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...

"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

"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

"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???

wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 07:36:37 -0800 (PST),
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..

Mucus
LOL

wrote:
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...

If you ever need to clear your sinuses, there is nothing that does it
quite as well as wasabi.

"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

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

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

"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.