Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#21
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#22
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#23
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#24
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
"thunder" wrote in message news 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. |
#25
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
k.net... "thunder" wrote in message news 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? |
#26
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message k.net... "thunder" wrote in message news 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. |
#27
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#28
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#29
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
"thunder" wrote in message news 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. |
#30
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message k.net... "thunder" wrote in message news 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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
[threat] Nomination - "Miguel" for Bullis Foam Duck #27 { NOMINATION -- Kadaitcha Man for Hammer of Thor} | ASA | |||
Good News, Good News, Good News | General | |||
Threats to lakes grow faster than cures: More bad news | General |