John H wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:34:28 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:20:31 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H wrote:

I need some help with this:

During the debate last night, John Kerry, a Democrat guy, said that
Bush was greatly exaggerating the terrorist threat. Do you remember
that?

On his web site is the statement, "John Kerry has the courage to roll
back George Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can
invest in homeland security."

I'm sure there is some rational explanation for this apparent
ambiguity, but damn if I can figure it out. Help.

John H

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


I didn't watch the program in question, nor have I read any transcripts.

There are many ways Bush has lied and continues to lie about the
terrorist threats. I don't see where that fact conflicts with what you
say is Kerry's statement about cutting tax breaks for millionaires and
investing the proceeds in homeland security.

As an example, and again, this may or may not have anything to do with
what Kerry said or is considering: Bush has done virtually nothing to
protect our ports from what may be inside the containers on container
ships. It is well-known that our ports are virtually unprotected.
Because of Bush's wasting our tax dollars in Iraq and because he cut
taxes, there isn't enough money to do the port scans properly. If tax
revenues were increased and properly spent, there might well be funds to
inspect the cargos of ships.

Is that clear enough for you?

If the threat is so exaggerated, why spend the money -- the trillions
it would take to inspect the millions of containers entering the
country each year?

John H

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


Yes, indeed, and why invade Iraq, kill thousands of Iraqis, see 500+
American soldiers killed...if the threat is exaggerated and you're the
president and you are too stupid to realize that ...or you don't care
one way or the other, because it was high on your agenda to invade Iraq
no matter what?

Does your veering off on a tangent mean that you can't answer the
question?

John H

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

No one is saying there is no threat from terrorism, John. Surely even
you must understand that. Our attacks and invasions of Afghanistan and
Iraq had nothing to do with protection of United States soil, and
everything to do with the agenda of a failing president.

Bush exaggerated the threats from Afghanistan and Iraq and doesn't
understand to this day the threats from terrorism. He seems to have no
idea that for the most part, modern terrorism is stateless.

The man is a simpleton, and he cannot think beyond simpleton answers.

--
Email sent to is never read.

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:51:19 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:34:28 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:20:31 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H wrote:

I need some help with this:

During the debate last night, John Kerry, a Democrat guy, said that
Bush was greatly exaggerating the terrorist threat. Do you remember
that?

On his web site is the statement, "John Kerry has the courage to roll
back George Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can
invest in homeland security."

I'm sure there is some rational explanation for this apparent
ambiguity, but damn if I can figure it out. Help.

John H

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


I didn't watch the program in question, nor have I read any transcripts.

There are many ways Bush has lied and continues to lie about the
terrorist threats. I don't see where that fact conflicts with what you
say is Kerry's statement about cutting tax breaks for millionaires and
investing the proceeds in homeland security.

As an example, and again, this may or may not have anything to do with
what Kerry said or is considering: Bush has done virtually nothing to
protect our ports from what may be inside the containers on container
ships. It is well-known that our ports are virtually unprotected.
Because of Bush's wasting our tax dollars in Iraq and because he cut
taxes, there isn't enough money to do the port scans properly. If tax
revenues were increased and properly spent, there might well be funds to
inspect the cargos of ships.

Is that clear enough for you?

If the threat is so exaggerated, why spend the money -- the trillions
it would take to inspect the millions of containers entering the
country each year?

John H

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


Yes, indeed, and why invade Iraq, kill thousands of Iraqis, see 500+
American soldiers killed...if the threat is exaggerated and you're the
president and you are too stupid to realize that ...or you don't care
one way or the other, because it was high on your agenda to invade Iraq
no matter what?

Does your veering off on a tangent mean that you can't answer the
question?

John H

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

No one is saying there is no threat from terrorism, John. Surely even
you must understand that. Our attacks and invasions of Afghanistan and
Iraq had nothing to do with protection of United States soil, and
everything to do with the agenda of a failing president.

Bush exaggerated the threats from Afghanistan and Iraq and doesn't
understand to this day the threats from terrorism. He seems to have no
idea that for the most part, modern terrorism is stateless.

The man is a simpleton, and he cannot think beyond simpleton answers.

Harry, we're talking about whether Bush is exaggerating the terrorist
threat now, e.g. in his state of the union speech. Kerry seems to
indicate he is. On the other hand, Kerry wants to make the government
bigger by increasing the size of the homeland security force. Maybe
Kerry just talks from both sides of his mouth.

John H

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

John H wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:51:19 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H wrote:


Harry, we're talking about whether Bush is exaggerating the terrorist
threat now, e.g. in his state of the union speech. Kerry seems to
indicate he is. On the other hand, Kerry wants to make the government
bigger by increasing the size of the homeland security force. Maybe
Kerry just talks from both sides of his mouth.


Who knows whether Bush is exaggerating "the terrorist threat" now?
Bush has no credibility whatsoever on the subject of terrorism or much
else, either. If Bush's lips are moving, there is a pretty good chance
he is lying.

Is there a terrorist threat now? Sure. There always has been. Is it
worse now because of Bush? You bet. But terrorism is a worldwide
phenom...and it could come out of anywhere. Bush's waging wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan are not going to stop it.

So, sure, Kerry is correct. We need to spend more to protect our ports
and to take other needed measures to minimize obvious and easy venues of
terrorists to harm our country. Or, perhaps instead of spending more, we
should just divert many of the billions Bush is wasting overseas and
spend it here, to build up our defenses. Oh, and to increase the
reliability of our intel, which apparently cannot tell high noon from
midnight.

That by the way isn't going to happen with Dubya Dumfoch in office. He
sure as hell doesn't want anyone else telling him he is full of crap.


--
Email sent to is never read.

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 15:44:17 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:51:19 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H wrote:


Harry, we're talking about whether Bush is exaggerating the terrorist
threat now, e.g. in his state of the union speech. Kerry seems to
indicate he is. On the other hand, Kerry wants to make the government
bigger by increasing the size of the homeland security force. Maybe
Kerry just talks from both sides of his mouth.


Who knows whether Bush is exaggerating "the terrorist threat" now?
Bush has no credibility whatsoever on the subject of terrorism or much
else, either. If Bush's lips are moving, there is a pretty good chance
he is lying.

Is there a terrorist threat now? Sure. There always has been. Is it
worse now because of Bush? You bet. But terrorism is a worldwide
phenom...and it could come out of anywhere. Bush's waging wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan are not going to stop it.

So, sure, Kerry is correct. We need to spend more to protect our ports
and to take other needed measures to minimize obvious and easy venues of
terrorists to harm our country. Or, perhaps instead of spending more, we
should just divert many of the billions Bush is wasting overseas and
spend it here, to build up our defenses. Oh, and to increase the
reliability of our intel, which apparently cannot tell high noon from
midnight.

That by the way isn't going to happen with Dubya Dumfoch in office. He
sure as hell doesn't want anyone else telling him he is full of crap.

So he's correct on the one hand, but not on the other, which is what
leads to his ambiguity. OK, got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

John H

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

John H wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 15:44:17 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:51:19 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H wrote:


Harry, we're talking about whether Bush is exaggerating the terrorist
threat now, e.g. in his state of the union speech. Kerry seems to
indicate he is. On the other hand, Kerry wants to make the government
bigger by increasing the size of the homeland security force. Maybe
Kerry just talks from both sides of his mouth.


Who knows whether Bush is exaggerating "the terrorist threat" now?
Bush has no credibility whatsoever on the subject of terrorism or much
else, either. If Bush's lips are moving, there is a pretty good chance
he is lying.

Is there a terrorist threat now? Sure. There always has been. Is it
worse now because of Bush? You bet. But terrorism is a worldwide
phenom...and it could come out of anywhere. Bush's waging wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan are not going to stop it.

So, sure, Kerry is correct. We need to spend more to protect our ports
and to take other needed measures to minimize obvious and easy venues of
terrorists to harm our country. Or, perhaps instead of spending more, we
should just divert many of the billions Bush is wasting overseas and
spend it here, to build up our defenses. Oh, and to increase the
reliability of our intel, which apparently cannot tell high noon from
midnight.

That by the way isn't going to happen with Dubya Dumfoch in office. He
sure as hell doesn't want anyone else telling him he is full of crap.

So he's correct on the one hand, but not on the other, which is what
leads to his ambiguity. OK, got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

John H

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

Binary thinking in politics produces nothing smarter than a dumbfoch
like Bush.

--
Email sent to is never read.

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 20:04:49 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 15:44:17 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:51:19 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H wrote:


Harry, we're talking about whether Bush is exaggerating the terrorist
threat now, e.g. in his state of the union speech. Kerry seems to
indicate he is. On the other hand, Kerry wants to make the government
bigger by increasing the size of the homeland security force. Maybe
Kerry just talks from both sides of his mouth.


Who knows whether Bush is exaggerating "the terrorist threat" now?
Bush has no credibility whatsoever on the subject of terrorism or much
else, either. If Bush's lips are moving, there is a pretty good chance
he is lying.

Is there a terrorist threat now? Sure. There always has been. Is it
worse now because of Bush? You bet. But terrorism is a worldwide
phenom...and it could come out of anywhere. Bush's waging wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan are not going to stop it.

So, sure, Kerry is correct. We need to spend more to protect our ports
and to take other needed measures to minimize obvious and easy venues of
terrorists to harm our country. Or, perhaps instead of spending more, we
should just divert many of the billions Bush is wasting overseas and
spend it here, to build up our defenses. Oh, and to increase the
reliability of our intel, which apparently cannot tell high noon from
midnight.

That by the way isn't going to happen with Dubya Dumfoch in office. He
sure as hell doesn't want anyone else telling him he is full of crap.

So he's correct on the one hand, but not on the other, which is what
leads to his ambiguity. OK, got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

John H

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

Binary thinking in politics produces nothing smarter than a dumbfoch
like Bush.

Harry, if binary thinking is bad, what is single track thinking like
yours?

John H

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

John H wrote:

Harry, if binary thinking is bad, what is single track thinking like
yours?


Relevance?

:-)

-- Charlie


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

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 15:44:17 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:51:19 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H wrote:


Harry, we're talking about whether Bush is exaggerating the terrorist
threat now, e.g. in his state of the union speech. Kerry seems to
indicate he is. On the other hand, Kerry wants to make the government
bigger by increasing the size of the homeland security force. Maybe
Kerry just talks from both sides of his mouth.


Who knows whether Bush is exaggerating "the terrorist threat" now?
Bush has no credibility whatsoever on the subject of terrorism or much
else, either. If Bush's lips are moving, there is a pretty good chance
he is lying.

Is there a terrorist threat now? Sure. There always has been. Is it
worse now because of Bush? You bet. But terrorism is a worldwide
phenom...and it could come out of anywhere. Bush's waging wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan are not going to stop it.

So, sure, Kerry is correct. We need to spend more to protect our ports
and to take other needed measures to minimize obvious and easy venues of
terrorists to harm our country. Or, perhaps instead of spending more, we
should just divert many of the billions Bush is wasting overseas and
spend it here, to build up our defenses. Oh, and to increase the
reliability of our intel, which apparently cannot tell high noon from
midnight.

That by the way isn't going to happen with Dubya Dumfoch in office. He
sure as hell doesn't want anyone else telling him he is full of crap.

So he's correct on the one hand, but not on the other, which is what
leads to his ambiguity. OK, got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

John H

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

Binary thinking in politics produces nothing smarter than a dumbfoch
like Bush.

--
Email sent to is never read.

Oh, now smart is being able to spin all ways at once?

Calif Bill wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 15:44:17 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:51:19 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H wrote:


Harry, we're talking about whether Bush is exaggerating the terrorist
threat now, e.g. in his state of the union speech. Kerry seems to
indicate he is. On the other hand, Kerry wants to make the government
bigger by increasing the size of the homeland security force. Maybe
Kerry just talks from both sides of his mouth.


Who knows whether Bush is exaggerating "the terrorist threat" now?
Bush has no credibility whatsoever on the subject of terrorism or much
else, either. If Bush's lips are moving, there is a pretty good chance
he is lying.

Is there a terrorist threat now? Sure. There always has been. Is it
worse now because of Bush? You bet. But terrorism is a worldwide
phenom...and it could come out of anywhere. Bush's waging wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan are not going to stop it.

So, sure, Kerry is correct. We need to spend more to protect our ports
and to take other needed measures to minimize obvious and easy venues of
terrorists to harm our country. Or, perhaps instead of spending more, we
should just divert many of the billions Bush is wasting overseas and
spend it here, to build up our defenses. Oh, and to increase the
reliability of our intel, which apparently cannot tell high noon from
midnight.

That by the way isn't going to happen with Dubya Dumfoch in office. He
sure as hell doesn't want anyone else telling him he is full of crap.

So he's correct on the one hand, but not on the other, which is what
leads to his ambiguity. OK, got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

John H

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

Binary thinking in politics produces nothing smarter than a dumbfoch
like Bush.

--
Email sent to is never read.

Oh, now smart is being able to spin all ways at once?




In Bush's cash, the "smart" move would have been to put his personal
agenda and bloodthirsty politics aside, and work towards a true
coalition solution to the problems he figured only an invasion would cure.

There were many who reported that Iraq no longer had WMD before Bush
invaded. But there weren't saying what Bush thought they should. So the
dumbfoch invaded.

Here's an interesting site for you, Bill. It speaks volumes on how
ultimately unsuccessful we are going to be in the war against Moslem
terrorists.

http://www.lunaville.com/warcasualties/summary.aspx




--
Email sent to is never read.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 15:44:17 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:51:19 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H wrote:


Harry, we're talking about whether Bush is exaggerating the
terrorist
threat now, e.g. in his state of the union speech. Kerry seems to
indicate he is. On the other hand, Kerry wants to make the
government
bigger by increasing the size of the homeland security force. Maybe
Kerry just talks from both sides of his mouth.


Who knows whether Bush is exaggerating "the terrorist threat" now?
Bush has no credibility whatsoever on the subject of terrorism or
much
else, either. If Bush's lips are moving, there is a pretty good
chance
he is lying.

Is there a terrorist threat now? Sure. There always has been. Is it
worse now because of Bush? You bet. But terrorism is a worldwide
phenom...and it could come out of anywhere. Bush's waging wars in
Iraq
and Afghanistan are not going to stop it.

So, sure, Kerry is correct. We need to spend more to protect our
ports
and to take other needed measures to minimize obvious and easy venues
of
terrorists to harm our country. Or, perhaps instead of spending more,
we
should just divert many of the billions Bush is wasting overseas and
spend it here, to build up our defenses. Oh, and to increase the
reliability of our intel, which apparently cannot tell high noon from
midnight.

That by the way isn't going to happen with Dubya Dumfoch in office.
He
sure as hell doesn't want anyone else telling him he is full of crap.

So he's correct on the one hand, but not on the other, which is what
leads to his ambiguity. OK, got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

John H

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

Binary thinking in politics produces nothing smarter than a dumbfoch
like Bush.

--
Email sent to is never read.

Oh, now smart is being able to spin all ways at once?




In Bush's cash, the "smart" move would have been to put his personal
agenda and bloodthirsty politics aside, and work towards a true
coalition solution to the problems he figured only an invasion would cure.

There were many who reported that Iraq no longer had WMD before Bush
invaded. But there weren't saying what Bush thought they should. So the
dumbfoch invaded.

Here's an interesting site for you, Bill. It speaks volumes on how
ultimately unsuccessful we are going to be in the war against Moslem
terrorists.

http://www.lunaville.com/warcasualties/summary.aspx




--
Email sent to is never read.


Changed the subject again!