France today elevated it's terror alert level from
chartreuse "RUN" to the pinque "HIDE".

The US increased it's alert level to yellow "PROP UP THE POLL NUMBERS"
instead of the red "GET OUT THE VOTE" alert that was very popular a
year ago.

In light of this, you folks should all be on your guard.

bb

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 01:21:07 GMT, bb wrote:

France today elevated it's terror alert level from
chartreuse "RUN" to the pinque "HIDE".

The US increased it's alert level to yellow "PROP UP THE POLL NUMBERS"
instead of the red "GET OUT THE VOTE" alert that was very popular a
year ago.

In light of this, you folks should all be on your guard.

bb

Some of the Dems seem to be making an issue of the fact that our alert level was
increased without any supporting intelligence.

I wonder how much intelligence the Brits recieved about today's attack.

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 22:26:56 -0400, HarryKrause
wrote:

We're going to have to find something better and brighter than we're
doing now, because we have a LOT more targets to hit than the Brits, and
we don't have a quarter of the security in operation they have. And, of
course, our seacoasts are open doors.

So what are you suggesting Harry?

Man..what a bummer way to start the day. Our friends in the UK
definitely have
my prayers and wishes. The sad part is, soon, we will be hearing all
about how it is certain politicans fault instead of the actual
terrorists.

John H. wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 01:21:07 GMT, bb wrote:

France today elevated it's terror alert level from
chartreuse "RUN" to the pinque "HIDE".

The US increased it's alert level to yellow "PROP UP THE POLL NUMBERS"
instead of the red "GET OUT THE VOTE" alert that was very popular a
year ago.

In light of this, you folks should all be on your guard.

bb

Some of the Dems seem to be making an issue of the fact that our alert level was
increased without any supporting intelligence.

We're used to it. BushCo has been running without intelligence since
it's conception!

I wonder how much intelligence the Brits recieved about today's attack.

A fair amount, actually.

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 10:21:43 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 22:26:56 -0400, HarryKrause
wrote:

We're going to have to find something better and brighter than we're
doing now, because we have a LOT more targets to hit than the Brits, and
we don't have a quarter of the security in operation they have. And, of
course, our seacoasts are open doors.

So what are you suggesting Harry?

It seems that the basic liberal approach is to spend much more money trying to
protect anything which can be attacked in the US. They constantly complain that
we are not spending enough on train, subway, port, city, building, etc,
security. They would be happy if we turned every subway entrance into the
equivalent of an airport security installation, checking each passenger's shoes,
bags, etc. A roadblock every couple miles to check every truck on the road would
be good, as would a complete unloading and repacking of every container entering
the country.

The other approach, taking the battle to them, seems to be the only *feasible*
method of fighting terrorism. Of course, this won't greatly increase the size of
the government.

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 11:47:25 -0400, John H. wrote:


The other approach, taking the battle to them, seems to be the only
*feasible* method of fighting terrorism. Of course, this won't greatly
increase the size of the government.

Did Rush tell you that or have you been asleep for the past five years?
Big government and Bush go hand in hand. Don't believe me, read for
yourself.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...&btnG= Search

I've got friends from the UK, they know they have these kinds of people
there. But the European courts will not allow them to deport them, they
ruled against them when they tried to. And they wounder why people have
voted down the EU constitution. We wish our friends in the UK the best
of luck in dealing with these people, and we will help in any way. How
many of their fellow EU menbers can say the same and will back it up
with action?

John H. wrote:
It seems that the basic liberal approach is to spend much more money trying to
protect anything which can be attacked in the US. They constantly complain that
we are not spending enough on train, subway, port, city, building, etc,
security.

Actually, the US Coast Guard says we're not spending enough on port
security. Guess they're just a bunch of homo-loving liberal traitors, eh?

... They would be happy if we turned every subway entrance into the
equivalent of an airport security installation, checking each passenger's shoes,
bags, etc. A roadblock every couple miles to check every truck on the road would
be good, as would a complete unloading and repacking of every container entering
the country.

Which liberals are suggesting any such thing? Aren't you just making up
stupid stuff to attribute to them? I guess you're better at thinking up
dumb ideas than most liberals, so it's a good thing for you to occupy
your time with...



John H. wrote:
The other approach, taking the battle to them, seems to be the only
*feasible* method of fighting terrorism.

Great idea. When are we going to start taking the battle to them outside
Afghanistan?

... Of course, this won't greatly
increase the size of the government.


thunder wrote:
Did Rush tell you that or have you been asleep for the past five years?
Big government and Bush go hand in hand. Don't believe me, read for
yourself.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...&btnG= Search


JohnH believes all that right-wing blather about how it's the liberal
Democrats who have increased the deficit, and it's all Clinton's fault.
Somehow it hasn't occured to him yet (along with a large number of
others) that the deficit has ballooned under President Bush and a
Republican controlled Congress... and that's not including the Iraq war
expenditures, which are largely off-budget.

DSK

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 12:23:44 -0400, thunder wrote:

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 11:47:25 -0400, John H. wrote:


The other approach, taking the battle to them, seems to be the only
*feasible* method of fighting terrorism. Of course, this won't greatly
increase the size of the government.

Did Rush tell you that or have you been asleep for the past five years?
Big government and Bush go hand in hand. Don't believe me, read for
yourself.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...&btnG= Search

What would your approach be?

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD