| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
|
We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
animal05 wrote in
news:4vqdneq8at4uqcPbnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@wideopenwest .com: http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/t...e.aspx?storyid =82887 "The head of the U.S. Coast Guard is throwing around a couple of ideas on how to keep you safe. One would require ... transponders on recreational boats so authorities can track their location." What about threats from autos, trucks, RVs, bicycles, skateboards? A much simpler idea with universal protection would be to surgically implant a transponder in every human being and keep track of them all. With 300 million people to track in the U.S. alone, think of the government employment possibilities. That would cure all poverty and remove the root cause of terrorism, thus solving the problem once and for all! |
We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
On Wed, 30 May 2007 22:36:55 -0400, animal05
wrote: http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/t...?storyid=82887 Immediately post 9-11, Homeland Security, in it's infinite wisdom, decided that there was going to be 500 foot "exclusion" zone for all bridges in the United States - no exceptions. Then somebody pointed out to HS that passing under a bridge, oh say in Newport, RI for example - or any of the rail bridges along the shoreline in CT, automatically put a boat within the exclusion zone and that ferry, commercial and recreational traffic would be literally stopped dead, they changed it to within 150 feet of any support piling. Then somebody pointed out that the pylons of the Newport Bridge, not to mention other bridges are close enough to disallow passage, they settled on "lingering" under bridges. Bureaucrats. |
We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2007 22:36:55 -0400, animal05 wrote: http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/t...?storyid=82887 Immediately post 9-11, Homeland Security, in it's infinite wisdom, decided that there was going to be 500 foot "exclusion" zone for all bridges in the United States - no exceptions. Then somebody pointed out to HS that passing under a bridge, oh say in Newport, RI for example - or any of the rail bridges along the shoreline in CT, automatically put a boat within the exclusion zone and that ferry, commercial and recreational traffic would be literally stopped dead, they changed it to within 150 feet of any support piling. Then somebody pointed out that the pylons of the Newport Bridge, not to mention other bridges are close enough to disallow passage, they settled on "lingering" under bridges. Bureaucrats. It's not just that. It is the total incompetency of the Bush Administration. There are endless and far more serious examples of how the Bush Administration has botched the job. |
We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
"animal05" wrote in message
news:4vqdneq8at4uqcPbnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@wideopenwest .com... http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/t...?storyid=82887 Who needs boats? Apparently, that guy with tuberculosis managed to slip past authorities, even though his passport was theoretically flagged. I guess they didn't use a big enough flag. He got past airport security, as well as customs at the Champlaine border crossing from Canada. |
We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
On Thu, 31 May 2007 15:03:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "animal05" wrote in message news:4vqdneq8at4uqcPbnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@wideopenwes t.com... http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/t...?storyid=82887 Who needs boats? Apparently, that guy with tuberculosis managed to slip past authorities, even though his passport was theoretically flagged. I guess they didn't use a big enough flag. He got past airport security, as well as customs at the Champlaine border crossing from Canada. That same type of scenario has been used as a plot for terrorist attacks on the US. Give a martyr a highly contagious disease, put him/her on a plane, send him/her to America. Or let the martyr cross the border with a bunch of illegals and go to a shopping center. |
We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
On May 30, 7:36?pm, animal05 wrote:
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/t...cle.aspx?story... For thousands of years, governments have proclaimed "give us more power, surrender some of your goods and/or liberties, and in return we promise to protect you from enemies both foreign and domestic" It's been a theme song for people trying to establish fascist, oppressive, totalitarianist regimes since Alexander marched on Persia. One of these days more people will wake up and realize that what we mostly need protection from *is* the darn government. They'll put a "tracking chip" in my boat over my dead body. The argument "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" just doesn't wash with me. I "fear" a society in which we all become property of the state. The logical step beyond monitoring where we come and go and when is then to begin dictating when and where we *can* come and go. The step beyond that is the creation of records detailing comings and goings that may *never* have occured-- framing a political opponent for a crime he or she did not commit isn't exactly an original idea. No tracking chip in my boat.....(although they may already have chips in every boat, home, vehicle, etc in the country)...at least not knowingly or voluntarily. I'd rather have 100 terrorists loose in the country (as horrible as that would absolutely be) than give up a single shred of constitutionally guaranteed freedom in exchange for a promise to protect us from the bad guys. |
We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
On 31 May 2007 15:31:54 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote: On May 30, 7:36?pm, animal05 wrote: http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/t...cle.aspx?story... For thousands of years, governments have proclaimed "give us more power, surrender some of your goods and/or liberties, and in return we promise to protect you from enemies both foreign and domestic" It's been a theme song for people trying to establish fascist, oppressive, totalitarianist regimes since Alexander marched on Persia. One of these days more people will wake up and realize that what we mostly need protection from *is* the darn government. They'll put a "tracking chip" in my boat over my dead body. The argument "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" just doesn't wash with me. I "fear" a society in which we all become property of the state. The logical step beyond monitoring where we come and go and when is then to begin dictating when and where we *can* come and go. The step beyond that is the creation of records detailing comings and goings that may *never* have occured-- framing a political opponent for a crime he or she did not commit isn't exactly an original idea. No tracking chip in my boat.....(although they may already have chips in every boat, home, vehicle, etc in the country)...at least not knowingly or voluntarily. I'd rather have 100 terrorists loose in the country (as horrible as that would absolutely be) than give up a single shred of constitutionally guaranteed freedom in exchange for a promise to protect us from the bad guys. Chuck, if chips are put in every boat, thousands of folks will be hired to monitor them. The size of the government will increase by leaps and bounds. Taxes will be raised tremendously. I would think any self-respecting liberal would love the idea! |
We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
On May 31, 5:10?pm, John H. wrote:
On 31 May 2007 15:31:54 -0700, Chuck Gould wrote: On May 30, 7:36?pm, animal05 wrote: http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/t...cle.aspx?story... For thousands of years, governments have proclaimed "give us more power, surrender some of your goods and/or liberties, and in return we promise to protect you from enemies both foreign and domestic" It's been a theme song for people trying to establish fascist, oppressive, totalitarianist regimes since Alexander marched on Persia. One of these days more people will wake up and realize that what we mostly need protection from *is* the darn government. They'll put a "tracking chip" in my boat over my dead body. The argument "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" just doesn't wash with me. I "fear" a society in which we all become property of the state. The logical step beyond monitoring where we come and go and when is then to begin dictating when and where we *can* come and go. The step beyond that is the creation of records detailing comings and goings that may *never* have occured-- framing a political opponent for a crime he or she did not commit isn't exactly an original idea. No tracking chip in my boat.....(although they may already have chips in every boat, home, vehicle, etc in the country)...at least not knowingly or voluntarily. I'd rather have 100 terrorists loose in the country (as horrible as that would absolutely be) than give up a single shred of constitutionally guaranteed freedom in exchange for a promise to protect us from the bad guys. Chuck, if chips are put in every boat, thousands of folks will be hired to monitor them. The size of the government will increase by leaps and bounds. Taxes will be raised tremendously. I would think any self-respecting liberal would love the idea!- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - With all due respect, John, that's because you use a highly biased definition of "liberal". Not your fault, you're simply repeating something you hear all day every day. From my liberal perspective, there are two primary concepts of a progressive society. One is equal opportunity....(every new born baby should have the same opportunities as any other new born baby to become educated, apply self discipline and hard work to achieve, and perhaps ultimately prosper- without respect to race, religion, gender, parents' social status, etc). The other is maximized personal freedom. Government has no business abridging any of the rights outlined in the Constitution, even those rights (like keeping and bearing arms, or freedom of and/or from religion) that certain segments of society sort of wish would go away. I think you'd be surprised at the number of liberals who would like to see a small government, simply because we don't want to be messed with and government at all levels and by both parties has proven to be patently dishonest and entirely unworthy of trust. Bringing it 'round to my boat: If you're the government, you just don't want to mess with my boat. Doesn't matter if you're GWB, Hillary, Barak, Mitt, McCain, or whoever...stay the hell away from my boat. One of the reasons that a lot of people gravitate to boating is that it is an environment in which you get to take greater personal responsibility for your own welfare. If I neglect inspecting and maintaining systems aboard my boat- it's me and my family at risk more than anybody else. When underway, there's no traffic sign every 50 feet listing all the "thou shalts and shalt nots", I have to make good decisions based on what I observe going on around me rather than on what some traffic sign has to say. I find the concept of placing a transponder on my boat so that the government can keep track of where I go and when a gross violation of privacy as well as an insult. Screw 'em if they try, and regardless of whichever gang of thieves is in office at that moment. :-) |
We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message ups.com... I find the concept of placing a transponder on my boat so that the government can keep track of where I go and when a gross violation of privacy as well as an insult. Screw 'em if they try, and regardless of whichever gang of thieves is in office at that moment. :-) Many newer automobiles and trucks have GPS devices that transmit your location, speed, etc. to whoever is interested and can receive the data. Freedom and equal opportunity with personal assumption of responsibility are rights well worth protecting and improving upon. An equal rights welfare state simply because you exist is not because in the end freedom is lost and opportunity is determined and controlled by those with power. Eisboch |
We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in message
... In message ups.com, Chuck Gould sprach forth the following: Bringing it 'round to my boat: If you're the government, you just don't want to mess with my boat. Doesn't matter if you're GWB, Hillary, Barak, Mitt, McCain, or whoever...stay the hell away from my boat. This is the problem with Dems and Reps - they only care about their own ox being gored. Restrictions and government meddling are just fine when they affect others... and then YOU wonder why YOU'RE the next target and nobody else understands YOUR plight. ANOTHER reason to vote for Ron Paul. "Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB/GYN's aren't able to practice their love with women all across the country."—Sept. 6, 2004, Poplar Bluff, Mo. Maybe President Nookular was right. |
We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
On 01 Jun 2007 00:53:14 GMT, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute"
wrote: ANOTHER reason to vote for Ron Paul. Rue Paul is running for President? |
We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
On May 31, 5:54�pm, "RCE" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message ups.com... I find the concept of placing a transponder on my boat so that the government can keep track of where I go and when a gross violation of privacy as well as an insult. Screw 'em if they try, and regardless of whichever gang of thieves is in office at that moment. :-) Many newer automobiles and trucks have GPS devices that transmit your location, speed, etc. to whoever is interested and can receive the data. Freedom and equal opportunity with personal assumption of responsibility are rights well worth protecting and improving upon. *An equal rights welfare state simply because you exist is not because in the end freedom is lost and opportunity is determined and controlled by those with power. Eisboch We probably agree quite a bit here. Nobody should be the beneficiary of government largesse or fed from a public trough due solely to an accident of birth or station in life, whether it be high or low. That's why boating makes so darn much sense in life. You're more the master of your own fate than in most other pursuits. |
We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in message ... In message , Duke Nukem sprach forth the following: On 01 Jun 2007 00:53:14 GMT, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote: ANOTHER reason to vote for Ron Paul. Rue Paul is running for President? That would've been funny if you'd spelled hir name correctly. And your reply would have been even funnier if you spelled the word *his* correctly. Idiot. |
We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in message
... In message , JoeSpareBedroom sprach forth the following: "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in message ... In message ups.com, Chuck Gould sprach forth the following: Bringing it 'round to my boat: If you're the government, you just don't want to mess with my boat. Doesn't matter if you're GWB, Hillary, Barak, Mitt, McCain, or whoever...stay the hell away from my boat. This is the problem with Dems and Reps - they only care about their own ox being gored. Restrictions and government meddling are just fine when they affect others... and then YOU wonder why YOU'RE the next target and nobody else understands YOUR plight. ANOTHER reason to vote for Ron Paul. "Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB/GYN's aren't able to practice their love with women all across the country."—Sept. 6, 2004, Poplar Bluff, Mo. Just for the record, (a) the quote is from George W. Bush; (b) Ron Paul is an OB/Gyn. Maybe President Nookular was right. Carter or W? W. I know the quote's from it. Not him. It. |
We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
On Thu, 31 May 2007 17:32:21 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote: - Show quoted text - With all due respect, John, that's because you use a highly biased definition of "liberal". Not your fault, you're simply repeating something you hear all day every day. Sorry, Chuck. I guess you couldn't see my tongue buried in my cheek. :) I don't like the idea of transponders in boats either. But, I didn't like the idea of recorders in my car telling anyone exactly how I've driven for the last 15000 miles either. I think the ones coming up with this idea are the same foolish idiots wanting to inspect every container after it's unloaded in a port. Once there, it's too late. Once a boat filled with explosives is under a bridge or alongside a cruise ship, or anchored close to a refinery, it's too late. |
We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in message
... In message , JoeSpareBedroom sprach forth the following: "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in message ... In message , JoeSpareBedroom sprach forth the following: "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in message ... In message ups.com, Chuck Gould sprach forth the following: Bringing it 'round to my boat: If you're the government, you just don't want to mess with my boat. Doesn't matter if you're GWB, Hillary, Barak, Mitt, McCain, or whoever...stay the hell away from my boat. This is the problem with Dems and Reps - they only care about their own ox being gored. Restrictions and government meddling are just fine when they affect others... and then YOU wonder why YOU'RE the next target and nobody else understands YOUR plight. ANOTHER reason to vote for Ron Paul. "Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB/GYN's aren't able to practice their love with women all across the country."—Sept. 6, 2004, Poplar Bluff, Mo. Just for the record, (a) the quote is from George W. Bush; (b) Ron Paul is an OB/Gyn. Maybe President Nookular was right. Carter or W? W. I know the quote's from it. Not him. It. 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. |
We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
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. |
We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
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". |
We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
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. |
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. |
We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 04:30:56 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote: Maybe we should remember what the job of the military is. To kill people. And break stuff. Don't leave out the break stuff. |
We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
"HK" wrote in message
... 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. Ya wanna hear cynical? Here's my prediction. OBL is living in Crawford. Within 5 years, he will have his own talk show on every imaginable radio station owned by Clear Channel. Bush will be his most frequent caller. |
We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HK" wrote in message ... 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. Ya wanna hear cynical? Here's my prediction. OBL is living in Crawford. Within 5 years, he will have his own talk show on every imaginable radio station owned by Clear Channel. Bush will be his most frequent caller. Nothing nefarious regarding Bush would surprise me at this point. Last night, John Edwards, when asked what he would do first if elected president, said he would spend most of his first year traveling around the world, trying to patch up relationships with other countries. It's going to take decades to undo the damage Bush has done. If it can be undone. |
We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
"Calif Bill" wrote in message hlink.net... "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. You've been watching too many of Arnold's old movies. |
We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
hlink.net... "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. Yeah. Destroying towns. That would help. Here's my crazy idea. Every member of congress must the book below, and someone must read it to President Rove. (Bush can listen, but it would be pointless). If they still think we belong in Iraq, we have them involuntarily institutionalized. http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...93329681&itm=2 |
We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message hlink.net... "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. Yeah. Destroying towns. That would help. Here's my crazy idea. Every member of congress must the book below, and someone must read it to President Rove. (Bush can listen, but it would be pointless). If they still think we belong in Iraq, we have them involuntarily institutionalized. http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...93329681&itm=2 What's incredible to me is that there are still about 24% of Americans who "believe" in Bush and the horrors he has perpetrated on us, and that Scooter Libby is going to prison instead of Dick Cheney. |
We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
"HK" wrote in message
... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message hlink.net... "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. Yeah. Destroying towns. That would help. Here's my crazy idea. Every member of congress must the book below, and someone must read it to President Rove. (Bush can listen, but it would be pointless). If they still think we belong in Iraq, we have them involuntarily institutionalized. http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...93329681&itm=2 What's incredible to me is that there are still about 24% of Americans who "believe" in Bush and the horrors he has perpetrated on us, and that Scooter Libby is going to prison instead of Dick Cheney. Read the book. It's a good one. I heard the author on one of the Sunday morning news shows a few weeks back, and I was very impressed. He wasn't bashing anyone - just offering interesting insights into the religious mess in the Middle East. It's Northern Ireland all over again, but older. |
We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
"Duke Nukem" wrote in message ... On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 04:30:56 GMT, "Calif Bill" wrote: Maybe we should remember what the job of the military is. To kill people. And break stuff. Don't leave out the break stuff. Forgot the make loud noises. |
We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
Calif Bill wrote:
"Duke Nukem" wrote in message ... On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 04:30:56 GMT, "Calif Bill" wrote: Maybe we should remember what the job of the military is. To kill people. And break stuff. Don't leave out the break stuff. Forgot the make loud noises. Aren't we lucky that we already have an idiot as Commander in Chief, else you might think of applying. |
We are now all Homeland Secuirty Threats
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message hlink.net... "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. Yeah. Destroying towns. That would help. The middle east seems to understand raw power. Is how most of the countries have been kept in line by their leaders over the years. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:27 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com