"-rick-" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

He burned the originals to protect the source? LOL! You would think a
"reporter" in the UK would follow the news from around the globe and see
what happened to a very famous (now notoriuous) news anchor from CBS who
tried to run the same scam.

I wonder why the British government has not disputed their authenticity.

It's a better strategy to you let the other news media outlets do it for
you...the same way that the Bush White House let the National Guard forged
memo scandal unfold all on its own.

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...



I'm talking about job approval ratings


Me too:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm




which are in the very low 40s.


Nope. Rasmussen has it back at 50% again today...just 1 percentage point
off of his Election Day 2004 number.



I

believe you are discussing Bush's affability ratings, which are still
around 50%.


It doesn't matter what you "believe". The facts speak for themselves.
Bush's "Job Approval" rating stands at 50% today.


On the poll you like.

Perhaps because I like *accurate* polls. And Rasmussen has proven himself
to be the most reliable pollster over the last half decade.

Regardless, Bush's job approval rating is almost exactly where it was when
he received 62 million votes (and 3 million more than the Democratic
candidate) last November.

wrote in message
oups.com...


NOYB wrote:

Ed,
Not to sound confrontational...but do you have a working brain?

Hehe!! You failed NOYB!

Since my intention was to fail, then I'd say that I succeeded.

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
N.L. Eckert wrote:
Very well said, my feelings exactly....
==================================
Despite your feelings about the war please keep all our men and women
serving in our Armed Forces in your prayers ********* The war, along with
the people who deliberately lied us into it and are
now profiting from it is crap. The young men and women who do their duty
there are heroic. Each one
killed, wounded, or separated on multiple extended tours from home and
family is a national tragedy. Screw the war, but honor the troops. It is
possible to do both at once.
People who feel that we must despise the troops because they are forced
to serve in a bogus war as well as people who feel that we cannot
respect and value the troops without cheering for the war itself are all
wrong.



And a pox on all of those who are making a monetary profit off this war.


Does that include the businesses which are able to turn profits only because
oil hasn't hit $100/barrel?

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

In the end, some form of Social Security reform will also be implemented.
Perhaps it will be an older age to collect benefits. Perhaps it will be
lower benefits for the affluent. Perhaps it will be partial
privatization for people under age 35. In any case, Bush's strategy will
have been responsible for the change.

Wonderful rationalization for upcoming backpedaling, but b.s

You obviously don't know much about negotiations...particularly negotiations
in which you hold all the cards.

On 20 Jun 2005 05:12:27 -0700, wrote:



Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 17 Jun 2005 21:32:26 -0700, wrote:

Screw the war, but honor the troops.

With all due respect Chuck, the troops are the war. You can't hate
one and love the other - they are one and the same.

Sure one can! While I have respect for the soldiers that were put in
harm's way by Bush, I think that the war they are fighting is riddled
with lies, mistakes, and deceit.

Well, I've stated my case. You cannot separate the two - it's
impossible in the legal, logical, moral and ethical frames of
reference. War is the soldier, the soldier is war - ain't no other
way around it.

If you despise war, then you, by extension, cannot anoint the warrior
as somehow being honorable and above the fray - the guns don't fire by
themselves. It is a willful act to aim, squeeze, shoot and kill the
human you are aiming for. Note the kill - as in dead - murder most
foul if you will.

War is war - you can have an honorable war, you can have a
dishonorable war - the difference between the two is ephemeral because
you still have to aim, shoot and kill the enemy - you are still
killing another human being(s).

Took me a long time and some really intense peer therapy to understand
that concept.

And just because I'm in the mood, there is nothing, absolutely
nothing, like the adrenalin rush you get in close quarters combat.
Nothing in the world can match it.

And that's the last I'll say about it.

Later,

Tom

*JimH* wrote:

I find the fact the you ruined a nice thread pathetic.

You're just mad because Chuck saw right through you. Being proud of
someone is one thing, but I'll bet you wouldn't have posted those same
exact words if he was in the service under a democratic president. So,
YOU made it a political thread.

John H wrote:

Duh...bull****.
--

Does this contribute to the "tone of the group"?

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 12:19:46 -0400, HarryKrause
wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 20 Jun 2005 05:12:27 -0700, wrote:



Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

On 17 Jun 2005 21:32:26 -0700, wrote:


Screw the war, but honor the troops.

With all due respect Chuck, the troops are the war. You can't hate
one and love the other - they are one and the same.

Sure one can! While I have respect for the soldiers that were put in
harm's way by Bush, I think that the war they are fighting is riddled
with lies, mistakes, and deceit.


Well, I've stated my case. You cannot separate the two - it's
impossible in the legal, logical, moral and ethical frames of
reference. War is the soldier, the soldier is war - ain't no other
way around it.

If you despise war, then you, by extension, cannot anoint the warrior
as somehow being honorable and above the fray - the guns don't fire by
themselves. It is a willful act to aim, squeeze, shoot and kill the
human you are aiming for. Note the kill - as in dead - murder most
foul if you will.

Tom, there have been any number of great leaders throughout history who
have stated they "despise" war (or negatives just as strong) and who
have held their soldiers in high esteem. The father of our country,
George Washington, hated war.

I understand that. And I agree. The soldier does a dirty job - the
job that nobody else wants to do.

However, you cannot make the leap from hating a war and loving the
very people who make that war possible. You are either for it or
against it - you can't be both.

I fully appreciate the reasons for stating that the war is illegal and
that it is not worth the effort and that we entered into it on dubious
evidence. I understand that.

However, you cannot separate the act of war and the very people who
make it possible.

If you can, then you need to revisit the Nuremberg Trials transcripts
in which the act of following legal orders does not, in and of itself,
indemnify the soldier from all guilt resulting from performing acts of
war.

As to George Washington, I'm fairly familiar with that War and I can't
think of a specific quote or phrasing that indicated that he hated war
and the acts of war. After all, the only reason he was placed in
command of the Continental Army was because he had a uniform and
Benedict Arnold didn't. :)

However, I'm always willing and able to admit that I'm wrong.

Later,

Tom

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...

N.L. Eckert wrote:

Very well said, my feelings exactly....
==================================
Despite your feelings about the war please keep all our men and women
serving in our Armed Forces in your prayers ********* The war, along
with the people who deliberately lied us into it and are
now profiting from it is crap. The young men and women who do their duty
there are heroic. Each one
killed, wounded, or separated on multiple extended tours from home and
family is a national tragedy. Screw the war, but honor the troops. It is
possible to do both at once.
People who feel that we must despise the troops because they are forced
to serve in a bogus war as well as people who feel that we cannot
respect and value the troops without cheering for the war itself are all
wrong.



And a pox on all of those who are making a monetary profit off this war.



Does that include the businesses which are able to turn profits only
because oil hasn't hit $100/barrel?


Are you referring to the price Bush and the neocons hope their actions
will lead to?


I'm referring to the price that oil would climb to if we never went into
Iraq, withdrew from Saudi Arabia, and let bin Laden overthrow the Saudi
royals and control all of the oil in the Middle East.