and Clinton during those years, as it would Bush Sr and Jr, and Reagan Your point is? |
JimH wrote:
"Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: It is not a one size fits all situation. Iraq and Iran are different animals. However, we did try the diplomatic route in Iraq, similar to what we are doing in Iran, prior to the invasion. Sometimes diplomacy and discussions work, sometimes not. They did not work with Iraq. They may work with Iran. So what is your point Jim? Did you forget that last week Bush declined to join the Europeans in negotiations. He was going to be the lone Cowboy who did things HIS way? No I do not remember. I am not saying you are wrong, but perhaps you can provide a link. Regardless, what is wrong with him deciding to join in with Europe in the negotiations? You see this as a bad thing? Convienent memory! -- No, I simply did not remember. Why the slam? I see this as a good thing, but last week it was a bad thing. The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Nope, things change, especially when dealing with international politics. Would you rather that a President have one and only one way to deal with other Countries? From your favorite news source http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148304,00.html "The United States has refused to get involved in the bargaining with Tehran or to make commitments about incentives, insisting that Tehran abandon its program." Thank you for the link. And what makes you think that Fox is my favorite news source? Just because I am a political conservative? Again, another attempted slam on your part. Can you discuss things without the attempted personal attacks Jimcomma? OK -- what IS your favorite news source? Tell the world. http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03564569.htm Supporting Europe on the incentives would mark a significant shift in strategy for Bush, who has been reluctant to consider them before to avoid being seen as rewarding Iran for bad behavior. Great. Bush is doing good....eh? I'll give him this one During his first term Bush branded Iran part of an "axis of evil," along with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nothing has changed. Your point is? Now maybe we should negotiate with N Korea? And Tehran has been an antagonist of Washington since the 1979 Iranian revolution and the seizure that year of more than 60 hostages in the U.S. Embassy in a crisis that lasted 444 days. Correct. And that would include Carter and Clinton during those years, as it would Bush Sr and Jr, and Reagan Your point is? The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Bush made a big issue of flip flopping during the campaign. |
Jim, wrote:
JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: It is not a one size fits all situation. Iraq and Iran are different animals. However, we did try the diplomatic route in Iraq, similar to what we are doing in Iran, prior to the invasion. Sometimes diplomacy and discussions work, sometimes not. They did not work with Iraq. They may work with Iran. So what is your point Jim? Did you forget that last week Bush declined to join the Europeans in negotiations. He was going to be the lone Cowboy who did things HIS way? No I do not remember. I am not saying you are wrong, but perhaps you can provide a link. Regardless, what is wrong with him deciding to join in with Europe in the negotiations? You see this as a bad thing? Convienent memory! -- No, I simply did not remember. Why the slam? I see this as a good thing, but last week it was a bad thing. The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Nope, things change, especially when dealing with international politics. Would you rather that a President have one and only one way to deal with other Countries? Seemed to be that way till now. Could it be he's mellowing??? From your favorite news source http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148304,00.html "The United States has refused to get involved in the bargaining with Tehran or to make commitments about incentives, insisting that Tehran abandon its program." Thank you for the link. And what makes you think that Fox is my favorite news source? Just because I am a political conservative? Again, another attempted slam on your part. Can you discuss things without the attempted personal attacks Jimcomma? OK -- what IS your favorite news source? Tell the world. http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03564569.htm Supporting Europe on the incentives would mark a significant shift in strategy for Bush, who has been reluctant to consider them before to avoid being seen as rewarding Iran for bad behavior. Great. Bush is doing good....eh? I'll give him this one During his first term Bush branded Iran part of an "axis of evil," along with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nothing has changed. Your point is? Now maybe we should negotiate with N Korea? And Tehran has been an antagonist of Washington since the 1979 Iranian revolution and the seizure that year of more than 60 hostages in the U.S. Embassy in a crisis that lasted 444 days. Correct. And that would include Carter and Clinton during those years, as it would Bush Sr and Jr, and Reagan Your point is? The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Bush made a big issue of flip flopping during the campaign. I likes the HK answer to this one. |
"Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: It is not a one size fits all situation. Iraq and Iran are different animals. However, we did try the diplomatic route in Iraq, similar to what we are doing in Iran, prior to the invasion. Sometimes diplomacy and discussions work, sometimes not. They did not work with Iraq. They may work with Iran. So what is your point Jim? Did you forget that last week Bush declined to join the Europeans in negotiations. He was going to be the lone Cowboy who did things HIS way? No I do not remember. I am not saying you are wrong, but perhaps you can provide a link. Regardless, what is wrong with him deciding to join in with Europe in the negotiations? You see this as a bad thing? Convienent memory! -- No, I simply did not remember. Why the slam? I see this as a good thing, but last week it was a bad thing. The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Nope, things change, especially when dealing with international politics. Would you rather that a President have one and only one way to deal with other Countries? From your favorite news source http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148304,00.html "The United States has refused to get involved in the bargaining with Tehran or to make commitments about incentives, insisting that Tehran abandon its program." Thank you for the link. And what makes you think that Fox is my favorite news source? Just because I am a political conservative? Again, another attempted slam on your part. Can you discuss things without the attempted personal attacks Jimcomma? OK -- what IS your favorite news source? Tell the world. I don't have a favorite. Why do I have to? http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03564569.htm Supporting Europe on the incentives would mark a significant shift in strategy for Bush, who has been reluctant to consider them before to avoid being seen as rewarding Iran for bad behavior. Great. Bush is doing good....eh? I'll give him this one During his first term Bush branded Iran part of an "axis of evil," along with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nothing has changed. Your point is? Now maybe we should negotiate with N Korea? We already are. And Tehran has been an antagonist of Washington since the 1979 Iranian revolution and the seizure that year of more than 60 hostages in the U.S. Embassy in a crisis that lasted 444 days. Correct. And that would include Carter and Clinton during those years, as it would Bush Sr and Jr, and Reagan Your point is? The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Bush made a big issue of flip flopping during the campaign. No it was not a flip flop. One *has* to remain flexible when dealing with international politics. One has to, however, remain true to their core beliefs. Bush has, remained consistent with his core beliefs, including with the war on terror, fixing social security, fixing the tax code, abortion, tort reform and believing that forceful action will sometimes be called for in his dealing with other countries. Kerry on the other hand changed his core beliefs on abortion, the war on terror, troop funding, ANWAR, NAFTA, welfare reform, the death penalty, the Patriot Act, affirmative action....and on and on and on. |
"Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... During his first term Bush branded Iran part of an "axis of evil," along with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nothing has changed. Your point is? Now maybe we should negotiate with N Korea? We have been and N Korea is the one pulling out of the negotiations. I thought you would have known that. ========================= TOKYO (Reuters) - The United States' point man on North Korea on Thursday warned the reclusive state would face grave consequences if it didn't return to the six-way talks on ending its nuclear weapons program, Kyodo news agency reported. The U.S. ambassador to South Korea, Christopher Hill, told a key Japanese ruling party official that North Korea would face a serious situation if it missed out on the chance to come back to the six-party nuclear talks, Kyodo said. On Feb. 10, North Korea declared for the first time it had nuclear weapons and also said it was dropping out of the six-party talks aimed at ending its nuclear ambitions. Less than two weeks later, North Korean leader Kim Jong-il said Pyongyang could return to the talks, which involve the two Koreas, Japan, China, the United State and Russia, if the conditions were right and Washington showed sincerity. Three rounds of six-way talks since August 2003 have been inconclusive. A fourth round planned for late 2004 never materialized. http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=7863273 ===================================== |
JimH wrote:
"Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: It is not a one size fits all situation. Iraq and Iran are different animals. However, we did try the diplomatic route in Iraq, similar to what we are doing in Iran, prior to the invasion. Sometimes diplomacy and discussions work, sometimes not. They did not work with Iraq. They may work with Iran. So what is your point Jim? Did you forget that last week Bush declined to join the Europeans in negotiations. He was going to be the lone Cowboy who did things HIS way? No I do not remember. I am not saying you are wrong, but perhaps you can provide a link. Regardless, what is wrong with him deciding to join in with Europe in the negotiations? You see this as a bad thing? Convienent memory! -- No, I simply did not remember. Why the slam? I see this as a good thing, but last week it was a bad thing. The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Nope, things change, especially when dealing with international politics. Would you rather that a President have one and only one way to deal with other Countries? From your favorite news source http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148304,00.html "The United States has refused to get involved in the bargaining with Tehran or to make commitments about incentives, insisting that Tehran abandon its program." Thank you for the link. And what makes you think that Fox is my favorite news source? Just because I am a political conservative? Again, another attempted slam on your part. Can you discuss things without the attempted personal attacks Jimcomma? OK -- what IS your favorite news source? Tell the world. I don't have a favorite. Why do I have to? http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03564569.htm Supporting Europe on the incentives would mark a significant shift in strategy for Bush, who has been reluctant to consider them before to avoid being seen as rewarding Iran for bad behavior. Great. Bush is doing good....eh? I'll give him this one During his first term Bush branded Iran part of an "axis of evil," along with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nothing has changed. Your point is? Now maybe we should negotiate with N Korea? We already are. And Tehran has been an antagonist of Washington since the 1979 Iranian revolution and the seizure that year of more than 60 hostages in the U.S. Embassy in a crisis that lasted 444 days. Correct. And that would include Carter and Clinton during those years, as it would Bush Sr and Jr, and Reagan Your point is? The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Bush made a big issue of flip flopping during the campaign. No it was not a flip flop. One *has* to remain flexible when dealing with international politics. One has to, however, remain true to their core beliefs. Bush has, remained consistent with his core beliefs, including with the war on terror, fixing social security, fixing the tax code, abortion, tort reform and believing that forceful action will sometimes be called for in his dealing with other countries. Kerry on the other hand changed his core beliefs on abortion, Pro Choice -- http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Abortion.htm the war on terror, He was deceived by Bush, rice, et all troop funding, Again deceived ANWAR, Evidence please As I understand, he has always been against drilling. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ry-nafta_x.htm welfare reform, http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_..._+_Poverty.htm the death penalty Not so http://deadlinethemovie.com/blog/joh...th_penalty.php the Patriot Act, Agreed affirmative action See http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0403090827.asp .....and on and on and on. |
"Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: It is not a one size fits all situation. Iraq and Iran are different animals. However, we did try the diplomatic route in Iraq, similar to what we are doing in Iran, prior to the invasion. Sometimes diplomacy and discussions work, sometimes not. They did not work with Iraq. They may work with Iran. So what is your point Jim? Did you forget that last week Bush declined to join the Europeans in negotiations. He was going to be the lone Cowboy who did things HIS way? No I do not remember. I am not saying you are wrong, but perhaps you can provide a link. Regardless, what is wrong with him deciding to join in with Europe in the negotiations? You see this as a bad thing? Convienent memory! -- No, I simply did not remember. Why the slam? I see this as a good thing, but last week it was a bad thing. The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Nope, things change, especially when dealing with international politics. Would you rather that a President have one and only one way to deal with other Countries? From your favorite news source http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148304,00.html "The United States has refused to get involved in the bargaining with Tehran or to make commitments about incentives, insisting that Tehran abandon its program." Thank you for the link. And what makes you think that Fox is my favorite news source? Just because I am a political conservative? Again, another attempted slam on your part. Can you discuss things without the attempted personal attacks Jimcomma? OK -- what IS your favorite news source? Tell the world. I don't have a favorite. Why do I have to? http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03564569.htm Supporting Europe on the incentives would mark a significant shift in strategy for Bush, who has been reluctant to consider them before to avoid being seen as rewarding Iran for bad behavior. Great. Bush is doing good....eh? I'll give him this one During his first term Bush branded Iran part of an "axis of evil," along with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nothing has changed. Your point is? Now maybe we should negotiate with N Korea? We already are. And Tehran has been an antagonist of Washington since the 1979 Iranian revolution and the seizure that year of more than 60 hostages in the U.S. Embassy in a crisis that lasted 444 days. Correct. And that would include Carter and Clinton during those years, as it would Bush Sr and Jr, and Reagan Your point is? The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Bush made a big issue of flip flopping during the campaign. No it was not a flip flop. One *has* to remain flexible when dealing with international politics. One has to, however, remain true to their core beliefs. Bush has, remained consistent with his core beliefs, including with the war on terror, fixing social security, fixing the tax code, abortion, tort reform and believing that forceful action will sometimes be called for in his dealing with other countries. Kerry on the other hand changed his core beliefs on abortion, Pro Choice -- http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Abortion.htm the war on terror, He was deceived by Bush, rice, et all troop funding, Again deceived Bull**** and a lame excuse. ANWAR, Evidence please As I understand, he has always been against drilling. http://www.nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml...lops.htm#ANWAR http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ry-nafta_x.htm welfare reform, http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_..._+_Poverty.htm the death penalty Not so http://deadlinethemovie.com/blog/joh...th_penalty.php the Patriot Act, Agreed affirmative action See http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0403090827.asp ....and on and on and on. Go to this link for other support of my claims on his flip flops. http://www.nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml/flipflops.htm The fact remains that Kerry constantly changed his core beliefs and Bush hasn't. Yes, Kerry deserved the title of flip flop king. |
JimH wrote:
"Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: It is not a one size fits all situation. Iraq and Iran are different animals. However, we did try the diplomatic route in Iraq, similar to what we are doing in Iran, prior to the invasion. Sometimes diplomacy and discussions work, sometimes not. They did not work with Iraq. They may work with Iran. So what is your point Jim? Did you forget that last week Bush declined to join the Europeans in negotiations. He was going to be the lone Cowboy who did things HIS way? No I do not remember. I am not saying you are wrong, but perhaps you can provide a link. Regardless, what is wrong with him deciding to join in with Europe in the negotiations? You see this as a bad thing? Convienent memory! -- No, I simply did not remember. Why the slam? I see this as a good thing, but last week it was a bad thing. The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Nope, things change, especially when dealing with international politics. Would you rather that a President have one and only one way to deal with other Countries? From your favorite news source http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148304,00.html "The United States has refused to get involved in the bargaining with Tehran or to make commitments about incentives, insisting that Tehran abandon its program." Thank you for the link. And what makes you think that Fox is my favorite news source? Just because I am a political conservative? Again, another attempted slam on your part. Can you discuss things without the attempted personal attacks Jimcomma? OK -- what IS your favorite news source? Tell the world. I don't have a favorite. Why do I have to? http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03564569.htm Supporting Europe on the incentives would mark a significant shift in strategy for Bush, who has been reluctant to consider them before to avoid being seen as rewarding Iran for bad behavior. Great. Bush is doing good....eh? I'll give him this one During his first term Bush branded Iran part of an "axis of evil," along with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nothing has changed. Your point is? Now maybe we should negotiate with N Korea? We already are. And Tehran has been an antagonist of Washington since the 1979 Iranian revolution and the seizure that year of more than 60 hostages in the U.S. Embassy in a crisis that lasted 444 days. Correct. And that would include Carter and Clinton during those years, as it would Bush Sr and Jr, and Reagan Your point is? The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Bush made a big issue of flip flopping during the campaign. No it was not a flip flop. One *has* to remain flexible when dealing with international politics. One has to, however, remain true to their core beliefs. Bush has, remained consistent with his core beliefs, including with the war on terror, fixing social security, fixing the tax code, abortion, tort reform and believing that forceful action will sometimes be called for in his dealing with other countries. Kerry on the other hand changed his core beliefs on abortion, Pro Choice -- http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Abortion.htm the war on terror, He was deceived by Bush, rice, et all troop funding, Again deceived Bull**** and a lame excuse. ANWAR, Evidence please As I understand, he has always been against drilling. http://www.nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml...lops.htm#ANWAR http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ry-nafta_x.htm welfare reform, http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_..._+_Poverty.htm the death penalty Not so http://deadlinethemovie.com/blog/joh...th_penalty.php the Patriot Act, Agreed affirmative action See http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0403090827.asp ....and on and on and on. Go to this link for other support of my claims on his flip flops. http://www.nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml/flipflops.htm The fact remains that Kerry constantly changed his core beliefs and Bush hasn't. Yes, Kerry deserved the title of flip flop king. Suppose you can find an UNbiased, responsiblle source? |
Jimcomma! Don't just let our discussion go 'cause you got yourself trapped.
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 02:33:18 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:05:00 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:35:28 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:16:36 GMT, "Jim," wrote: JimH wrote: Should not commanders *KNOW* what their troops are doing? *That* is a stupid question, Jimcomma. I know you're not stupid, but perhaps you know little of command. A commander is responsible for everything in his unit. They are not God. Whether or not they *should* know everything their troops do is immaterial. They can't. Did your parents know everything you did as a kid? Were you able to get away with anything? Your first line says it all "A commander is responsible for everything in his unit." Read the rest. Maybe you'll learn something. Answer the questions. After all, your parents were also responsible for you. Remember? And if I were to damage someones property, or such they would be held responsible. Why would they have allowed you to do it? They wouldn't have permitted it -- but they would be responsible -- just as commanders are responsible for their troops. And given the time the abuse went on, I find it very hard to believe the commanders didn't know what was happening. If they wouldn't have permitted it, how could you possibly have done it, given that they must have surely *KNOWN* what their child was doing? As to responsibility, your parents may have been fiscally responsible when you damaged someone's property, at least up to the deductible on their insurance. But, were they punished when *you* got caught playing 'doctor' with little, ten-year-old Mary Sue? A week or so ago, a child (14?) shot a school bus driver. Surely the parents, much closer to their kids than a commander to *his* kids, must have know the child had a gun. Therefore, the parents should be sent to prison for allowing the shooting to occur. Actually, the policies of the parents, allowing the child to watch TV, probably encouraged the child to commit the shooting. Your logic is nicely anti-administration and anti-military, but it is also nicely twisted. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
John H wrote:
Jimcomma! Don't just let our discussion go 'cause you got yourself trapped. On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 02:33:18 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:05:00 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:35:28 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:16:36 GMT, "Jim," wrote: JimH wrote: Should not commanders *KNOW* what their troops are doing? *That* is a stupid question, Jimcomma. I know you're not stupid, but perhaps you know little of command. A commander is responsible for everything in his unit. They are not God. Whether or not they *should* know everything their troops do is immaterial. They can't. Did your parents know everything you did as a kid? Were you able to get away with anything? Your first line says it all "A commander is responsible for everything in his unit." Read the rest. Maybe you'll learn something. Answer the questions. After all, your parents were also responsible for you. Remember? And if I were to damage someones property, or such they would be held responsible. Why would they have allowed you to do it? They wouldn't have permitted it -- but they would be responsible -- just as commanders are responsible for their troops. And given the time the abuse went on, I find it very hard to believe the commanders didn't know what was happening. If they wouldn't have permitted it, how could you possibly have done it, given that they must have surely *KNOWN* what their child was doing? As to responsibility, your parents may have been fiscally responsible when you damaged someone's property, at least up to the deductible on their insurance. But, were they punished when *you* got caught playing 'doctor' with little, ten-year-old Mary Sue? A week or so ago, a child (14?) shot a school bus driver. Surely the parents, much closer to their kids than a commander to *his* kids, must have know the child had a gun. Therefore, the parents should be sent to prison for allowing the shooting to occur. Actually, the policies of the parents, allowing the child to watch TV, probably encouraged the child to commit the shooting. Your logic is nicely anti-administration and anti-military, but it is also nicely twisted. I thought you summed up things rather ell when you posted the following. "A commander is responsible for everything in his unit." |
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:22:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote:
John H wrote: Jimcomma! Don't just let our discussion go 'cause you got yourself trapped. On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 02:33:18 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:05:00 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:35:28 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:16:36 GMT, "Jim," wrote: JimH wrote: Should not commanders *KNOW* what their troops are doing? *That* is a stupid question, Jimcomma. I know you're not stupid, but perhaps you know little of command. A commander is responsible for everything in his unit. They are not God. Whether or not they *should* know everything their troops do is immaterial. They can't. Did your parents know everything you did as a kid? Were you able to get away with anything? Your first line says it all "A commander is responsible for everything in his unit." Read the rest. Maybe you'll learn something. Answer the questions. After all, your parents were also responsible for you. Remember? And if I were to damage someones property, or such they would be held responsible. Why would they have allowed you to do it? They wouldn't have permitted it -- but they would be responsible -- just as commanders are responsible for their troops. And given the time the abuse went on, I find it very hard to believe the commanders didn't know what was happening. If they wouldn't have permitted it, how could you possibly have done it, given that they must have surely *KNOWN* what their child was doing? As to responsibility, your parents may have been fiscally responsible when you damaged someone's property, at least up to the deductible on their insurance. But, were they punished when *you* got caught playing 'doctor' with little, ten-year-old Mary Sue? A week or so ago, a child (14?) shot a school bus driver. Surely the parents, much closer to their kids than a commander to *his* kids, must have know the child had a gun. Therefore, the parents should be sent to prison for allowing the shooting to occur. Actually, the policies of the parents, allowing the child to watch TV, probably encouraged the child to commit the shooting. Your logic is nicely anti-administration and anti-military, but it is also nicely twisted. I thought you summed up things rather ell when you posted the following. "A commander is responsible for everything in his unit." So was your mother! "Hoisted on your own petard," as they say. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
John H wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:22:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: Jimcomma! Don't just let our discussion go 'cause you got yourself trapped. On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 02:33:18 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:05:00 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:35:28 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:16:36 GMT, "Jim," wrote: JimH wrote: Should not commanders *KNOW* what their troops are doing? *That* is a stupid question, Jimcomma. I know you're not stupid, but perhaps you know little of command. A commander is responsible for everything in his unit. They are not God. Whether or not they *should* know everything their troops do is immaterial. They can't. Did your parents know everything you did as a kid? Were you able to get away with anything? Your first line says it all "A commander is responsible for everything in his unit." Read the rest. Maybe you'll learn something. Answer the questions. After all, your parents were also responsible for you. Remember? And if I were to damage someones property, or such they would be held responsible. Why would they have allowed you to do it? They wouldn't have permitted it -- but they would be responsible -- just as commanders are responsible for their troops. And given the time the abuse went on, I find it very hard to believe the commanders didn't know what was happening. If they wouldn't have permitted it, how could you possibly have done it, given that they must have surely *KNOWN* what their child was doing? As to responsibility, your parents may have been fiscally responsible when you damaged someone's property, at least up to the deductible on their insurance. But, were they punished when *you* got caught playing 'doctor' with little, ten-year-old Mary Sue? A week or so ago, a child (14?) shot a school bus driver. Surely the parents, much closer to their kids than a commander to *his* kids, must have know the child had a gun. Therefore, the parents should be sent to prison for allowing the shooting to occur. Actually, the policies of the parents, allowing the child to watch TV, probably encouraged the child to commit the shooting. Your logic is nicely anti-administration and anti-military, but it is also nicely twisted. I thought you summed up things rather ell when you posted the following. "A commander is responsible for everything in his unit." So was your mother! "Hoisted on your own petard," as they say. The difference being that until I was an adult, my parents were called to account for my (very few) Misdeeds. Somehow the commanders are given a pass. |
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:38:59 GMT, "Jim," wrote:
John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:22:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: Jimcomma! Don't just let our discussion go 'cause you got yourself trapped. On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 02:33:18 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:05:00 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:35:28 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:16:36 GMT, "Jim," wrote: JimH wrote: Should not commanders *KNOW* what their troops are doing? *That* is a stupid question, Jimcomma. I know you're not stupid, but perhaps you know little of command. A commander is responsible for everything in his unit. They are not God. Whether or not they *should* know everything their troops do is immaterial. They can't. Did your parents know everything you did as a kid? Were you able to get away with anything? Your first line says it all "A commander is responsible for everything in his unit." Read the rest. Maybe you'll learn something. Answer the questions. After all, your parents were also responsible for you. Remember? And if I were to damage someones property, or such they would be held responsible. Why would they have allowed you to do it? They wouldn't have permitted it -- but they would be responsible -- just as commanders are responsible for their troops. And given the time the abuse went on, I find it very hard to believe the commanders didn't know what was happening. If they wouldn't have permitted it, how could you possibly have done it, given that they must have surely *KNOWN* what their child was doing? As to responsibility, your parents may have been fiscally responsible when you damaged someone's property, at least up to the deductible on their insurance. But, were they punished when *you* got caught playing 'doctor' with little, ten-year-old Mary Sue? A week or so ago, a child (14?) shot a school bus driver. Surely the parents, much closer to their kids than a commander to *his* kids, must have know the child had a gun. Therefore, the parents should be sent to prison for allowing the shooting to occur. Actually, the policies of the parents, allowing the child to watch TV, probably encouraged the child to commit the shooting. Your logic is nicely anti-administration and anti-military, but it is also nicely twisted. I thought you summed up things rather ell when you posted the following. "A commander is responsible for everything in his unit." So was your mother! "Hoisted on your own petard," as they say. The difference being that until I was an adult, my parents were called to account for my (very few) Misdeeds. Somehow the commanders are given a pass. You best stick to cut'n'pastin. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
John H wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:38:59 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:22:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: Jimcomma! Don't just let our discussion go 'cause you got yourself trapped. On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 02:33:18 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:05:00 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:35:28 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:16:36 GMT, "Jim," wrote: JimH wrote: Should not commanders *KNOW* what their troops are doing? *That* is a stupid question, Jimcomma. I know you're not stupid, but perhaps you know little of command. A commander is responsible for everything in his unit. They are not God. Whether or not they *should* know everything their troops do is immaterial. They can't. Did your parents know everything you did as a kid? Were you able to get away with anything? Your first line says it all "A commander is responsible for everything in his unit." Read the rest. Maybe you'll learn something. Answer the questions. After all, your parents were also responsible for you. Remember? And if I were to damage someones property, or such they would be held responsible. Why would they have allowed you to do it? They wouldn't have permitted it -- but they would be responsible -- just as commanders are responsible for their troops. And given the time the abuse went on, I find it very hard to believe the commanders didn't know what was happening. If they wouldn't have permitted it, how could you possibly have done it, given that they must have surely *KNOWN* what their child was doing? As to responsibility, your parents may have been fiscally responsible when you damaged someone's property, at least up to the deductible on their insurance. But, were they punished when *you* got caught playing 'doctor' with little, ten-year-old Mary Sue? A week or so ago, a child (14?) shot a school bus driver. Surely the parents, much closer to their kids than a commander to *his* kids, must have know the child had a gun. Therefore, the parents should be sent to prison for allowing the shooting to occur. Actually, the policies of the parents, allowing the child to watch TV, probably encouraged the child to commit the shooting. Your logic is nicely anti-administration and anti-military, but it is also nicely twisted. I thought you summed up things rather ell when you posted the following. "A commander is responsible for everything in his unit." So was your mother! "Hoisted on your own petard," as they say. The difference being that until I was an adult, my parents were called to account for my (very few) Misdeeds. Somehow the commanders are given a pass. You best stick to cut'n'pastin. Which part of the following do you NOT agree with? The difference being that until I was an adult, my parents were called to account for my (very few) Misdeeds. Somehow the commanders are given a pass. |
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:54:13 GMT, "Jim," wrote:
John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:38:59 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:22:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: Jimcomma! Don't just let our discussion go 'cause you got yourself trapped. On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 02:33:18 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:05:00 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:35:28 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:16:36 GMT, "Jim," wrote: JimH wrote: Should not commanders *KNOW* what their troops are doing? *That* is a stupid question, Jimcomma. I know you're not stupid, but perhaps you know little of command. A commander is responsible for everything in his unit. They are not God. Whether or not they *should* know everything their troops do is immaterial. They can't. Did your parents know everything you did as a kid? Were you able to get away with anything? Your first line says it all "A commander is responsible for everything in his unit." Read the rest. Maybe you'll learn something. Answer the questions. After all, your parents were also responsible for you. Remember? And if I were to damage someones property, or such they would be held responsible. Why would they have allowed you to do it? They wouldn't have permitted it -- but they would be responsible -- just as commanders are responsible for their troops. And given the time the abuse went on, I find it very hard to believe the commanders didn't know what was happening. If they wouldn't have permitted it, how could you possibly have done it, given that they must have surely *KNOWN* what their child was doing? As to responsibility, your parents may have been fiscally responsible when you damaged someone's property, at least up to the deductible on their insurance. But, were they punished when *you* got caught playing 'doctor' with little, ten-year-old Mary Sue? A week or so ago, a child (14?) shot a school bus driver. Surely the parents, much closer to their kids than a commander to *his* kids, must have know the child had a gun. Therefore, the parents should be sent to prison for allowing the shooting to occur. Actually, the policies of the parents, allowing the child to watch TV, probably encouraged the child to commit the shooting. Your logic is nicely anti-administration and anti-military, but it is also nicely twisted. I thought you summed up things rather ell when you posted the following. "A commander is responsible for everything in his unit." So was your mother! "Hoisted on your own petard," as they say. The difference being that until I was an adult, my parents were called to account for my (very few) Misdeeds. Somehow the commanders are given a pass. You best stick to cut'n'pastin. Which part of the following do you NOT agree with? The difference being that until I was an adult, my parents were called to account for my (very few) Misdeeds. Somehow the commanders are given a pass. Stick to cut'n'pastin'. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
John H wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:54:13 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:38:59 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:22:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: Jimcomma! Don't just let our discussion go 'cause you got yourself trapped. On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 02:33:18 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:05:00 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:35:28 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:16:36 GMT, "Jim," wrote: JimH wrote: Should not commanders *KNOW* what their troops are doing? *That* is a stupid question, Jimcomma. I know you're not stupid, but perhaps you know little of command. A commander is responsible for everything in his unit. They are not God. Whether or not they *should* know everything their troops do is immaterial. They can't. Did your parents know everything you did as a kid? Were you able to get away with anything? Your first line says it all "A commander is responsible for everything in his unit." Read the rest. Maybe you'll learn something. Answer the questions. After all, your parents were also responsible for you. Remember? And if I were to damage someones property, or such they would be held responsible. Why would they have allowed you to do it? They wouldn't have permitted it -- but they would be responsible -- just as commanders are responsible for their troops. And given the time the abuse went on, I find it very hard to believe the commanders didn't know what was happening. If they wouldn't have permitted it, how could you possibly have done it, given that they must have surely *KNOWN* what their child was doing? As to responsibility, your parents may have been fiscally responsible when you damaged someone's property, at least up to the deductible on their insurance. But, were they punished when *you* got caught playing 'doctor' with little, ten-year-old Mary Sue? A week or so ago, a child (14?) shot a school bus driver. Surely the parents, much closer to their kids than a commander to *his* kids, must have know the child had a gun. Therefore, the parents should be sent to prison for allowing the shooting to occur. Actually, the policies of the parents, allowing the child to watch TV, probably encouraged the child to commit the shooting. Your logic is nicely anti-administration and anti-military, but it is also nicely twisted. I thought you summed up things rather ell when you posted the following. "A commander is responsible for everything in his unit." So was your mother! "Hoisted on your own petard," as they say. The difference being that until I was an adult, my parents were called to account for my (very few) Misdeeds. Somehow the commanders are given a pass. You best stick to cut'n'pastin. Which part of the following do you NOT agree with? The difference being that until I was an adult, my parents were called to account for my (very few) Misdeeds. Somehow the commanders are given a pass. Stick to cut'n'pastin'. OK Which part of the following do you NOT agree with? The difference being that until I was an adult, my parents were called to account for my (very few) Misdeeds. Somehow the commanders are given a pass. |
Harry Krause wrote:
Jim, wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:38:59 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:22:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: Jimcomma! Don't just let our discussion go 'cause you got yourself trapped. On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 02:33:18 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:05:00 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:35:28 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:16:36 GMT, "Jim," wrote: JimH wrote: Should not commanders *KNOW* what their troops are doing? *That* is a stupid question, Jimcomma. I know you're not stupid, but perhaps you know little of command. A commander is responsible for everything in his unit. They are not God. Whether or not they *should* know everything their troops do is immaterial. They can't. Did your parents know everything you did as a kid? Were you able to get away with anything? Your first line says it all "A commander is responsible for everything in his unit." Read the rest. Maybe you'll learn something. Answer the questions. After all, your parents were also responsible for you. Remember? And if I were to damage someones property, or such they would be held responsible. Why would they have allowed you to do it? They wouldn't have permitted it -- but they would be responsible -- just as commanders are responsible for their troops. And given the time the abuse went on, I find it very hard to believe the commanders didn't know what was happening. If they wouldn't have permitted it, how could you possibly have done it, given that they must have surely *KNOWN* what their child was doing? As to responsibility, your parents may have been fiscally responsible when you damaged someone's property, at least up to the deductible on their insurance. But, were they punished when *you* got caught playing 'doctor' with little, ten-year-old Mary Sue? A week or so ago, a child (14?) shot a school bus driver. Surely the parents, much closer to their kids than a commander to *his* kids, must have know the child had a gun. Therefore, the parents should be sent to prison for allowing the shooting to occur. Actually, the policies of the parents, allowing the child to watch TV, probably encouraged the child to commit the shooting. Your logic is nicely anti-administration and anti-military, but it is also nicely twisted. I thought you summed up things rather ell when you posted the following. "A commander is responsible for everything in his unit." So was your mother! "Hoisted on your own petard," as they say. The difference being that until I was an adult, my parents were called to account for my (very few) Misdeeds. Somehow the commanders are given a pass. You best stick to cut'n'pastin. Which part of the following do you NOT agree with? The difference being that until I was an adult, my parents were called to account for my (very few) Misdeeds. Somehow the commanders are given a pass. No offense, but what do you expect to squeeze out of a "discussion" with the Bush-Military Apologist? Certainly not reality. Good point Harry -- Shouldn't try to confuse him with facts. Many of these right wing types must see Bush as GOD. Likewise the military. Of course many were military trained NEVER to question an order from a "superior" |
"Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: It is not a one size fits all situation. Iraq and Iran are different animals. However, we did try the diplomatic route in Iraq, similar to what we are doing in Iran, prior to the invasion. Sometimes diplomacy and discussions work, sometimes not. They did not work with Iraq. They may work with Iran. So what is your point Jim? Did you forget that last week Bush declined to join the Europeans in negotiations. He was going to be the lone Cowboy who did things HIS way? No I do not remember. I am not saying you are wrong, but perhaps you can provide a link. Regardless, what is wrong with him deciding to join in with Europe in the negotiations? You see this as a bad thing? Convienent memory! -- No, I simply did not remember. Why the slam? I see this as a good thing, but last week it was a bad thing. The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Nope, things change, especially when dealing with international politics. Would you rather that a President have one and only one way to deal with other Countries? From your favorite news source http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148304,00.html "The United States has refused to get involved in the bargaining with Tehran or to make commitments about incentives, insisting that Tehran abandon its program." Thank you for the link. And what makes you think that Fox is my favorite news source? Just because I am a political conservative? Again, another attempted slam on your part. Can you discuss things without the attempted personal attacks Jimcomma? OK -- what IS your favorite news source? Tell the world. I don't have a favorite. Why do I have to? http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03564569.htm Supporting Europe on the incentives would mark a significant shift in strategy for Bush, who has been reluctant to consider them before to avoid being seen as rewarding Iran for bad behavior. Great. Bush is doing good....eh? I'll give him this one During his first term Bush branded Iran part of an "axis of evil," along with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nothing has changed. Your point is? Now maybe we should negotiate with N Korea? We already are. And Tehran has been an antagonist of Washington since the 1979 Iranian revolution and the seizure that year of more than 60 hostages in the U.S. Embassy in a crisis that lasted 444 days. Correct. And that would include Carter and Clinton during those years, as it would Bush Sr and Jr, and Reagan Your point is? The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Bush made a big issue of flip flopping during the campaign. No it was not a flip flop. One *has* to remain flexible when dealing with international politics. One has to, however, remain true to their core beliefs. Bush has, remained consistent with his core beliefs, including with the war on terror, fixing social security, fixing the tax code, abortion, tort reform and believing that forceful action will sometimes be called for in his dealing with other countries. Kerry on the other hand changed his core beliefs on abortion, Pro Choice -- http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Abortion.htm the war on terror, He was deceived by Bush, rice, et all troop funding, Again deceived Bull**** and a lame excuse. ANWAR, Evidence please As I understand, he has always been against drilling. http://www.nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml...lops.htm#ANWAR http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ry-nafta_x.htm welfare reform, http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_..._+_Poverty.htm the death penalty Not so http://deadlinethemovie.com/blog/joh...th_penalty.php the Patriot Act, Agreed affirmative action See http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0403090827.asp ....and on and on and on. Go to this link for other support of my claims on his flip flops. http://www.nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml/flipflops.htm The fact remains that Kerry constantly changed his core beliefs and Bush hasn't. Yes, Kerry deserved the title of flip flop king. Suppose you can find an UNbiased, responsiblle source? Yep, perhaps biased against Kerry. But what specifically is untrue in what they say? |
JimH wrote:
"Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: It is not a one size fits all situation. Iraq and Iran are different animals. However, we did try the diplomatic route in Iraq, similar to what we are doing in Iran, prior to the invasion. Sometimes diplomacy and discussions work, sometimes not. They did not work with Iraq. They may work with Iran. So what is your point Jim? Did you forget that last week Bush declined to join the Europeans in negotiations. He was going to be the lone Cowboy who did things HIS way? No I do not remember. I am not saying you are wrong, but perhaps you can provide a link. Regardless, what is wrong with him deciding to join in with Europe in the negotiations? You see this as a bad thing? Convienent memory! -- No, I simply did not remember. Why the slam? I see this as a good thing, but last week it was a bad thing. The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Nope, things change, especially when dealing with international politics. Would you rather that a President have one and only one way to deal with other Countries? From your favorite news source http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148304,00.html "The United States has refused to get involved in the bargaining with Tehran or to make commitments about incentives, insisting that Tehran abandon its program." Thank you for the link. And what makes you think that Fox is my favorite news source? Just because I am a political conservative? Again, another attempted slam on your part. Can you discuss things without the attempted personal attacks Jimcomma? OK -- what IS your favorite news source? Tell the world. I don't have a favorite. Why do I have to? http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03564569.htm Supporting Europe on the incentives would mark a significant shift in strategy for Bush, who has been reluctant to consider them before to avoid being seen as rewarding Iran for bad behavior. Great. Bush is doing good....eh? I'll give him this one During his first term Bush branded Iran part of an "axis of evil," along with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nothing has changed. Your point is? Now maybe we should negotiate with N Korea? We already are. And Tehran has been an antagonist of Washington since the 1979 Iranian revolution and the seizure that year of more than 60 hostages in the U.S. Embassy in a crisis that lasted 444 days. Correct. And that would include Carter and Clinton during those years, as it would Bush Sr and Jr, and Reagan Your point is? The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Bush made a big issue of flip flopping during the campaign. No it was not a flip flop. One *has* to remain flexible when dealing with international politics. One has to, however, remain true to their core beliefs. Bush has, remained consistent with his core beliefs, including with the war on terror, fixing social security, fixing the tax code, abortion, tort reform and believing that forceful action will sometimes be called for in his dealing with other countries. Kerry on the other hand changed his core beliefs on abortion, Pro Choice -- http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Abortion.htm the war on terror, He was deceived by Bush, rice, et all troop funding, Again deceived Bull**** and a lame excuse. ANWAR, Evidence please As I understand, he has always been against drilling. http://www.nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml...lops.htm#ANWAR http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ry-nafta_x.htm welfare reform, http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_..._+_Poverty.htm the death penalty Not so http://deadlinethemovie.com/blog/joh...th_penalty.php the Patriot Act, Agreed affirmative action See http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0403090827.asp ....and on and on and on. Go to this link for other support of my claims on his flip flops. http://www.nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml/flipflops.htm The fact remains that Kerry constantly changed his core beliefs and Bush hasn't. Yes, Kerry deserved the title of flip flop king. Suppose you can find an UNbiased, responsiblle source? Yep, perhaps biased against Kerry. But what specifically is untrue in what they say? Didn't bother to read it --- find me something from Cnn, cnbc or even faux. |
"Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: It is not a one size fits all situation. Iraq and Iran are different animals. However, we did try the diplomatic route in Iraq, similar to what we are doing in Iran, prior to the invasion. Sometimes diplomacy and discussions work, sometimes not. They did not work with Iraq. They may work with Iran. So what is your point Jim? Did you forget that last week Bush declined to join the Europeans in negotiations. He was going to be the lone Cowboy who did things HIS way? No I do not remember. I am not saying you are wrong, but perhaps you can provide a link. Regardless, what is wrong with him deciding to join in with Europe in the negotiations? You see this as a bad thing? Convienent memory! -- No, I simply did not remember. Why the slam? I see this as a good thing, but last week it was a bad thing. The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Nope, things change, especially when dealing with international politics. Would you rather that a President have one and only one way to deal with other Countries? From your favorite news source http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148304,00.html "The United States has refused to get involved in the bargaining with Tehran or to make commitments about incentives, insisting that Tehran abandon its program." Thank you for the link. And what makes you think that Fox is my favorite news source? Just because I am a political conservative? Again, another attempted slam on your part. Can you discuss things without the attempted personal attacks Jimcomma? OK -- what IS your favorite news source? Tell the world. I don't have a favorite. Why do I have to? http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03564569.htm Supporting Europe on the incentives would mark a significant shift in strategy for Bush, who has been reluctant to consider them before to avoid being seen as rewarding Iran for bad behavior. Great. Bush is doing good....eh? I'll give him this one During his first term Bush branded Iran part of an "axis of evil," along with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nothing has changed. Your point is? Now maybe we should negotiate with N Korea? We already are. And Tehran has been an antagonist of Washington since the 1979 Iranian revolution and the seizure that year of more than 60 hostages in the U.S. Embassy in a crisis that lasted 444 days. Correct. And that would include Carter and Clinton during those years, as it would Bush Sr and Jr, and Reagan Your point is? The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Bush made a big issue of flip flopping during the campaign. No it was not a flip flop. One *has* to remain flexible when dealing with international politics. One has to, however, remain true to their core beliefs. Bush has, remained consistent with his core beliefs, including with the war on terror, fixing social security, fixing the tax code, abortion, tort reform and believing that forceful action will sometimes be called for in his dealing with other countries. Kerry on the other hand changed his core beliefs on abortion, Pro Choice -- http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Abortion.htm the war on terror, He was deceived by Bush, rice, et all troop funding, Again deceived Bull**** and a lame excuse. ANWAR, Evidence please As I understand, he has always been against drilling. http://www.nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml...lops.htm#ANWAR http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ry-nafta_x.htm welfare reform, http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_..._+_Poverty.htm the death penalty Not so http://deadlinethemovie.com/blog/joh...th_penalty.php the Patriot Act, Agreed affirmative action See http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0403090827.asp ....and on and on and on. Go to this link for other support of my claims on his flip flops. http://www.nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml/flipflops.htm The fact remains that Kerry constantly changed his core beliefs and Bush hasn't. Yes, Kerry deserved the title of flip flop king. Suppose you can find an UNbiased, responsiblle source? Yep, perhaps biased against Kerry. But what specifically is untrue in what they say? Didn't bother to read it -- I figured as much. - find me something from Cnn, cnbc or even faux. Find it yourself. |
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 17:09:24 GMT, "Jim," wrote:
Harry Krause wrote: Jim, wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:38:59 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:22:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: Jimcomma! Don't just let our discussion go 'cause you got yourself trapped. On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 02:33:18 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:05:00 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:35:28 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:16:36 GMT, "Jim," wrote: JimH wrote: Should not commanders *KNOW* what their troops are doing? *That* is a stupid question, Jimcomma. I know you're not stupid, but perhaps you know little of command. A commander is responsible for everything in his unit. They are not God. Whether or not they *should* know everything their troops do is immaterial. They can't. Did your parents know everything you did as a kid? Were you able to get away with anything? Your first line says it all "A commander is responsible for everything in his unit." Read the rest. Maybe you'll learn something. Answer the questions. After all, your parents were also responsible for you. Remember? And if I were to damage someones property, or such they would be held responsible. Why would they have allowed you to do it? They wouldn't have permitted it -- but they would be responsible -- just as commanders are responsible for their troops. And given the time the abuse went on, I find it very hard to believe the commanders didn't know what was happening. If they wouldn't have permitted it, how could you possibly have done it, given that they must have surely *KNOWN* what their child was doing? As to responsibility, your parents may have been fiscally responsible when you damaged someone's property, at least up to the deductible on their insurance. But, were they punished when *you* got caught playing 'doctor' with little, ten-year-old Mary Sue? A week or so ago, a child (14?) shot a school bus driver. Surely the parents, much closer to their kids than a commander to *his* kids, must have know the child had a gun. Therefore, the parents should be sent to prison for allowing the shooting to occur. Actually, the policies of the parents, allowing the child to watch TV, probably encouraged the child to commit the shooting. Your logic is nicely anti-administration and anti-military, but it is also nicely twisted. I thought you summed up things rather ell when you posted the following. "A commander is responsible for everything in his unit." So was your mother! "Hoisted on your own petard," as they say. The difference being that until I was an adult, my parents were called to account for my (very few) Misdeeds. Somehow the commanders are given a pass. You best stick to cut'n'pastin. Which part of the following do you NOT agree with? The difference being that until I was an adult, my parents were called to account for my (very few) Misdeeds. Somehow the commanders are given a pass. No offense, but what do you expect to squeeze out of a "discussion" with the Bush-Military Apologist? Certainly not reality. Good point Harry -- Shouldn't try to confuse him with facts. Many of these right wing types must see Bush as GOD. Likewise the military. Of course many were military trained NEVER to question an order from a "superior" Good. Now you're getting the help you need. Stick with Harry. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 17:37:17 GMT, "Jim," wrote:
JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: It is not a one size fits all situation. Iraq and Iran are different animals. However, we did try the diplomatic route in Iraq, similar to what we are doing in Iran, prior to the invasion. Sometimes diplomacy and discussions work, sometimes not. They did not work with Iraq. They may work with Iran. So what is your point Jim? Did you forget that last week Bush declined to join the Europeans in negotiations. He was going to be the lone Cowboy who did things HIS way? No I do not remember. I am not saying you are wrong, but perhaps you can provide a link. Regardless, what is wrong with him deciding to join in with Europe in the negotiations? You see this as a bad thing? Convienent memory! -- No, I simply did not remember. Why the slam? I see this as a good thing, but last week it was a bad thing. The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Nope, things change, especially when dealing with international politics. Would you rather that a President have one and only one way to deal with other Countries? From your favorite news source http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148304,00.html "The United States has refused to get involved in the bargaining with Tehran or to make commitments about incentives, insisting that Tehran abandon its program." Thank you for the link. And what makes you think that Fox is my favorite news source? Just because I am a political conservative? Again, another attempted slam on your part. Can you discuss things without the attempted personal attacks Jimcomma? OK -- what IS your favorite news source? Tell the world. I don't have a favorite. Why do I have to? http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03564569.htm Supporting Europe on the incentives would mark a significant shift in strategy for Bush, who has been reluctant to consider them before to avoid being seen as rewarding Iran for bad behavior. Great. Bush is doing good....eh? I'll give him this one During his first term Bush branded Iran part of an "axis of evil," along with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nothing has changed. Your point is? Now maybe we should negotiate with N Korea? We already are. And Tehran has been an antagonist of Washington since the 1979 Iranian revolution and the seizure that year of more than 60 hostages in the U.S. Embassy in a crisis that lasted 444 days. Correct. And that would include Carter and Clinton during those years, as it would Bush Sr and Jr, and Reagan Your point is? The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Bush made a big issue of flip flopping during the campaign. No it was not a flip flop. One *has* to remain flexible when dealing with international politics. One has to, however, remain true to their core beliefs. Bush has, remained consistent with his core beliefs, including with the war on terror, fixing social security, fixing the tax code, abortion, tort reform and believing that forceful action will sometimes be called for in his dealing with other countries. Kerry on the other hand changed his core beliefs on abortion, Pro Choice -- http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Abortion.htm the war on terror, He was deceived by Bush, rice, et all troop funding, Again deceived Bull**** and a lame excuse. ANWAR, Evidence please As I understand, he has always been against drilling. http://www.nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml...lops.htm#ANWAR http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ry-nafta_x.htm welfare reform, http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_..._+_Poverty.htm the death penalty Not so http://deadlinethemovie.com/blog/joh...th_penalty.php the Patriot Act, Agreed affirmative action See http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0403090827.asp ....and on and on and on. Go to this link for other support of my claims on his flip flops. http://www.nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml/flipflops.htm The fact remains that Kerry constantly changed his core beliefs and Bush hasn't. Yes, Kerry deserved the title of flip flop king. Suppose you can find an UNbiased, responsiblle source? Yep, perhaps biased against Kerry. But what specifically is untrue in what they say? Didn't bother to read it --- find me something from Cnn, cnbc or even faux. Hoisted again, Jimcomma. Better get Harry to help you out of this one too. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"JimH" wrote in message ... "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: It is not a one size fits all situation. Iraq and Iran are different animals. However, we did try the diplomatic route in Iraq, similar to what we are doing in Iran, prior to the invasion. Sometimes diplomacy and discussions work, sometimes not. They did not work with Iraq. They may work with Iran. So what is your point Jim? Did you forget that last week Bush declined to join the Europeans in negotiations. He was going to be the lone Cowboy who did things HIS way? No I do not remember. I am not saying you are wrong, but perhaps you can provide a link. Regardless, what is wrong with him deciding to join in with Europe in the negotiations? You see this as a bad thing? Convienent memory! -- No, I simply did not remember. Why the slam? I see this as a good thing, but last week it was a bad thing. The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Nope, things change, especially when dealing with international politics. Would you rather that a President have one and only one way to deal with other Countries? From your favorite news source http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148304,00.html "The United States has refused to get involved in the bargaining with Tehran or to make commitments about incentives, insisting that Tehran abandon its program." Thank you for the link. And what makes you think that Fox is my favorite news source? Just because I am a political conservative? Again, another attempted slam on your part. Can you discuss things without the attempted personal attacks Jimcomma? OK -- what IS your favorite news source? Tell the world. I don't have a favorite. Why do I have to? http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03564569.htm Supporting Europe on the incentives would mark a significant shift in strategy for Bush, who has been reluctant to consider them before to avoid being seen as rewarding Iran for bad behavior. Great. Bush is doing good....eh? I'll give him this one During his first term Bush branded Iran part of an "axis of evil," along with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nothing has changed. Your point is? Now maybe we should negotiate with N Korea? We already are. And Tehran has been an antagonist of Washington since the 1979 Iranian revolution and the seizure that year of more than 60 hostages in the U.S. Embassy in a crisis that lasted 444 days. Correct. And that would include Carter and Clinton during those years, as it would Bush Sr and Jr, and Reagan Your point is? The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Bush made a big issue of flip flopping during the campaign. No it was not a flip flop. One *has* to remain flexible when dealing with international politics. One has to, however, remain true to their core beliefs. Bush has, remained consistent with his core beliefs, including with the war on terror, fixing social security, fixing the tax code, abortion, tort reform and believing that forceful action will sometimes be called for in his dealing with other countries. Kerry on the other hand changed his core beliefs on abortion, Pro Choice -- http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Abortion.htm the war on terror, He was deceived by Bush, rice, et all troop funding, Again deceived Bull**** and a lame excuse. ANWAR, Evidence please As I understand, he has always been against drilling. http://www.nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml...lops.htm#ANWAR http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ry-nafta_x.htm welfare reform, http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_..._+_Poverty.htm the death penalty Not so http://deadlinethemovie.com/blog/joh...th_penalty.php the Patriot Act, Agreed affirmative action See http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0403090827.asp ....and on and on and on. Go to this link for other support of my claims on his flip flops. http://www.nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml/flipflops.htm The fact remains that Kerry constantly changed his core beliefs and Bush hasn't. Yes, Kerry deserved the title of flip flop king. Suppose you can find an UNbiased, responsiblle source? Yep, perhaps biased against Kerry. But what specifically is untrue in what they say? Didn't bother to read it -- I figured as much. - find me something from Cnn, cnbc or even faux. Find it yourself. Oh, what the hell. Here you go: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in646435.shtml http://washingtontimes.com/national/...5616-3546r.htm http://mediamatters.org/items/200407060009 (includes clips from CNN) http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/waffles.asp http://news.forum.publicradio.org/ar.../10/01/0553207 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=40491 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1119904/posts http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/se...w.php?id=12261 http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...4/835wicnq.asp Hundreds more. It was easy. ;-) |
"'''''suffering from
Tuukarrhea'''''''' Well tuukarrhea must be defined as one who **** out krause, krause and more krause ,,,lol,, all I ever do krause is laugh at the crap you spew,, lol,,, repeat what you post,,, so by definition "Tuukarrhea" is you!!!!!,,,, lol,,,, krause,,,, you off your meds again??/ slipping???? "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Jim, wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:54:13 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:38:59 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:22:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: Jimcomma! Don't just let our discussion go 'cause you got yourself trapped. On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 02:33:18 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:05:00 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:35:28 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:16:36 GMT, "Jim," wrote: JimH wrote: Should not commanders *KNOW* what their troops are doing? *That* is a stupid question, Jimcomma. I know you're not stupid, but perhaps you know little of command. A commander is responsible for everything in his unit. They are not God. Whether or not they *should* know everything their troops do is immaterial. They can't. Did your parents know everything you did as a kid? Were you able to get away with anything? Your first line says it all "A commander is responsible for everything in his unit." Read the rest. Maybe you'll learn something. Answer the questions. After all, your parents were also responsible for you. Remember? And if I were to damage someones property, or such they would be held responsible. Why would they have allowed you to do it? They wouldn't have permitted it -- but they would be responsible -- just as commanders are responsible for their troops. And given the time the abuse went on, I find it very hard to believe the commanders didn't know what was happening. If they wouldn't have permitted it, how could you possibly have done it, given that they must have surely *KNOWN* what their child was doing? As to responsibility, your parents may have been fiscally responsible when you damaged someone's property, at least up to the deductible on their insurance. But, were they punished when *you* got caught playing 'doctor' with little, ten-year-old Mary Sue? A week or so ago, a child (14?) shot a school bus driver. Surely the parents, much closer to their kids than a commander to *his* kids, must have know the child had a gun. Therefore, the parents should be sent to prison for allowing the shooting to occur. Actually, the policies of the parents, allowing the child to watch TV, probably encouraged the child to commit the shooting. Your logic is nicely anti-administration and anti-military, but it is also nicely twisted. I thought you summed up things rather ell when you posted the following. "A commander is responsible for everything in his unit." So was your mother! "Hoisted on your own petard," as they say. The difference being that until I was an adult, my parents were called to account for my (very few) Misdeeds. Somehow the commanders are given a pass. You best stick to cut'n'pastin. Which part of the following do you NOT agree with? The difference being that until I was an adult, my parents were called to account for my (very few) Misdeeds. Somehow the commanders are given a pass. Stick to cut'n'pastin'. OK Which part of the following do you NOT agree with? The difference being that until I was an adult, my parents were called to account for my (very few) Misdeeds. Somehow the commanders are given a pass. You know, it just occurred to me. Perhaps Herring is suffering from Tuukarrhea |
"''''''No offense, but what do you expect to squeeze out of a "discussion" with the Bush-Military Apologist? Certainly not reality.'''''''' LOL,,, what do you expect to get from a "discussion" with you krause??? Reality????? lol,,, ouch,,, krause,,, you screw up on the meds today krause??? Or mix too many with the good stuff from the upscale liquor store your buddy works at??? lol,,, ouch,,,, Shouldn't you be out feeding the little critters?? ,,, lol,,,oo my Reality,,,,??/ lol,,, reality,,, hmmmm now there is a word that is farthest from reach during a "discussion" with krause,,,, lollll ,,,, "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Jim, wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:38:59 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:22:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: Jimcomma! Don't just let our discussion go 'cause you got yourself trapped. On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 02:33:18 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:05:00 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:35:28 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:16:36 GMT, "Jim," wrote: JimH wrote: Should not commanders *KNOW* what their troops are doing? *That* is a stupid question, Jimcomma. I know you're not stupid, but perhaps you know little of command. A commander is responsible for everything in his unit. They are not God. Whether or not they *should* know everything their troops do is immaterial. They can't. Did your parents know everything you did as a kid? Were you able to get away with anything? Your first line says it all "A commander is responsible for everything in his unit." Read the rest. Maybe you'll learn something. Answer the questions. After all, your parents were also responsible for you. Remember? And if I were to damage someones property, or such they would be held responsible. Why would they have allowed you to do it? They wouldn't have permitted it -- but they would be responsible -- just as commanders are responsible for their troops. And given the time the abuse went on, I find it very hard to believe the commanders didn't know what was happening. If they wouldn't have permitted it, how could you possibly have done it, given that they must have surely *KNOWN* what their child was doing? As to responsibility, your parents may have been fiscally responsible when you damaged someone's property, at least up to the deductible on their insurance. But, were they punished when *you* got caught playing 'doctor' with little, ten-year-old Mary Sue? A week or so ago, a child (14?) shot a school bus driver. Surely the parents, much closer to their kids than a commander to *his* kids, must have know the child had a gun. Therefore, the parents should be sent to prison for allowing the shooting to occur. Actually, the policies of the parents, allowing the child to watch TV, probably encouraged the child to commit the shooting. Your logic is nicely anti-administration and anti-military, but it is also nicely twisted. I thought you summed up things rather ell when you posted the following. "A commander is responsible for everything in his unit." So was your mother! "Hoisted on your own petard," as they say. The difference being that until I was an adult, my parents were called to account for my (very few) Misdeeds. Somehow the commanders are given a pass. You best stick to cut'n'pastin. Which part of the following do you NOT agree with? The difference being that until I was an adult, my parents were called to account for my (very few) Misdeeds. Somehow the commanders are given a pass. No offense, but what do you expect to squeeze out of a "discussion" with the Bush-Military Apologist? Certainly not reality. |
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:12:11 -0500, " Tuuk" wrote:
"''''''No offense, but what do you expect to squeeze out of a "discussion" with the Bush-Military Apologist? Certainly not reality.'''''''' LOL,,, what do you expect to get from a "discussion" with you krause??? Reality????? lol,,, ouch,,, krause,,, you screw up on the meds today krause??? Or mix too many with the good stuff from the upscale liquor store your buddy works at??? lol,,, ouch,,,, Shouldn't you be out feeding the little critters?? ,,, lol,,,oo my Reality,,,,??/ lol,,, reality,,, hmmmm now there is a word that is farthest from reach during a "discussion" with krause,,,, lollll ,,,, Crap, did I miss one of Harry's famous posts? Is he coming up with new names now? I'd better get someone to watch my '6'. It seems Harry is obsessed with it. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
JimH wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message ... "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message .. . JimH wrote: It is not a one size fits all situation. Iraq and Iran are different animals. However, we did try the diplomatic route in Iraq, similar to what we are doing in Iran, prior to the invasion. Sometimes diplomacy and discussions work, sometimes not. They did not work with Iraq. They may work with Iran. So what is your point Jim? Did you forget that last week Bush declined to join the Europeans in negotiations. He was going to be the lone Cowboy who did things HIS way? No I do not remember. I am not saying you are wrong, but perhaps you can provide a link. Regardless, what is wrong with him deciding to join in with Europe in the negotiations? You see this as a bad thing? Convienent memory! -- No, I simply did not remember. Why the slam? I see this as a good thing, but last week it was a bad thing. The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Nope, things change, especially when dealing with international politics. Would you rather that a President have one and only one way to deal with other Countries? From your favorite news source http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148304,00.html "The United States has refused to get involved in the bargaining with Tehran or to make commitments about incentives, insisting that Tehran abandon its program." Thank you for the link. And what makes you think that Fox is my favorite news source? Just because I am a political conservative? Again, another attempted slam on your part. Can you discuss things without the attempted personal attacks Jimcomma? OK -- what IS your favorite news source? Tell the world. I don't have a favorite. Why do I have to? http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03564569.htm Supporting Europe on the incentives would mark a significant shift in strategy for Bush, who has been reluctant to consider them before to avoid being seen as rewarding Iran for bad behavior. Great. Bush is doing good....eh? I'll give him this one During his first term Bush branded Iran part of an "axis of evil," along with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nothing has changed. Your point is? Now maybe we should negotiate with N Korea? We already are. And Tehran has been an antagonist of Washington since the 1979 Iranian revolution and the seizure that year of more than 60 hostages in the U.S. Embassy in a crisis that lasted 444 days. Correct. And that would include Carter and Clinton during those years, as it would Bush Sr and Jr, and Reagan Your point is? The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Bush made a big issue of flip flopping during the campaign. No it was not a flip flop. One *has* to remain flexible when dealing with international politics. One has to, however, remain true to their core beliefs. Bush has, remained consistent with his core beliefs, including with the war on terror, fixing social security, fixing the tax code, abortion, tort reform and believing that forceful action will sometimes be called for in his dealing with other countries. Kerry on the other hand changed his core beliefs on abortion, Pro Choice -- http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Abortion.htm the war on terror, He was deceived by Bush, rice, et all troop funding, Again deceived Bull**** and a lame excuse. ANWAR, Evidence please As I understand, he has always been against drilling. http://www.nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml...lops.htm#ANWAR http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ry-nafta_x.htm welfare reform, http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_..._+_Poverty.htm the death penalty Not so http://deadlinethemovie.com/blog/joh...th_penalty.php the Patriot Act, Agreed affirmative action See http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0403090827.asp ....and on and on and on. Go to this link for other support of my claims on his flip flops. http://www.nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml/flipflops.htm The fact remains that Kerry constantly changed his core beliefs and Bush hasn't. Yes, Kerry deserved the title of flip flop king. Suppose you can find an UNbiased, responsiblle source? Yep, perhaps biased against Kerry. But what specifically is untrue in what they say? Didn't bother to read it -- I figured as much. - find me something from Cnn, cnbc or even faux. Find it yourself. Oh, what the hell. Here you go: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in646435.shtml “We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today," Kerry said Wednesday on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” "Knowing there was no imminent threat to America, knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, knowing there was no connection of Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda, I would not have gone to war. That's plain and simple." Like (as?) I said -- he was deceived. http://washingtontimes.com/national/...5616-3546r.htm In that same speech, he vowed to round up all the unguarded nuclear material in the world within four years, mainly through negotiations. In another speech, Mr. Kerry promised to name a national coordinator to combat bioterrorism. http://mediamatters.org/items/200407060009 (includes clips from CNN) While CNN considered these relatively innocuous comments a "classic" flip-flop, the network has ignored much more significant "flip-flops" by President George W. Bush. As just one example, in a June 22 article about the Supreme Court's rejection of state laws that give patients in managed care the right to sue insurance companies for damages, The New York Times noted: http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/waffles.asp YASSER ARAFAT [07/14 09:52 AM] FIRST HE SAID: "Terrorist organizations with specific political agendas may be encouraged and emboldened by Yasser Arafat's transformation from outlaw to statesman.... [Terrorists] whose only object is to disrupt society require no such 'role models' as Arafat." — The New War, by John Kerry, published June 1997 THEN HE SAID: "Obviously, Yasser Arafat has been an impediment to the peace process... As far as I'm concerned, he's an outlaw to the peace process." — John Kerry, interview with the Associated Press, March 10, 2004 (A lot can happen in 7 years) http://news.forum.publicradio.org/ar.../10/01/0553207 This is no more than a message board for partisan comments, by individuals -- scroll down. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=40491 The apparent flip-flops were noted by the American Family Association, a group battling against moves to establish same-sex marriage. American Family Association -- yeaj! that's non biased! Enough -- this is all pollitical BS. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1119904/posts http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/se...w.php?id=12261 http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...4/835wicnq.asp Hundreds more. It was easy. ;-) Sure just look up all the heo-con comments |
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 10:51:08 -0500, JimH wrote:
The fact remains that Kerry constantly changed his core beliefs and Bush hasn't. Yeah, right. They are both politicians . . . Perhaps, if you would define core beliefs. How about abortion? http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20000703&s=corn How about gay marriage? BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00] ..BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04] How about nation building? BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00] ....BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03] Then there is the 256,000 hits on google for "Bush flip flop". http://www.democrats.org/specialrepo...p10_flipflops/ http://www.americanprogressaction.or...tnav=readmore2 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in646142.shtml |
"Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "JimH" wrote in message ... "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message .. . JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message . .. JimH wrote: It is not a one size fits all situation. Iraq and Iran are different animals. However, we did try the diplomatic route in Iraq, similar to what we are doing in Iran, prior to the invasion. Sometimes diplomacy and discussions work, sometimes not. They did not work with Iraq. They may work with Iran. So what is your point Jim? Did you forget that last week Bush declined to join the Europeans in negotiations. He was going to be the lone Cowboy who did things HIS way? No I do not remember. I am not saying you are wrong, but perhaps you can provide a link. Regardless, what is wrong with him deciding to join in with Europe in the negotiations? You see this as a bad thing? Convienent memory! -- No, I simply did not remember. Why the slam? I see this as a good thing, but last week it was a bad thing. The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Nope, things change, especially when dealing with international politics. Would you rather that a President have one and only one way to deal with other Countries? From your favorite news source http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148304,00.html "The United States has refused to get involved in the bargaining with Tehran or to make commitments about incentives, insisting that Tehran abandon its program." Thank you for the link. And what makes you think that Fox is my favorite news source? Just because I am a political conservative? Again, another attempted slam on your part. Can you discuss things without the attempted personal attacks Jimcomma? OK -- what IS your favorite news source? Tell the world. I don't have a favorite. Why do I have to? http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03564569.htm Supporting Europe on the incentives would mark a significant shift in strategy for Bush, who has been reluctant to consider them before to avoid being seen as rewarding Iran for bad behavior. Great. Bush is doing good....eh? I'll give him this one During his first term Bush branded Iran part of an "axis of evil," along with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nothing has changed. Your point is? Now maybe we should negotiate with N Korea? We already are. And Tehran has been an antagonist of Washington since the 1979 Iranian revolution and the seizure that year of more than 60 hostages in the U.S. Embassy in a crisis that lasted 444 days. Correct. And that would include Carter and Clinton during those years, as it would Bush Sr and Jr, and Reagan Your point is? The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Bush made a big issue of flip flopping during the campaign. No it was not a flip flop. One *has* to remain flexible when dealing with international politics. One has to, however, remain true to their core beliefs. Bush has, remained consistent with his core beliefs, including with the war on terror, fixing social security, fixing the tax code, abortion, tort reform and believing that forceful action will sometimes be called for in his dealing with other countries. Kerry on the other hand changed his core beliefs on abortion, Pro Choice -- http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Abortion.htm the war on terror, He was deceived by Bush, rice, et all troop funding, Again deceived Bull**** and a lame excuse. ANWAR, Evidence please As I understand, he has always been against drilling. http://www.nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml...lops.htm#ANWAR http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ry-nafta_x.htm welfare reform, http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_..._+_Poverty.htm the death penalty Not so http://deadlinethemovie.com/blog/joh...th_penalty.php the Patriot Act, Agreed affirmative action See http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0403090827.asp ....and on and on and on. Go to this link for other support of my claims on his flip flops. http://www.nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml/flipflops.htm The fact remains that Kerry constantly changed his core beliefs and Bush hasn't. Yes, Kerry deserved the title of flip flop king. Suppose you can find an UNbiased, responsiblle source? Yep, perhaps biased against Kerry. But what specifically is untrue in what they say? Didn't bother to read it -- I figured as much. - find me something from Cnn, cnbc or even faux. Find it yourself. Oh, what the hell. Here you go: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in646435.shtml “We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today," Kerry said Wednesday on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” "Knowing there was no imminent threat to America, knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, knowing there was no connection of Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda, I would not have gone to war. That's plain and simple." Like (as?) I said -- he was deceived. http://washingtontimes.com/national/...5616-3546r.htm In that same speech, he vowed to round up all the unguarded nuclear material in the world within four years, mainly through negotiations. In another speech, Mr. Kerry promised to name a national coordinator to combat bioterrorism. http://mediamatters.org/items/200407060009 (includes clips from CNN) While CNN considered these relatively innocuous comments a "classic" flip-flop, the network has ignored much more significant "flip-flops" by President George W. Bush. As just one example, in a June 22 article about the Supreme Court's rejection of state laws that give patients in managed care the right to sue insurance companies for damages, The New York Times noted: http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/waffles.asp YASSER ARAFAT [07/14 09:52 AM] FIRST HE SAID: "Terrorist organizations with specific political agendas may be encouraged and emboldened by Yasser Arafat's transformation from outlaw to statesman.... [Terrorists] whose only object is to disrupt society require no such 'role models' as Arafat." — The New War, by John Kerry, published June 1997 THEN HE SAID: "Obviously, Yasser Arafat has been an impediment to the peace process... As far as I'm concerned, he's an outlaw to the peace process." — John Kerry, interview with the Associated Press, March 10, 2004 (A lot can happen in 7 years) http://news.forum.publicradio.org/ar.../10/01/0553207 This is no more than a message board for partisan comments, by individuals -- scroll down. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=40491 The apparent flip-flops were noted by the American Family Association, a group battling against moves to establish same-sex marriage. American Family Association -- yeaj! that's non biased! Enough -- this is all pollitical BS. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1119904/posts http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/se...w.php?id=12261 http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...4/835wicnq.asp Hundreds more. It was easy. ;-) Sure just look up all the heo-con comments Deja Vu......So I ask again what information posted in those links was not true? Who cares if they came from CNN, ABC or the Weekly Standard....don't discredit the information because of the source....discredit the information they posted. I await your reply. ;-) |
JimH wrote:
"Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "JimH" wrote in message ... "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message .. . JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message . .. JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message .. . JimH wrote: It is not a one size fits all situation. Iraq and Iran are different animals. However, we did try the diplomatic route in Iraq, similar to what we are doing in Iran, prior to the invasion. Sometimes diplomacy and discussions work, sometimes not. They did not work with Iraq. They may work with Iran. So what is your point Jim? Did you forget that last week Bush declined to join the Europeans in negotiations. He was going to be the lone Cowboy who did things HIS way? No I do not remember. I am not saying you are wrong, but perhaps you can provide a link. Regardless, what is wrong with him deciding to join in with Europe in the negotiations? You see this as a bad thing? Convienent memory! -- No, I simply did not remember. Why the slam? I see this as a good thing, but last week it was a bad thing. The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Nope, things change, especially when dealing with international politics. Would you rather that a President have one and only one way to deal with other Countries? From your favorite news source http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148304,00.html "The United States has refused to get involved in the bargaining with Tehran or to make commitments about incentives, insisting that Tehran abandon its program." Thank you for the link. And what makes you think that Fox is my favorite news source? Just because I am a political conservative? Again, another attempted slam on your part. Can you discuss things without the attempted personal attacks Jimcomma? OK -- what IS your favorite news source? Tell the world. I don't have a favorite. Why do I have to? http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03564569.htm Supporting Europe on the incentives would mark a significant shift in strategy for Bush, who has been reluctant to consider them before to avoid being seen as rewarding Iran for bad behavior. Great. Bush is doing good....eh? I'll give him this one During his first term Bush branded Iran part of an "axis of evil," along with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nothing has changed. Your point is? Now maybe we should negotiate with N Korea? We already are. And Tehran has been an antagonist of Washington since the 1979 Iranian revolution and the seizure that year of more than 60 hostages in the U.S. Embassy in a crisis that lasted 444 days. Correct. And that would include Carter and Clinton during those years, as it would Bush Sr and Jr, and Reagan Your point is? The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Bush made a big issue of flip flopping during the campaign. No it was not a flip flop. One *has* to remain flexible when dealing with international politics. One has to, however, remain true to their core beliefs. Bush has, remained consistent with his core beliefs, including with the war on terror, fixing social security, fixing the tax code, abortion, tort reform and believing that forceful action will sometimes be called for in his dealing with other countries. Kerry on the other hand changed his core beliefs on abortion, Pro Choice -- http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Abortion.htm the war on terror, He was deceived by Bush, rice, et all troop funding, Again deceived Bull**** and a lame excuse. ANWAR, Evidence please As I understand, he has always been against drilling. http://www.nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml...lops.htm#ANWAR http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ry-nafta_x.htm welfare reform, http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_..._+_Poverty.htm the death penalty Not so http://deadlinethemovie.com/blog/joh...th_penalty.php the Patriot Act, Agreed affirmative action See http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0403090827.asp ....and on and on and on. Go to this link for other support of my claims on his flip flops. http://www.nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml/flipflops.htm The fact remains that Kerry constantly changed his core beliefs and Bush hasn't. Yes, Kerry deserved the title of flip flop king. Suppose you can find an UNbiased, responsiblle source? Yep, perhaps biased against Kerry. But what specifically is untrue in what they say? Didn't bother to read it -- I figured as much. - find me something from Cnn, cnbc or even faux. Find it yourself. Oh, what the hell. Here you go: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in646435.shtml “We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today," Kerry said Wednesday on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” "Knowing there was no imminent threat to America, knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, knowing there was no connection of Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda, I would not have gone to war. That's plain and simple." Like (as?) I said -- he was deceived. http://washingtontimes.com/national/...5616-3546r.htm In that same speech, he vowed to round up all the unguarded nuclear material in the world within four years, mainly through negotiations. In another speech, Mr. Kerry promised to name a national coordinator to combat bioterrorism. http://mediamatters.org/items/200407060009 (includes clips from CNN) While CNN considered these relatively innocuous comments a "classic" flip-flop, the network has ignored much more significant "flip-flops" by President George W. Bush. As just one example, in a June 22 article about the Supreme Court's rejection of state laws that give patients in managed care the right to sue insurance companies for damages, The New York Times noted: http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/waffles.asp YASSER ARAFAT [07/14 09:52 AM] FIRST HE SAID: "Terrorist organizations with specific political agendas may be encouraged and emboldened by Yasser Arafat's transformation from outlaw to statesman.... [Terrorists] whose only object is to disrupt society require no such 'role models' as Arafat." — The New War, by John Kerry, published June 1997 THEN HE SAID: "Obviously, Yasser Arafat has been an impediment to the peace process... As far as I'm concerned, he's an outlaw to the peace process." — John Kerry, interview with the Associated Press, March 10, 2004 (A lot can happen in 7 years) http://news.forum.publicradio.org/ar.../10/01/0553207 This is no more than a message board for partisan comments, by individuals -- scroll down. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=40491 The apparent flip-flops were noted by the American Family Association, a group battling against moves to establish same-sex marriage. American Family Association -- yeaj! that's non biased! Enough -- this is all pollitical BS. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1119904/posts http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/se...w.php?id=12261 http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...4/835wicnq.asp Hundreds more. It was easy. ;-) Sure just look up all the heo-con comments Deja Vu......So I ask again what information posted in those links was not true? Who cares if they came from CNN, ABC or the Weekly Standard....don't discredit the information because of the source....discredit the information they posted. I await your reply. ;-) You can play the game any way you want -- google bush lies vs Kerry lies, bush flip flops vs kerry flip flops. You can build a case either way. Way up at the top of this is a question asking if Bushs' latest move is a flip or a flop. Closest answer to date was Harry Kraus. |
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 22:32:37 GMT, "Jim," wrote some more
stuff: Jimcomma, being hoisted on that petard of yours must be getting uncomfortable, no? -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 22:50:54 GMT, "Jim," wrote:
Way up at the top of this is a question asking if Bushs' latest move is a flip or a flop. Closest answer to date was Harry Kraus. You stick with that boy, Jimcomma. He's got the most integrity of anyone on the newsgroup. If you don't believe me, just ask him. (Saying someone has a lot of integrity isn't name-calling, is it?) -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "JimH" wrote in message ... "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message . .. JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message .. . JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message . .. JimH wrote: It is not a one size fits all situation. Iraq and Iran are different animals. However, we did try the diplomatic route in Iraq, similar to what we are doing in Iran, prior to the invasion. Sometimes diplomacy and discussions work, sometimes not. They did not work with Iraq. They may work with Iran. So what is your point Jim? Did you forget that last week Bush declined to join the Europeans in negotiations. He was going to be the lone Cowboy who did things HIS way? No I do not remember. I am not saying you are wrong, but perhaps you can provide a link. Regardless, what is wrong with him deciding to join in with Europe in the negotiations? You see this as a bad thing? Convienent memory! -- No, I simply did not remember. Why the slam? I see this as a good thing, but last week it was a bad thing. The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Nope, things change, especially when dealing with international politics. Would you rather that a President have one and only one way to deal with other Countries? From your favorite news source http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148304,00.html "The United States has refused to get involved in the bargaining with Tehran or to make commitments about incentives, insisting that Tehran abandon its program." Thank you for the link. And what makes you think that Fox is my favorite news source? Just because I am a political conservative? Again, another attempted slam on your part. Can you discuss things without the attempted personal attacks Jimcomma? OK -- what IS your favorite news source? Tell the world. I don't have a favorite. Why do I have to? http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03564569.htm Supporting Europe on the incentives would mark a significant shift in strategy for Bush, who has been reluctant to consider them before to avoid being seen as rewarding Iran for bad behavior. Great. Bush is doing good....eh? I'll give him this one During his first term Bush branded Iran part of an "axis of evil," along with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nothing has changed. Your point is? Now maybe we should negotiate with N Korea? We already are. And Tehran has been an antagonist of Washington since the 1979 Iranian revolution and the seizure that year of more than 60 hostages in the U.S. Embassy in a crisis that lasted 444 days. Correct. And that would include Carter and Clinton during those years, as it would Bush Sr and Jr, and Reagan Your point is? The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Bush made a big issue of flip flopping during the campaign. No it was not a flip flop. One *has* to remain flexible when dealing with international politics. One has to, however, remain true to their core beliefs. Bush has, remained consistent with his core beliefs, including with the war on terror, fixing social security, fixing the tax code, abortion, tort reform and believing that forceful action will sometimes be called for in his dealing with other countries. Kerry on the other hand changed his core beliefs on abortion, Pro Choice -- http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Abortion.htm the war on terror, He was deceived by Bush, rice, et all troop funding, Again deceived Bull**** and a lame excuse. ANWAR, Evidence please As I understand, he has always been against drilling. http://www.nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml...lops.htm#ANWAR http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ry-nafta_x.htm welfare reform, http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_..._+_Poverty.htm the death penalty Not so http://deadlinethemovie.com/blog/joh...th_penalty.php the Patriot Act, Agreed affirmative action See http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0403090827.asp ....and on and on and on. Go to this link for other support of my claims on his flip flops. http://www.nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml/flipflops.htm The fact remains that Kerry constantly changed his core beliefs and Bush hasn't. Yes, Kerry deserved the title of flip flop king. Suppose you can find an UNbiased, responsiblle source? Yep, perhaps biased against Kerry. But what specifically is untrue in what they say? Didn't bother to read it -- I figured as much. - find me something from Cnn, cnbc or even faux. Find it yourself. Oh, what the hell. Here you go: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in646435.shtml “We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today," Kerry said Wednesday on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” "Knowing there was no imminent threat to America, knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, knowing there was no connection of Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda, I would not have gone to war. That's plain and simple." Like (as?) I said -- he was deceived. http://washingtontimes.com/national/...5616-3546r.htm In that same speech, he vowed to round up all the unguarded nuclear material in the world within four years, mainly through negotiations. In another speech, Mr. Kerry promised to name a national coordinator to combat bioterrorism. http://mediamatters.org/items/200407060009 (includes clips from CNN) While CNN considered these relatively innocuous comments a "classic" flip-flop, the network has ignored much more significant "flip-flops" by President George W. Bush. As just one example, in a June 22 article about the Supreme Court's rejection of state laws that give patients in managed care the right to sue insurance companies for damages, The New York Times noted: http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/waffles.asp YASSER ARAFAT [07/14 09:52 AM] FIRST HE SAID: "Terrorist organizations with specific political agendas may be encouraged and emboldened by Yasser Arafat's transformation from outlaw to statesman.... [Terrorists] whose only object is to disrupt society require no such 'role models' as Arafat." — The New War, by John Kerry, published June 1997 THEN HE SAID: "Obviously, Yasser Arafat has been an impediment to the peace process... As far as I'm concerned, he's an outlaw to the peace process." — John Kerry, interview with the Associated Press, March 10, 2004 (A lot can happen in 7 years) http://news.forum.publicradio.org/ar.../10/01/0553207 This is no more than a message board for partisan comments, by individuals -- scroll down. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=40491 The apparent flip-flops were noted by the American Family Association, a group battling against moves to establish same-sex marriage. American Family Association -- yeaj! that's non biased! Enough -- this is all pollitical BS. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1119904/posts http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/se...w.php?id=12261 http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...4/835wicnq.asp Hundreds more. It was easy. ;-) Sure just look up all the heo-con comments Deja Vu......So I ask again what information posted in those links was not true? Who cares if they came from CNN, ABC or the Weekly Standard....don't discredit the information because of the source....discredit the information they posted. I await your reply. ;-) You can play the game any way you want -- google bush lies vs Kerry lies, bush flip flops vs kerry flip flops. You can build a case either way. Way up at the top of this is a question asking if Bushs' latest move is a flip or a flop. Closest answer to date was Harry Kraus. As usual, you did not answer my question but answered with a spin. Once again: So I ask again what information posted in those links was not true? Who cares if they came from CNN, ABC or the Weekly Standard....don't discredit the information because of the source....discredit the information they posted. I await your reply. ;-) |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... You know, it just occurred to me. Perhaps Herring is suffering from Tuukarrhea Tuukarrhea!.....that's a great label. Maybe you should coin that phrase! |
"Don White" wrote in message ... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... You know, it just occurred to me. Perhaps Herring is suffering from Tuukarrhea Tuukarrhea!.....that's a great label. Maybe you should coin that phrase! More childish personal attacks....more proof of my earlier claim that most come from the left. Why not address the subject of this thread instead of throwing out childish insults? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:24 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com