TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
 

D.Duck wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
D.Duck wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in
message . ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 03:06:53 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Feb 6, 8:37 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

...
On Feb 6, 5:39 pm, HK wrote:

Tim wrote:
HK wrote:
Their guess is that the GOP nominees will be
McCain and Huckabee (their nightmare GOP ticket), and that the
best
hope
is to split off entirely and finally from the GOP and form a
third
party.
And for the Dems, what would be your "nightmare ticket", Harry
Either Hillary or Barack in the White House suits me just fine.
You like nightmares??

==========================

Choose your favorite nightmare. They're all bought & paid for.
There are
no
exceptions. Hopefully, you can figure out who's the best scumbag
of the
lot.
When you do, come back and explain how you did it.
No, you'll have to figure that out on your own.

============================

I have a system of sorts. I know every president since Carter has
been on
their knees, blowing the Saudi royal family, which is what got us
into the
**** we're in lately. That eliminates Hillary. Guilt through
association.
Romney never stops smiling. Give that asshole a pair of tacky white
shoes
and he could be selling used cars all day long. He's off the list.
Huckabee
is a disgrace even to some evangelicals. He's off the list. That
leaves
McCain & Obama. Maybe...just maybe they haven't been fondled by the
Saudis,
and in the moment of sanity, they'll do the right thing with that
country.

What would you have them do, oh bright one? Sell oil only to the
Chinese
and Russians?
--
John H
"Mr. Ambassador, remember the 20-30 pages of information hidden from
the 9/11 commission? The information which would've made it clear
that we should've invaded your country, instead of the wrong one?
Would you like that information released to the press?"

"Now, let's talk about the price of oil, shall we?"
Damn that is so simple, I wonder why no one else has thought about it.
If only you and Harry would go to Washington we wouldn't have all of
these problems.

Why would the president who classified the information want to
declassify it, especially since it probably would prove embarrassing
not only to him, but also to his father?
There are going to be years of lawsuits and books to release info being
kept secret by the Bushcrappers. Most of the info has to do with
politics, not national security, and some of it will see the light of
day. When it does, it will only further diminish Bush's low standing
among presidents.

I can imagine a history book 50 years from now that describes how Bush
started a war for personal political reasons that ended up killing
hundreds of thousands of people.

There ought to be payback on Bush and Cheney for what they have done to
this country and the world, but, of course, there won't be.
You day "hundreds of thousands of people".

I think to be fair, on the Iraqi side you have to take into account how
many Saddam may have been responsible for if left unchecked. He didn't
have an exemplary track record.

As of the coalition side, a terrible loss.
There is no need to speculate over how many might be dead if Saddam were
still in power. What's the point of that? The point is, Bush's actions
resulted in the deaths of up to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and for
what? For Bush's personal political reasons.


No "up to" in your original statement.

"I can imagine a history book 50 years from now that describes how Bush
started a war for personal political reasons that ended up killing
hundreds of thousands of people."




Well, the precise number keeps going up. The last one I noticed was well
over 100,000.

But why quibble? I mean, they're *just* dead Iraqis, right? The fact
that there are so many of them dead because of the misguided actions of
Bush is no matter. We're Amerrrrricans, and we do what we want.

TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
 

D.Duck wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
. ..
hk wrote:
D.Duck wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in
message . ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 03:06:53 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Feb 6, 8:37 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

...
On Feb 6, 5:39 pm, HK wrote:

Tim wrote:
HK wrote:
Their guess is that the GOP nominees will be
McCain and Huckabee (their nightmare GOP ticket), and that the
best
hope
is to split off entirely and finally from the GOP and form a
third
party.
And for the Dems, what would be your "nightmare ticket", Harry
Either Hillary or Barack in the White House suits me just fine.
You like nightmares??

==========================

Choose your favorite nightmare. They're all bought & paid for.
There are
no
exceptions. Hopefully, you can figure out who's the best scumbag
of the
lot.
When you do, come back and explain how you did it.
No, you'll have to figure that out on your own.

============================

I have a system of sorts. I know every president since Carter has
been on
their knees, blowing the Saudi royal family, which is what got us
into the
**** we're in lately. That eliminates Hillary. Guilt through
association.
Romney never stops smiling. Give that asshole a pair of tacky
white shoes
and he could be selling used cars all day long. He's off the list.
Huckabee
is a disgrace even to some evangelicals. He's off the list. That
leaves
McCain & Obama. Maybe...just maybe they haven't been fondled by
the Saudis,
and in the moment of sanity, they'll do the right thing with that
country.

What would you have them do, oh bright one? Sell oil only to the
Chinese
and Russians?
--
John H
"Mr. Ambassador, remember the 20-30 pages of information hidden from
the 9/11 commission? The information which would've made it clear
that we should've invaded your country, instead of the wrong one?
Would you like that information released to the press?"

"Now, let's talk about the price of oil, shall we?"
Damn that is so simple, I wonder why no one else has thought about
it. If only you and Harry would go to Washington we wouldn't have all
of these problems.

Why would the president who classified the information want to
declassify it, especially since it probably would prove embarrassing
not only to him, but also to his father?
There are going to be years of lawsuits and books to release info being
kept secret by the Bushcrappers. Most of the info has to do with
politics, not national security, and some of it will see the light of
day. When it does, it will only further diminish Bush's low standing
among presidents.

I can imagine a history book 50 years from now that describes how Bush
started a war for personal political reasons that ended up killing
hundreds of thousands of people.

There ought to be payback on Bush and Cheney for what they have done to
this country and the world, but, of course, there won't be.
You day "hundreds of thousands of people".

I think to be fair, on the Iraqi side you have to take into account how
many Saddam may have been responsible for if left unchecked. He didn't
have an exemplary track record.

As of the coalition side, a terrible loss.

There is no need to speculate over how many might be dead if Saddam were
still in power. What's the point of that? The point is, Bush's actions
resulted in the deaths of up to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and for
what? For Bush's personal political reasons.

Harry,
Instead of saying "...resulted in the deaths of up to hundreds of
thousands of Iraqis" it would be just as accurate to say ... "resulted in
the deaths of up to hundreds of millions of Iraqis". The way you worded
that sentence it doesn't matter what number you use, it is still a true
statement.


Kinda like the ads that state, X, as low as $9.95. :-)



I love it when they say, "No product is better than X in solving problem
Y", because all the products are the exact same thing.

TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
 

On Feb 7, 10:33*am, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here
wrote:
HK wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in
messagenews:Zr6dncNEC8Q9gjbanZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@comca st.com...

There is no need to speculate over how many might be dead if Saddam
were still in power. What's the point of that? The point is, Bush's
actions resulted in the deaths of up to hundreds of thousands of
Iraqis, and for what? For Bush's personal political reasons.

Harry,
Instead of saying "...resulted in the deaths of up to hundreds of
thousands of Iraqis" it would be just as accurate to say *...
"resulted in the deaths of up to hundreds of millions of Iraqis". *
The way you worded that sentence it doesn't matter what number you
use, it is still a true statement.

Who cares, as long as we're bringing democracy to the Middle East, right?

"Consultative Council or Majlis al-Shura (150 members and a chairman
appointed by the monarch for four-year terms); note - though the
Council of Ministers announced in October 2003 its intent to introduce
elections for half of the members of local and provincial assemblies
and a third of the members of the national Consultative Council or
Majlis al-Shura, incrementally over a period of four to five years, to
date no such elections have been held or announced."

Maybe the country described above should be our next stop.

I wonder why ReggieTurd keeps addressing questions or making suggestions
to me?

What an ass.

Harry,
I find it easier to address my comments directly to you, instead of
pretending to have you filtered, and then making snide personal insults.
* *I love to make a comment and then wait to see how you handle it when
no one quotes my comment in a response. *You still responding to my
post, sometimes by starting a new post that address the issue I raised.
* No one really believes you use a filter anymore than you own a lobster
boat or are married to a Dr. Dr., so why bother.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We are his muse... what's the plual of muse, mise?? Anyway, we have
chosen our lot..;)

TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
 

TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
 

TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
 

On Feb 7, 10:45*am, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 7, 10:33 am, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here
wrote:
HK wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in
messagenews:Zr6dncNEC8Q9gjbanZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@comca st.com...
There is no need to speculate over how many might be dead if Saddam
were still in power. What's the point of that? The point is, Bush's
actions resulted in the deaths of up to hundreds of thousands of
Iraqis, and for what? For Bush's personal political reasons.
Harry,
Instead of saying "...resulted in the deaths of up to hundreds of
thousands of Iraqis" it would be just as accurate to say *...
"resulted in the deaths of up to hundreds of millions of Iraqis". *
The way you worded that sentence it doesn't matter what number you
use, it is still a true statement.
Who cares, as long as we're bringing democracy to the Middle East, right?
"Consultative Council or Majlis al-Shura (150 members and a chairman
appointed by the monarch for four-year terms); note - though the
Council of Ministers announced in October 2003 its intent to introduce
elections for half of the members of local and provincial assemblies
and a third of the members of the national Consultative Council or
Majlis al-Shura, incrementally over a period of four to five years, to
date no such elections have been held or announced."
Maybe the country described above should be our next stop.
I wonder why ReggieTurd keeps addressing questions or making suggestions
to me?
What an ass.
Harry,
I find it easier to address my comments directly to you, instead of
pretending to have you filtered, and then making snide personal insults..
* *I love to make a comment and then wait to see how you handle it when
no one quotes my comment in a response. *You still responding to my
post, sometimes by starting a new post that address the issue I raised.
* No one really believes you use a filter anymore than you own a lobster
boat or are married to a Dr. Dr., so why bother.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We are his muse... * what's the plual of muse, mise?? Anyway, we have
chosen our lot..;)

The plural of muse is muses. You do know that the Muses were female,
right? That probably explains you, but I had no idea that a bag'o'sh*t
like Reggie could be considered inspirational.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Says a lot about you too. If that's what you consider a woman, I am
not so impressed with your description of your recent health check...
BTW, glad you are gonna' be around, still tryin' to get T to take a
trip down for fishin' this summer...

TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
 

On Feb 7, 10:46*am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 07:36:37 -0800 (PST),

wrote:
We are his muse... * what's the plual of muse, mise?? Anyway, we have
chosen our lot..;)

Meese.

That's Meeses to you, junior... ;

TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
 

HK wrote:

- Show quoted text -

We are his muse... what's the plual of muse, mise?? Anyway, we have
chosen our lot..;)


The plural of muse is muses. You do know that the Muses were female,
right? That probably explains you, but I had no idea that a bag'o'sh*t
like Reggie could be considered inspirational.

Harry,
Now you have really don't it, you have hurt my feelings. See if I ever
help you out again.

TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:

- Show quoted text -

We are his muse... what's the plual of muse, mise?? Anyway, we have
chosen our lot..;)


The plural of muse is muses. You do know that the Muses were female,
right? That probably explains you, but I had no idea that a bag'o'sh*t
like Reggie could be considered inspirational.

edit -- i need to stop typing my replies while on the phone.

Harry,
Now you have really done it, you have hurt my feelings. See if I ever
help you out again.

TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
 

"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
. ..
HK wrote:

- Show quoted text -

We are his muse... what's the plual of muse, mise?? Anyway, we have
chosen our lot..;)


The plural of muse is muses. You do know that the Muses were female,
right? That probably explains you, but I had no idea that a bag'o'sh*t
like Reggie could be considered inspirational.

Harry,
Now you have really don't it, you have hurt my feelings. See if I ever
help you out again.


Don't fret Reg. He's just trying to demonstrate what a classy guy he is.

TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
 

On Feb 7, 11:13*am, "Jim" wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in messagenews:UZCdnWSEttT1tDbanZ2dnUVZ_vHinZ2d@comca st.com...



HK wrote:

- Show quoted text -

We are his muse... * what's the plual of muse, mise?? Anyway, we have
chosen our lot..;)

The plural of muse is muses. You do know that the Muses were female,
right? That probably explains you, but I had no idea that a bag'o'sh*t
like Reggie could be considered inspirational.

Harry,
Now you have really don't it, you have hurt my feelings. *See if I ever
help you out again.

Don't fret Reg. He's just trying to demonstrate what a classy guy he is.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

My daughter was here one day and I had some shrimp and stuff out. She
asked me if I had any Wasabi. I turned and said "what, wa-trendy"? My
son in law almost spit beer out his nose...;) She is kinda' she-she
like that...

TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
 

"hk" wrote in message
. ..




There is no need to speculate over how many might be dead if Saddam were
still in power. What's the point of that? The point is, Bush's actions
resulted in the deaths of up to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and for
what? For Bush's personal political reasons.


For many reasons beside any personal political reasons.

Many in Congress were calling to "disarm" Saddam during the Clinton
administration and many of the most vocal were Dems. (We've already covered
that and the "Intel" issue, yet the left continues to brush that fact
aside.) The primary issue was Saddam's increasing refusal to comply with
the UN resolutions agreed to and signed by Iraq after it was chased out of
Kuwait, with Saddam being allowed to stay in power.

Clinton's only action, other than parroting the above in speeches, was to
lob a bunch of cruise missiles that accomplished nothing. (Many believe it
was a "wag the dog" effort to distract media attention from his personal
problems with "that woman".) Who knows for sure?

The same Intel existed when Bush entered office. 9/11 put the US on a war
footing against terrorism. He immediately went after bin Laden, having to
first demolish the Taliban who were providing protection, and, receiving the
same Intel about Iraq, including the threats of nuclear and biological WMDs
that Clinton had, he made a case of it and demanded that Saddam comply with
the UN resolutions. This demand was made despite the UN's weakness in doing
anything to enforce their own resolutions. Saddam was given plenty of
opportunity to comply, but became more resistant, buying time (to do what?).
Even the chief UN weapons inspector, Kay, believed WMDs existed at this time
and was venting his frustration at Saddam's stalling activities. (Kay later
joined the anti-Bush conspiracy gang when events cast a shadow on his own
believability.)

Everything since then has been pure speculation by the conspiracy lovers.

That's what I think.

Eisboch

TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...


Everything since then has been pure speculation by the conspiracy lovers.

That's what I think.

Eisboch




I should add .... speculation by the conspiracy lovers *and* reverting to
"ass covering mode" by many.

Eisboch

TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"hk" wrote in message
. ..




There is no need to speculate over how many might be dead if Saddam were
still in power. What's the point of that? The point is, Bush's actions
resulted in the deaths of up to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and for
what? For Bush's personal political reasons.


For many reasons beside any personal political reasons.

Many in Congress were calling to "disarm" Saddam during the Clinton
administration and many of the most vocal were Dems. (We've already
covered that and the "Intel" issue, yet the left continues to brush that
fact aside.) The primary issue was Saddam's increasing refusal to comply
with the UN resolutions agreed to and signed by Iraq after it was chased
out of Kuwait, with Saddam being allowed to stay in power.

Clinton's only action, other than parroting the above in speeches, was to
lob a bunch of cruise missiles that accomplished nothing. (Many believe
it was a "wag the dog" effort to distract media attention from his
personal problems with "that woman".) Who knows for sure?

The same Intel existed when Bush entered office. 9/11 put the US on a war
footing against terrorism. He immediately went after bin Laden, having to
first demolish the Taliban who were providing protection, and, receiving
the same Intel about Iraq, including the threats of nuclear and biological
WMDs that Clinton had, he made a case of it and demanded that Saddam
comply with the UN resolutions. This demand was made despite the UN's
weakness in doing anything to enforce their own resolutions. Saddam was
given plenty of opportunity to comply, but became more resistant, buying
time (to do what?). Even the chief UN weapons inspector, Kay, believed
WMDs existed at this time and was venting his frustration at Saddam's
stalling activities. (Kay later joined the anti-Bush conspiracy gang when
events cast a shadow on his own believability.)

Everything since then has been pure speculation by the conspiracy lovers.

That's what I think.

Eisboch


And yet, Bush never went after the country from which most of the 9/11 thugs
originated. Do you find anything wrong with that at all???

TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
 

TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
 

TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"hk" wrote in message
. ..




There is no need to speculate over how many might be dead if Saddam were
still in power. What's the point of that? The point is, Bush's actions
resulted in the deaths of up to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and for
what? For Bush's personal political reasons.


For many reasons beside any personal political reasons.

Many in Congress were calling to "disarm" Saddam during the Clinton
administration and many of the most vocal were Dems. (We've already
covered that and the "Intel" issue, yet the left continues to brush that
fact aside.) The primary issue was Saddam's increasing refusal to comply
with the UN resolutions agreed to and signed by Iraq after it was chased
out of Kuwait, with Saddam being allowed to stay in power.

Clinton's only action, other than parroting the above in speeches, was to
lob a bunch of cruise missiles that accomplished nothing. (Many believe
it was a "wag the dog" effort to distract media attention from his
personal problems with "that woman".) Who knows for sure?

The same Intel existed when Bush entered office. 9/11 put the US on a
war footing against terrorism. He immediately went after bin Laden,
having to first demolish the Taliban who were providing protection, and,
receiving the same Intel about Iraq, including the threats of nuclear and
biological WMDs that Clinton had, he made a case of it and demanded that
Saddam comply with the UN resolutions. This demand was made despite the
UN's weakness in doing anything to enforce their own resolutions. Saddam
was given plenty of opportunity to comply, but became more resistant,
buying time (to do what?). Even the chief UN weapons inspector, Kay,
believed WMDs existed at this time and was venting his frustration at
Saddam's stalling activities. (Kay later joined the anti-Bush conspiracy
gang when events cast a shadow on his own believability.)

Everything since then has been pure speculation by the conspiracy lovers.

That's what I think.

Eisboch


And yet, Bush never went after the country from which most of the 9/11
thugs originated. Do you find anything wrong with that at all???


Yes. And in time that will have to be addressed. To do so now would dry up
our oil supply, a fact that cannot be ignored. You can't have national
security with no oil at the moment.

Eisboch

TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
 

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 05:47:01 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Feb 7, 8:38*am, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 03:06:53 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"





wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Feb 6, 8:37 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

...
On Feb 6, 5:39 pm, HK wrote:

Tim wrote:

HK wrote:

Their guess is that the GOP nominees will be
McCain and Huckabee (their nightmare GOP ticket), and that the best
hope
is to split off entirely and finally from the GOP and form a third
party.

And for the Dems, what would be your "nightmare ticket", Harry

Either Hillary or Barack in the White House suits me just fine.

You like nightmares??

==========================

Choose your favorite nightmare. They're all bought & paid for. There are
no
exceptions. Hopefully, you can figure out who's the best scumbag of the
lot.
When you do, come back and explain how you did it.

No, you'll have to figure that out on your own.

============================

I have a system of sorts. I know every president since Carter has been on
their knees, blowing the Saudi royal family, which is what got us into the
**** we're in lately. That eliminates Hillary. Guilt through association.
Romney never stops smiling. Give that asshole a pair of tacky white shoes
and he could be selling used cars all day long. He's off the list. Huckabee
is a disgrace even to some evangelicals. He's off the list. That leaves
McCain & Obama. Maybe...just maybe they haven't been fondled by the Saudis,
and in the moment of sanity, they'll do the right thing with that country.

What would you have them do, oh bright one? Sell oil only to the Chinese
and Russians?
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why are you so against the Chinese, John? Do you realize they are
bailing out the Bush fiasco as we speak? We are borrowing money from
them at an amazing rate.

Where was the comment against the Chinese? Does implying that they use oil
mean I'm 'against' them?

Do you think the national interests of the Chinese include the welfare of
the USA?
--
John H

TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
 

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:21:20 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 03:06:53 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Feb 6, 8:37 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

...
On Feb 6, 5:39 pm, HK wrote:

Tim wrote:

HK wrote:

Their guess is that the GOP nominees will be
McCain and Huckabee (their nightmare GOP ticket), and that the best
hope
is to split off entirely and finally from the GOP and form a third
party.

And for the Dems, what would be your "nightmare ticket", Harry

Either Hillary or Barack in the White House suits me just fine.

You like nightmares??

==========================

Choose your favorite nightmare. They're all bought & paid for. There are
no
exceptions. Hopefully, you can figure out who's the best scumbag of the
lot.
When you do, come back and explain how you did it.

No, you'll have to figure that out on your own.

============================

I have a system of sorts. I know every president since Carter has been on
their knees, blowing the Saudi royal family, which is what got us into the
**** we're in lately. That eliminates Hillary. Guilt through association.
Romney never stops smiling. Give that asshole a pair of tacky white shoes
and he could be selling used cars all day long. He's off the list.
Huckabee
is a disgrace even to some evangelicals. He's off the list. That leaves
McCain & Obama. Maybe...just maybe they haven't been fondled by the
Saudis,
and in the moment of sanity, they'll do the right thing with that country.


What would you have them do, oh bright one? Sell oil only to the Chinese
and Russians?
--
John H


"Mr. Ambassador, remember the 20-30 pages of information hidden from the
9/11 commission? The information which would've made it clear that we
should've invaded your country, instead of the wrong one? Would you like
that information released to the press?"

"Now, let's talk about the price of oil, shall we?"


Farcical, and didn't answer the question. Saudi Arabia posed no threat to
the USA,
--
John H

TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 05:47:01 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Feb 7, 8:38 am, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 03:06:53 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"





wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Feb 6, 8:37 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

...
On Feb 6, 5:39 pm, HK wrote:

Tim wrote:

HK wrote:

Their guess is that the GOP nominees will be
McCain and Huckabee (their nightmare GOP ticket), and that the
best
hope
is to split off entirely and finally from the GOP and form a
third
party.

And for the Dems, what would be your "nightmare ticket", Harry

Either Hillary or Barack in the White House suits me just fine.

You like nightmares??

==========================

Choose your favorite nightmare. They're all bought & paid for. There
are
no
exceptions. Hopefully, you can figure out who's the best scumbag of
the
lot.
When you do, come back and explain how you did it.

No, you'll have to figure that out on your own.

============================

I have a system of sorts. I know every president since Carter has been
on
their knees, blowing the Saudi royal family, which is what got us into
the
**** we're in lately. That eliminates Hillary. Guilt through
association.
Romney never stops smiling. Give that asshole a pair of tacky white
shoes
and he could be selling used cars all day long. He's off the list.
Huckabee
is a disgrace even to some evangelicals. He's off the list. That leaves
McCain & Obama. Maybe...just maybe they haven't been fondled by the
Saudis,
and in the moment of sanity, they'll do the right thing with that
country.

What would you have them do, oh bright one? Sell oil only to the Chinese
and Russians?
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why are you so against the Chinese, John? Do you realize they are
bailing out the Bush fiasco as we speak? We are borrowing money from
them at an amazing rate.

Where was the comment against the Chinese? Does implying that they use oil
mean I'm 'against' them?

Do you think the national interests of the Chinese include the welfare of
the USA?
--
John H


They sure do like our bonds and our manufacturing business. So yes, I'm sure
they have an interest in our financial health.

TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
 

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:25:00 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


Clinton's only action, other than parroting the above in speeches, was
to lob a bunch of cruise missiles that accomplished nothing. (Many
believe it was a "wag the dog" effort to distract media attention from
his personal problems with "that woman".) Who knows for sure?

Yup, Clinton lobs a few cruise missiles and he is accused of "wag the
dog". Imagine, if he had done what GWB did. What would you be saying
then? Probably, quite similar things to what are being said about GWB.
You don't preemptively invade a country on faulty intelligence. This is
Bush's war, he deserves all the lambasting he gets.

TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"hk" wrote in message
. ..




There is no need to speculate over how many might be dead if Saddam
were still in power. What's the point of that? The point is, Bush's
actions resulted in the deaths of up to hundreds of thousands of
Iraqis, and for what? For Bush's personal political reasons.


For many reasons beside any personal political reasons.

Many in Congress were calling to "disarm" Saddam during the Clinton
administration and many of the most vocal were Dems. (We've already
covered that and the "Intel" issue, yet the left continues to brush that
fact aside.) The primary issue was Saddam's increasing refusal to
comply with the UN resolutions agreed to and signed by Iraq after it was
chased out of Kuwait, with Saddam being allowed to stay in power.

Clinton's only action, other than parroting the above in speeches, was
to lob a bunch of cruise missiles that accomplished nothing. (Many
believe it was a "wag the dog" effort to distract media attention from
his personal problems with "that woman".) Who knows for sure?

The same Intel existed when Bush entered office. 9/11 put the US on a
war footing against terrorism. He immediately went after bin Laden,
having to first demolish the Taliban who were providing protection, and,
receiving the same Intel about Iraq, including the threats of nuclear
and biological WMDs that Clinton had, he made a case of it and demanded
that Saddam comply with the UN resolutions. This demand was made
despite the UN's weakness in doing anything to enforce their own
resolutions. Saddam was given plenty of opportunity to comply, but
became more resistant, buying time (to do what?). Even the chief UN
weapons inspector, Kay, believed WMDs existed at this time and was
venting his frustration at Saddam's stalling activities. (Kay later
joined the anti-Bush conspiracy gang when events cast a shadow on his
own believability.)

Everything since then has been pure speculation by the conspiracy
lovers.

That's what I think.

Eisboch


And yet, Bush never went after the country from which most of the 9/11
thugs originated. Do you find anything wrong with that at all???


Yes. And in time that will have to be addressed. To do so now would dry
up our oil supply, a fact that cannot be ignored. You can't have national
security with no oil at the moment.

Eisboch



You said "now". That means there is a "when", when we *can* go after that
country. I figure we have at least 50 years before our dependence on oil
will lessen. That's a long time to allow an enemy to get away with attacking
us.

What do you think?

TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:21:20 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 03:06:53 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Feb 6, 8:37 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

...
On Feb 6, 5:39 pm, HK wrote:

Tim wrote:

HK wrote:

Their guess is that the GOP nominees will be
McCain and Huckabee (their nightmare GOP ticket), and that the
best
hope
is to split off entirely and finally from the GOP and form a
third
party.

And for the Dems, what would be your "nightmare ticket", Harry

Either Hillary or Barack in the White House suits me just fine.

You like nightmares??

==========================

Choose your favorite nightmare. They're all bought & paid for. There
are
no
exceptions. Hopefully, you can figure out who's the best scumbag of
the
lot.
When you do, come back and explain how you did it.

No, you'll have to figure that out on your own.

============================

I have a system of sorts. I know every president since Carter has been
on
their knees, blowing the Saudi royal family, which is what got us into
the
**** we're in lately. That eliminates Hillary. Guilt through
association.
Romney never stops smiling. Give that asshole a pair of tacky white
shoes
and he could be selling used cars all day long. He's off the list.
Huckabee
is a disgrace even to some evangelicals. He's off the list. That leaves
McCain & Obama. Maybe...just maybe they haven't been fondled by the
Saudis,
and in the moment of sanity, they'll do the right thing with that
country.


What would you have them do, oh bright one? Sell oil only to the Chinese
and Russians?
--
John H


"Mr. Ambassador, remember the 20-30 pages of information hidden from the
9/11 commission? The information which would've made it clear that we
should've invaded your country, instead of the wrong one? Would you like
that information released to the press?"

"Now, let's talk about the price of oil, shall we?"


Farcical, and didn't answer the question. Saudi Arabia posed no threat to
the USA,
--
John H


Really? Two questions:

1) Where did most of the 9/11 thugs come from?

2) Where do 60% of foreign fighters come from in Iraq?

TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
 

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:04:38 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 05:47:01 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Feb 7, 8:38 am, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 03:06:53 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"





wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Feb 6, 8:37 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

...
On Feb 6, 5:39 pm, HK wrote:

Tim wrote:

HK wrote:

Their guess is that the GOP nominees will be
McCain and Huckabee (their nightmare GOP ticket), and that the
best
hope
is to split off entirely and finally from the GOP and form a
third
party.

And for the Dems, what would be your "nightmare ticket", Harry

Either Hillary or Barack in the White House suits me just fine.

You like nightmares??

==========================

Choose your favorite nightmare. They're all bought & paid for. There
are
no
exceptions. Hopefully, you can figure out who's the best scumbag of
the
lot.
When you do, come back and explain how you did it.

No, you'll have to figure that out on your own.

============================

I have a system of sorts. I know every president since Carter has been
on
their knees, blowing the Saudi royal family, which is what got us into
the
**** we're in lately. That eliminates Hillary. Guilt through
association.
Romney never stops smiling. Give that asshole a pair of tacky white
shoes
and he could be selling used cars all day long. He's off the list.
Huckabee
is a disgrace even to some evangelicals. He's off the list. That leaves
McCain & Obama. Maybe...just maybe they haven't been fondled by the
Saudis,
and in the moment of sanity, they'll do the right thing with that
country.

What would you have them do, oh bright one? Sell oil only to the Chinese
and Russians?
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why are you so against the Chinese, John? Do you realize they are
bailing out the Bush fiasco as we speak? We are borrowing money from
them at an amazing rate.

Where was the comment against the Chinese? Does implying that they use oil
mean I'm 'against' them?

Do you think the national interests of the Chinese include the welfare of
the USA?
--
John H


They sure do like our bonds and our manufacturing business. So yes, I'm sure
they have an interest in our financial health.


For the moment.
--
John H

TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
 

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:07:50 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:21:20 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 03:06:53 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Feb 6, 8:37 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

...
On Feb 6, 5:39 pm, HK wrote:

Tim wrote:

HK wrote:

Their guess is that the GOP nominees will be
McCain and Huckabee (their nightmare GOP ticket), and that the
best
hope
is to split off entirely and finally from the GOP and form a
third
party.

And for the Dems, what would be your "nightmare ticket", Harry

Either Hillary or Barack in the White House suits me just fine.

You like nightmares??

==========================

Choose your favorite nightmare. They're all bought & paid for. There
are
no
exceptions. Hopefully, you can figure out who's the best scumbag of
the
lot.
When you do, come back and explain how you did it.

No, you'll have to figure that out on your own.

============================

I have a system of sorts. I know every president since Carter has been
on
their knees, blowing the Saudi royal family, which is what got us into
the
**** we're in lately. That eliminates Hillary. Guilt through
association.
Romney never stops smiling. Give that asshole a pair of tacky white
shoes
and he could be selling used cars all day long. He's off the list.
Huckabee
is a disgrace even to some evangelicals. He's off the list. That leaves
McCain & Obama. Maybe...just maybe they haven't been fondled by the
Saudis,
and in the moment of sanity, they'll do the right thing with that
country.


What would you have them do, oh bright one? Sell oil only to the Chinese
and Russians?
--
John H


"Mr. Ambassador, remember the 20-30 pages of information hidden from the
9/11 commission? The information which would've made it clear that we
should've invaded your country, instead of the wrong one? Would you like
that information released to the press?"

"Now, let's talk about the price of oil, shall we?"


Farcical, and didn't answer the question. Saudi Arabia posed no threat to
the USA,
--
John H


Really? Two questions:

1) Where did most of the 9/11 thugs come from?

2) Where do 60% of foreign fighters come from in Iraq?


WMD are a threat to the USA, not individual terrorists.
--
John H

TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
 

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:06:56 -0000, wrote:

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:25:00 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


Clinton's only action, other than parroting the above in speeches, was
to lob a bunch of cruise missiles that accomplished nothing. (Many
believe it was a "wag the dog" effort to distract media attention from
his personal problems with "that woman".) Who knows for sure?

Yup, Clinton lobs a few cruise missiles and he is accused of "wag the
dog". Imagine, if he had done what GWB did. What would you be saying
then? Probably, quite similar things to what are being said about GWB.
You don't preemptively invade a country on faulty intelligence. This is
Bush's war, he deserves all the lambasting he gets.

When *do* you invade?
--
John H

TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:04:38 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 05:47:01 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Feb 7, 8:38 am, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 03:06:53 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"





wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Feb 6, 8:37 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

...
On Feb 6, 5:39 pm, HK wrote:

Tim wrote:

HK wrote:

Their guess is that the GOP nominees will be
McCain and Huckabee (their nightmare GOP ticket), and that the
best
hope
is to split off entirely and finally from the GOP and form a
third
party.

And for the Dems, what would be your "nightmare ticket", Harry

Either Hillary or Barack in the White House suits me just fine.

You like nightmares??

==========================

Choose your favorite nightmare. They're all bought & paid for.
There
are
no
exceptions. Hopefully, you can figure out who's the best scumbag of
the
lot.
When you do, come back and explain how you did it.

No, you'll have to figure that out on your own.

============================

I have a system of sorts. I know every president since Carter has
been
on
their knees, blowing the Saudi royal family, which is what got us
into
the
**** we're in lately. That eliminates Hillary. Guilt through
association.
Romney never stops smiling. Give that asshole a pair of tacky white
shoes
and he could be selling used cars all day long. He's off the list.
Huckabee
is a disgrace even to some evangelicals. He's off the list. That
leaves
McCain & Obama. Maybe...just maybe they haven't been fondled by the
Saudis,
and in the moment of sanity, they'll do the right thing with that
country.

What would you have them do, oh bright one? Sell oil only to the
Chinese
and Russians?
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why are you so against the Chinese, John? Do you realize they are
bailing out the Bush fiasco as we speak? We are borrowing money from
them at an amazing rate.

Where was the comment against the Chinese? Does implying that they use
oil
mean I'm 'against' them?

Do you think the national interests of the Chinese include the welfare
of
the USA?
--
John H


They sure do like our bonds and our manufacturing business. So yes, I'm
sure
they have an interest in our financial health.


For the moment.
--
John H


What other part of the world do you think is anywhere near being able to
replace the cash flow China gets from us?

TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:07:50 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:21:20 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 03:06:53 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Feb 6, 8:37 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

...
On Feb 6, 5:39 pm, HK wrote:

Tim wrote:

HK wrote:

Their guess is that the GOP nominees will be
McCain and Huckabee (their nightmare GOP ticket), and that the
best
hope
is to split off entirely and finally from the GOP and form a
third
party.

And for the Dems, what would be your "nightmare ticket", Harry

Either Hillary or Barack in the White House suits me just fine.

You like nightmares??

==========================

Choose your favorite nightmare. They're all bought & paid for. There
are
no
exceptions. Hopefully, you can figure out who's the best scumbag of
the
lot.
When you do, come back and explain how you did it.

No, you'll have to figure that out on your own.

============================

I have a system of sorts. I know every president since Carter has been
on
their knees, blowing the Saudi royal family, which is what got us into
the
**** we're in lately. That eliminates Hillary. Guilt through
association.
Romney never stops smiling. Give that asshole a pair of tacky white
shoes
and he could be selling used cars all day long. He's off the list.
Huckabee
is a disgrace even to some evangelicals. He's off the list. That
leaves
McCain & Obama. Maybe...just maybe they haven't been fondled by the
Saudis,
and in the moment of sanity, they'll do the right thing with that
country.


What would you have them do, oh bright one? Sell oil only to the
Chinese
and Russians?
--
John H


"Mr. Ambassador, remember the 20-30 pages of information hidden from the
9/11 commission? The information which would've made it clear that we
should've invaded your country, instead of the wrong one? Would you like
that information released to the press?"

"Now, let's talk about the price of oil, shall we?"


Farcical, and didn't answer the question. Saudi Arabia posed no threat
to
the USA,
--
John H


Really? Two questions:

1) Where did most of the 9/11 thugs come from?

2) Where do 60% of foreign fighters come from in Iraq?


WMD are a threat to the USA, not individual terrorists.
--
John H


Would those WMDs grow feet and get here on their own, or do they require
someone with a plan and a wish to use them?

TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...


And yet, Bush never went after the country from which most of the 9/11
thugs originated. Do you find anything wrong with that at all???


Yes. And in time that will have to be addressed. To do so now would dry
up our oil supply, a fact that cannot be ignored. You can't have
national security with no oil at the moment.

Eisboch



You said "now". That means there is a "when", when we *can* go after that
country. I figure we have at least 50 years before our dependence on oil
will lessen. That's a long time to allow an enemy to get away with
attacking us.

What do you think?


I think we could be held hostage for oil way before then (we already are,
ergo the "suck up" by several recent administrations to the Saudis). We
need to get busy now, before our national security is at risk.
I don't care about fuel for cars or boats. We need the ability to defend
ourselves and others who rely upon us to do so. It's happening, finally.

Eisboch

TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
 

"John H." wrote in message
...



Farcical, and didn't answer the question. Saudi Arabia posed no threat to
the USA,
--
John H

No, but the royal family looks the other way while terrorists organize and
train in their country.
We love Saudi Arabia for their oil. They tolerate us because we buy a lot
of it and keep them equipped with weapons.

Watch what happens if and when we don't need their oil.

Eisboch

TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...


And yet, Bush never went after the country from which most of the 9/11
thugs originated. Do you find anything wrong with that at all???


Yes. And in time that will have to be addressed. To do so now would
dry up our oil supply, a fact that cannot be ignored. You can't have
national security with no oil at the moment.

Eisboch



You said "now". That means there is a "when", when we *can* go after that
country. I figure we have at least 50 years before our dependence on oil
will lessen. That's a long time to allow an enemy to get away with
attacking us.

What do you think?


I think we could be held hostage for oil way before then (we already are,
ergo the "suck up" by several recent administrations to the Saudis). We
need to get busy now, before our national security is at risk.
I don't care about fuel for cars or boats. We need the ability to defend
ourselves and others who rely upon us to do so. It's happening, finally.

Eisboch



We could've "owned" Saudi Arabia as easily as we "owned" Iraq. Probably
easier, since it would've been totally unexpected. And, we have little or no
concern for what the rest of the world thinks, so that's not a factor at
all.

TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
 

Eisboch wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...

Farcical, and didn't answer the question. Saudi Arabia posed no threat to
the USA,
--
John H

No, but the royal family looks the other way while terrorists organize and
train in their country.
We love Saudi Arabia for their oil. They tolerate us because we buy a lot
of it and keep them equipped with weapons.

Watch what happens if and when we don't need their oil.

Eisboch




Right after 9-11, Bush awoke from his coma and was told a bunch of
Saudis attacked. He spun around his world globe, stuck his thumb on
Iraq, and said, "attack those damn Saudis."

TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
 

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:22:30 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:07:50 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:21:20 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
om...
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 03:06:53 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Feb 6, 8:37 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

...
On Feb 6, 5:39 pm, HK wrote:

Tim wrote:

HK wrote:

Their guess is that the GOP nominees will be
McCain and Huckabee (their nightmare GOP ticket), and that the
best
hope
is to split off entirely and finally from the GOP and form a
third
party.

And for the Dems, what would be your "nightmare ticket", Harry

Either Hillary or Barack in the White House suits me just fine.

You like nightmares??

==========================

Choose your favorite nightmare. They're all bought & paid for. There
are
no
exceptions. Hopefully, you can figure out who's the best scumbag of
the
lot.
When you do, come back and explain how you did it.

No, you'll have to figure that out on your own.

============================

I have a system of sorts. I know every president since Carter has been
on
their knees, blowing the Saudi royal family, which is what got us into
the
**** we're in lately. That eliminates Hillary. Guilt through
association.
Romney never stops smiling. Give that asshole a pair of tacky white
shoes
and he could be selling used cars all day long. He's off the list.
Huckabee
is a disgrace even to some evangelicals. He's off the list. That
leaves
McCain & Obama. Maybe...just maybe they haven't been fondled by the
Saudis,
and in the moment of sanity, they'll do the right thing with that
country.


What would you have them do, oh bright one? Sell oil only to the
Chinese
and Russians?
--
John H


"Mr. Ambassador, remember the 20-30 pages of information hidden from the
9/11 commission? The information which would've made it clear that we
should've invaded your country, instead of the wrong one? Would you like
that information released to the press?"

"Now, let's talk about the price of oil, shall we?"


Farcical, and didn't answer the question. Saudi Arabia posed no threat
to
the USA,
--
John H


Really? Two questions:

1) Where did most of the 9/11 thugs come from?

2) Where do 60% of foreign fighters come from in Iraq?


WMD are a threat to the USA, not individual terrorists.
--
John H


Would those WMDs grow feet and get here on their own, or do they require
someone with a plan and a wish to use them?


Neither, if nonexistent.
--
John H

TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
 

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:21:15 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:04:38 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 05:47:01 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Feb 7, 8:38 am, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 03:06:53 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"





wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Feb 6, 8:37 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

...
On Feb 6, 5:39 pm, HK wrote:

Tim wrote:

HK wrote:

Their guess is that the GOP nominees will be
McCain and Huckabee (their nightmare GOP ticket), and that the
best
hope
is to split off entirely and finally from the GOP and form a
third
party.

And for the Dems, what would be your "nightmare ticket", Harry

Either Hillary or Barack in the White House suits me just fine.

You like nightmares??

==========================

Choose your favorite nightmare. They're all bought & paid for.
There
are
no
exceptions. Hopefully, you can figure out who's the best scumbag of
the
lot.
When you do, come back and explain how you did it.

No, you'll have to figure that out on your own.

============================

I have a system of sorts. I know every president since Carter has
been
on
their knees, blowing the Saudi royal family, which is what got us
into
the
**** we're in lately. That eliminates Hillary. Guilt through
association.
Romney never stops smiling. Give that asshole a pair of tacky white
shoes
and he could be selling used cars all day long. He's off the list.
Huckabee
is a disgrace even to some evangelicals. He's off the list. That
leaves
McCain & Obama. Maybe...just maybe they haven't been fondled by the
Saudis,
and in the moment of sanity, they'll do the right thing with that
country.

What would you have them do, oh bright one? Sell oil only to the
Chinese
and Russians?
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why are you so against the Chinese, John? Do you realize they are
bailing out the Bush fiasco as we speak? We are borrowing money from
them at an amazing rate.

Where was the comment against the Chinese? Does implying that they use
oil
mean I'm 'against' them?

Do you think the national interests of the Chinese include the welfare
of
the USA?
--
John H


They sure do like our bonds and our manufacturing business. So yes, I'm
sure
they have an interest in our financial health.


For the moment.
--
John H


What other part of the world do you think is anywhere near being able to
replace the cash flow China gets from us?


Pertinence?
--
John H

TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:21:15 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:04:38 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 05:47:01 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Feb 7, 8:38 am, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 03:06:53 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"





wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Feb 6, 8:37 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

...
On Feb 6, 5:39 pm, HK wrote:

Tim wrote:

HK wrote:

Their guess is that the GOP nominees will be
McCain and Huckabee (their nightmare GOP ticket), and that
the
best
hope
is to split off entirely and finally from the GOP and form a
third
party.

And for the Dems, what would be your "nightmare ticket",
Harry

Either Hillary or Barack in the White House suits me just fine.

You like nightmares??

==========================

Choose your favorite nightmare. They're all bought & paid for.
There
are
no
exceptions. Hopefully, you can figure out who's the best scumbag
of
the
lot.
When you do, come back and explain how you did it.

No, you'll have to figure that out on your own.

============================

I have a system of sorts. I know every president since Carter has
been
on
their knees, blowing the Saudi royal family, which is what got us
into
the
**** we're in lately. That eliminates Hillary. Guilt through
association.
Romney never stops smiling. Give that asshole a pair of tacky white
shoes
and he could be selling used cars all day long. He's off the list.
Huckabee
is a disgrace even to some evangelicals. He's off the list. That
leaves
McCain & Obama. Maybe...just maybe they haven't been fondled by the
Saudis,
and in the moment of sanity, they'll do the right thing with that
country.

What would you have them do, oh bright one? Sell oil only to the
Chinese
and Russians?
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why are you so against the Chinese, John? Do you realize they are
bailing out the Bush fiasco as we speak? We are borrowing money from
them at an amazing rate.

Where was the comment against the Chinese? Does implying that they use
oil
mean I'm 'against' them?

Do you think the national interests of the Chinese include the welfare
of
the USA?
--
John H


They sure do like our bonds and our manufacturing business. So yes, I'm
sure
they have an interest in our financial health.


For the moment.
--
John H


What other part of the world do you think is anywhere near being able to
replace the cash flow China gets from us?


Pertinence?
--
John H


Yes, there is pertinence. Read the last few messages again. If you don't see
the pertinence, nothing I can say will help you.

TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
 

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:35:21 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .



Farcical, and didn't answer the question. Saudi Arabia posed no threat to
the USA,
--
John H

No, but the royal family looks the other way while terrorists organize and
train in their country.
We love Saudi Arabia for their oil. They tolerate us because we buy a lot
of it and keep them equipped with weapons.

Watch what happens if and when we don't need their oil.

Eisboch


Then we can take the action we should. Until then we need the oil. The
Saudis appease us with oil and appease the bad guys by turning their heads.
I don't like it, but I do like being able to boat, drive, or fly to Europe.
--
John H

TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:25:00 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


Clinton's only action, other than parroting the above in speeches, was
to lob a bunch of cruise missiles that accomplished nothing. (Many
believe it was a "wag the dog" effort to distract media attention from
his personal problems with "that woman".) Who knows for sure?

Yup, Clinton lobs a few cruise missiles and he is accused of "wag the
dog". Imagine, if he had done what GWB did. What would you be saying
then? Probably, quite similar things to what are being said about GWB.
You don't preemptively invade a country on faulty intelligence. This is
Bush's war, he deserves all the lambasting he gets.


If he had done what GWB did, but did it back in 1998, there very well have
never been a 9/11.
Now don't go blowing smoke about Iraq having nothing to do with 9/11. It's
the engagement and weakening of al Qaeda and it's many terrorist
organizations/factions across the globe that has, so far, been effective in
preventing another attack. There are no "good" terrorists and that included
Saddam.

Another thing Bush warned us of, which is now often forgotten, especially
around the election cycles.
He warned us that it's going to be a long, long fight.


Eisboch

TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:22:30 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:07:50 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:21:20 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
news:de2mq3p7vcmepsuu2fckm5c3mi1df1n7s6@4ax. com...
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 03:06:53 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Feb 6, 8:37 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

...
On Feb 6, 5:39 pm, HK wrote:

Tim wrote:

HK wrote:

Their guess is that the GOP nominees will be
McCain and Huckabee (their nightmare GOP ticket), and that
the
best
hope
is to split off entirely and finally from the GOP and form a
third
party.

And for the Dems, what would be your "nightmare ticket", Harry

Either Hillary or Barack in the White House suits me just fine.

You like nightmares??

==========================

Choose your favorite nightmare. They're all bought & paid for.
There
are
no
exceptions. Hopefully, you can figure out who's the best scumbag
of
the
lot.
When you do, come back and explain how you did it.

No, you'll have to figure that out on your own.

============================

I have a system of sorts. I know every president since Carter has
been
on
their knees, blowing the Saudi royal family, which is what got us
into
the
**** we're in lately. That eliminates Hillary. Guilt through
association.
Romney never stops smiling. Give that asshole a pair of tacky white
shoes
and he could be selling used cars all day long. He's off the list.
Huckabee
is a disgrace even to some evangelicals. He's off the list. That
leaves
McCain & Obama. Maybe...just maybe they haven't been fondled by the
Saudis,
and in the moment of sanity, they'll do the right thing with that
country.


What would you have them do, oh bright one? Sell oil only to the
Chinese
and Russians?
--
John H


"Mr. Ambassador, remember the 20-30 pages of information hidden from
the
9/11 commission? The information which would've made it clear that we
should've invaded your country, instead of the wrong one? Would you
like
that information released to the press?"

"Now, let's talk about the price of oil, shall we?"


Farcical, and didn't answer the question. Saudi Arabia posed no threat
to
the USA,
--
John H


Really? Two questions:

1) Where did most of the 9/11 thugs come from?

2) Where do 60% of foreign fighters come from in Iraq?


WMD are a threat to the USA, not individual terrorists.
--
John H


Would those WMDs grow feet and get here on their own, or do they require
someone with a plan and a wish to use them?


Neither, if nonexistent.
--
John H


This is the real world, not a television show or a children's book.

TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:25:00 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


Clinton's only action, other than parroting the above in speeches, was
to lob a bunch of cruise missiles that accomplished nothing. (Many
believe it was a "wag the dog" effort to distract media attention from
his personal problems with "that woman".) Who knows for sure?

Yup, Clinton lobs a few cruise missiles and he is accused of "wag the
dog". Imagine, if he had done what GWB did. What would you be saying
then? Probably, quite similar things to what are being said about GWB.
You don't preemptively invade a country on faulty intelligence. This is
Bush's war, he deserves all the lambasting he gets.


If he had done what GWB did, but did it back in 1998, there very well have
never been a 9/11.
Now don't go blowing smoke about Iraq having nothing to do with 9/11.
It's the engagement and weakening of al Qaeda and it's many terrorist
organizations/factions across the globe that has, so far, been effective
in preventing another attack.


Here we go again.

Which measures do you feel have been most effective in preventing another
attack?

TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
 

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:46:23 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:21:15 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:04:38 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
om...
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 05:47:01 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Feb 7, 8:38 am, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 03:06:53 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"





wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Feb 6, 8:37 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

...
On Feb 6, 5:39 pm, HK wrote:

Tim wrote:

HK wrote:

Their guess is that the GOP nominees will be
McCain and Huckabee (their nightmare GOP ticket), and that
the
best
hope
is to split off entirely and finally from the GOP and form a
third
party.

And for the Dems, what would be your "nightmare ticket",
Harry

Either Hillary or Barack in the White House suits me just fine.

You like nightmares??

==========================

Choose your favorite nightmare. They're all bought & paid for.
There
are
no
exceptions. Hopefully, you can figure out who's the best scumbag
of
the
lot.
When you do, come back and explain how you did it.

No, you'll have to figure that out on your own.

============================

I have a system of sorts. I know every president since Carter has
been
on
their knees, blowing the Saudi royal family, which is what got us
into
the
**** we're in lately. That eliminates Hillary. Guilt through
association.
Romney never stops smiling. Give that asshole a pair of tacky white
shoes
and he could be selling used cars all day long. He's off the list.
Huckabee
is a disgrace even to some evangelicals. He's off the list. That
leaves
McCain & Obama. Maybe...just maybe they haven't been fondled by the
Saudis,
and in the moment of sanity, they'll do the right thing with that
country.

What would you have them do, oh bright one? Sell oil only to the
Chinese
and Russians?
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why are you so against the Chinese, John? Do you realize they are
bailing out the Bush fiasco as we speak? We are borrowing money from
them at an amazing rate.

Where was the comment against the Chinese? Does implying that they use
oil
mean I'm 'against' them?

Do you think the national interests of the Chinese include the welfare
of
the USA?
--
John H


They sure do like our bonds and our manufacturing business. So yes, I'm
sure
they have an interest in our financial health.


For the moment.
--
John H


What other part of the world do you think is anywhere near being able to
replace the cash flow China gets from us?


Pertinence?
--
John H


Yes, there is pertinence. Read the last few messages again. If you don't see
the pertinence, nothing I can say will help you.


Doug, I've already agreed that the Chinese, for the moment, are interested
in our financial welfare, as long as they find it in their national
interests to be so interested.
--
John H