We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
 

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 01 Jun 2007 18:10:18 GMT, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute"
wrote:

"nookular emgineer" when he ran for president. I guess we all thought
that was how you said it in those days.
I was 13 when Carter was elected and I knew the proper pronounciation.
I was corrected about it 20 years earlier than that but they actually
taught science in my school in those days.
I just assumed it was only pedantic people who worried about it.
"Irregardless" it is "simular" to a lot of other mispronunciations I
hear every day ... but my inlaws are from Indiana ;-)

"He lives acrost from my house".

"Alls I want is coffee".

"I would've boughten some, but I ran out of cash".


The main difference between Bush and Carter is that Carter wasn't and
isn't an idiot.

But he was also a poor POTUS.

We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 13:33:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Carter was saying "Nookular" 30 years ago.

Yes, I know. But Carter's language problems were rare, compared to the
chimp
who's in the White House now.

It is intertesting that we didn't criticize him for saying he was a
"nookular emgineer" when he ran for president. I guess we all thought
that was how you said it in those days. I noticed a lot of newscasters
saying the same thing in a 70s documentary that talked about 3MI

54% will accept anything. Anything at all, especially if they see it on
TV, which validates everything.


When I lived in Ohio in 1964, they were always advertising "Bedroom Suits"
for sale.

We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
 

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:21:29 +0000, Calif Bill wrote:


The main difference between Bush and Carter is that Carter wasn't and
isn't an idiot.

But he was also a poor POTUS.

I'll agree Carter's Presidency wasn't successful, but I also think
history will show him in a better light. I keep wondering what would
have happened if Reagan hadn't discarded Carter's initiative to be energy
independent by 2000. Perhaps, we wouldn't be in Iraq right now.

We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:21:29 +0000, Calif Bill wrote:


The main difference between Bush and Carter is that Carter wasn't and
isn't an idiot.

But he was also a poor POTUS.

I'll agree Carter's Presidency wasn't successful, but I also think
history will show him in a better light. I keep wondering what would
have happened if Reagan hadn't discarded Carter's initiative to be energy
independent by 2000. Perhaps, we wouldn't be in Iraq right now.

We would probably not have as much problems with the Islamic extremists, if
Carter had done something about the Iranian Hostage Crises. Showed the
Middle East they could do what they want with no consequences.

We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
k.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:21:29 +0000, Calif Bill wrote:


The main difference between Bush and Carter is that Carter wasn't and
isn't an idiot.

But he was also a poor POTUS.

I'll agree Carter's Presidency wasn't successful, but I also think
history will show him in a better light. I keep wondering what would
have happened if Reagan hadn't discarded Carter's initiative to be energy
independent by 2000. Perhaps, we wouldn't be in Iraq right now.

We would probably not have as much problems with the Islamic extremists,
if Carter had done something about the Iranian Hostage Crises. Showed
the Middle East they could do what they want with no consequences.


You mean, the way we're showing whomever our resolve in finding the missing
soldiers in Iraq? They're hostages, assuming they're alive. What would you
do about that?

We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
k.net...
"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:21:29 +0000, Calif Bill wrote:


The main difference between Bush and Carter is that Carter wasn't and
isn't an idiot.
But he was also a poor POTUS.
I'll agree Carter's Presidency wasn't successful, but I also think
history will show him in a better light. I keep wondering what would
have happened if Reagan hadn't discarded Carter's initiative to be energy
independent by 2000. Perhaps, we wouldn't be in Iraq right now.
We would probably not have as much problems with the Islamic extremists,
if Carter had done something about the Iranian Hostage Crises. Showed
the Middle East they could do what they want with no consequences.


You mean, the way we're showing whomever our resolve in finding the missing
soldiers in Iraq? They're hostages, assuming they're alive. What would you
do about that?




If Bush had done something about the War on Terror, Osama bin Laden
might be in a prison by now.

We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
 

"HK" wrote in message
...



If Bush had done something about the War on Terror, Osama bin Laden might
be in a prison by now.

Pretty much like an all hands search for Jimmy Hoffa.

Eisboch

We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
 

On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 01:07:21 +0000, Calif Bill wrote:

We would probably not have as much problems with the Islamic extremists,
if Carter had done something about the Iranian Hostage Crises. Showed
the Middle East they could do what they want with no consequences.

LOL, it wasn't Carter that sent US arms to Iran. Remember Iran-Contra?
Now what would make a conservative like Reagan send arms to a country
that had just held American hostages for 444 days? I guess it's a
"surprise".

http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0591/9105011.htm

http://www.donhopkins.com/drupal/node/104

We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 01:07:21 +0000, Calif Bill wrote:

We would probably not have as much problems with the Islamic extremists,
if Carter had done something about the Iranian Hostage Crises. Showed
the Middle East they could do what they want with no consequences.

LOL, it wasn't Carter that sent US arms to Iran. Remember Iran-Contra?
Now what would make a conservative like Reagan send arms to a country
that had just held American hostages for 444 days? I guess it's a
"surprise".

http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0591/9105011.htm

http://www.donhopkins.com/drupal/node/104

The arms deals may have added to the problem, but the major change was the
do nothing for a year about your embassy attacked and held with the staff as
hostages. Let the extremists know that they could pretty much do what they
wanted.

We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
k.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:21:29 +0000, Calif Bill wrote:


The main difference between Bush and Carter is that Carter wasn't and
isn't an idiot.

But he was also a poor POTUS.

I'll agree Carter's Presidency wasn't successful, but I also think
history will show him in a better light. I keep wondering what would
have happened if Reagan hadn't discarded Carter's initiative to be
energy
independent by 2000. Perhaps, we wouldn't be in Iraq right now.

We would probably not have as much problems with the Islamic extremists,
if Carter had done something about the Iranian Hostage Crises. Showed
the Middle East they could do what they want with no consequences.


You mean, the way we're showing whomever our resolve in finding the
missing soldiers in Iraq? They're hostages, assuming they're alive. What
would you do about that?


Maybe we should take a lesson from the Russians when they had their
personnel kidnapped in Beirut. They caught a couple of the same group and
chopped them up and sent the parts to the rest. With a statement that there
would be or 10x for every hostage killed. We screwed up kicking over the
bees nest in Iraq, so now we have to deal with the bees. Maybe we should
remember what the job of the military is. To kill people. Kill a lot more
of the bad guys, and wipe out any town or neighborhood helping them. Would
be calmed down very soon.