| |
Main
Date: 01 Nov 2006 14:39:47
From: larry
Subject: A new Direction?
|
A new direction?
What does that mean?
By now you've seen the Democrats' latest campaign slogan:
*"A New Direction for America -- Vote DEMOCRATIC!"*
Let's analyze this empty and misleading promise.
The stock ket is at a new all-time high and America's 401K's are
back. A new direction from there means what?
Unemployment is at 25 year lows. A new direction from there means
what?
Oil prices are plummeting. A new direction from there means what?
Taxes are at 20 year lows. A new direction from there means what?
Federal tax revenues are at all-time highs. A new direction from there
means what?
The Federal deficit is down almost 50%, just as predicted over last
year. A new direction from there means what?
Home valuations are up 200% over the past 3.5 years. A new direction
from there means what?
Inflation is in check, hovering at 20 year lows. A new direction from
there means what?
Not a single terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11/01. A new
direction from there means what?
Osama bin Laden is living under a rock in a dark cave, having not
surfaced in years, if he's alive at all, while 95% of Al Qaeda’s top
dogs are either dead or in custody, cooperating with US Intel. A new
direction from there means what?
Several major terrorist attacks already thwarted by US and British
Intel, including the recent planned attack involving 10 Jumbo Jets
being exploded in mid-air over major US cities in order to celebrate
the anniversary of the 9/11/01 attacks A new direction from there
means what?
Just as Bush had planned and foretold us of on a number of occasions,
Iraq was to be made "ground zero" for the war on terrorism -- and just
as Bush said they would, terrorist cells from all over the region are
alighting the shadows of their hiding places and flooding into Iraq in
order to get their faces blown off by US ines rather than boarding
planes and heading to the United States to wage war on us here. A new
direction from there means what?
Moreover, bear in mind that all of the above occurred in the face of
the 1999 tech crash, the epidemic of corporate scandals throughout the
90's, and the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks on NYC years in the planning
which collectively sucked 24 trillions dollars and 7.8 million jobs
out of the US economy even before G. W. Bush had time to unpack his
suitcases in the White House.
It's easy for the Democrats to attempt to discredit, disgrace and
defame our commander in chief, George W. Bush -- that's what they do.
What's not so easy for them to do is to refute irrefutable facts, no
matter how they might try.
|
|
| |
Date: 03 Nov 2006 04:30:59
From: JJK
Subject: Re: A new Direction?
|
"larry" wrote:
> A new direction?
> What does that mean?
>
> By now you've seen the Democrats' latest campaign slogan:
>
> *"A New Direction for America -- Vote DEMOCRATIC!"*
>
> Let's analyze this empty and misleading promise.
>
> The stock ket is at a new all-time high and America's 401K's are
> back. A new direction from there means what?
Assuming you can add and subtract, don't forget to factor in the deficit.
What source did you plagiarize that drivel?
|
| |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 12:13:51
From: John B.
Subject: Re: A new Direction?
|
larry wrote:
> On 2 Nov 2006 09:56:40 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >larry wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 10:48:22 -0500, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Bullshit. Saddam Hussein was paying bounties to families of Palestinian
> >> >suicide bombers in Israel. If that isn't exporting terrorism, what is?
> >> >
> >> >"jeffc" <jeffc226@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:vNn2h.4330$nG1.208@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
> >> >>
> >> >> And this is a good thing? Bush created a terrorist nation where none
> >> >> existed before. Nice job.
> >>
> >> Bush CONCENTRATED a world terrorist movement against the West into a
> >> relatively small area-- where we can send our gladiators to kill them.
> >> His choices were simple, either fight them in Iraq or try to find them
> >> after they leveled NYC. Only an idiot would allow them to destroy
> >> his country.
> >>
> >> larry
> >
> >That's ridiculous. All the terrorists are now in one place where we can
> >wipe them all out and once we do, no more terrorism! Do you really
> >believe that? Can you really be that ill-informed? There are
> >anti-American jihadists and would-be jihadists all over the Muslim
> >world and outside the Muslim world as well. Do you think the ones who
> >tried to hijack planes at Heathrow and blow them up over the Atlantic
> >were just taking a break from their holy war in Iraq? It's very
> >convenient for conservatives to think that what's going on in Iraq
> >today is USA vs. the terrorists. But that's not what's going on at all.
>
> Nope. Radical Islam extremists have told the world they are
> determined to kill all non-believers-- and especially to bring down
> the decadent West. They will continue to attack "easy" targets such
> as UK, France, Indonesia, Spain, even Russia, and all over the world
> during our war to hold Iraq-- while continuing their war to get Iraqi
> oil and combine their foothold in the Middle East. They have not
> attacked the US again simply because they can't-- Bush has blocked
> them by listening to their communications and intercepting their money
> transfers and much else--no thanks to democrats who voted against
> these vital tools, btw.
>
> If they get Iraq, they will combine Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Saudia
> Arabia, Lebanon, and basically every country in the Middle East except
> Israel. The other Arab countries would either fall in line or be wiped
> out. Then they would blackmail the US by withholding oil-- and trade
> that oil for nuclear weapons-- to be used to wipe us out. They will
> force Israel to use nukes to defend themselves. So Iraq is the
> lynchpin. We CANNOT allow them to get control there.
>
> Their goal is childishly simple to understand--and essentially no
> thinking person can refute what they intend to do. There a BILLION
> of them-- and many suspect essentially all of them share the common
> goal of world domination-- since the Koran definitely says they cannot
> coexist with non-believers.
>
> Why is that it difficult for liberals to understand? What you would
> do is give them a major advantage in their ch against us.
>
> Larry
There you go, Larry. Lose an argument, change the subject. You've got
that down to a science, haven't you? First, you said all the terrorists
were in Iraq, where George Bush could crush them like a walnut. Now
you say they're all over the world and all Muslims everywhere share the
goal of destroying the United States and taking over the world. You are
providing great entertainment to a lot of people and I hope you'll
continue.
|
| |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 09:56:40
From: John B.
Subject: Re: A new Direction?
|
larry wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 10:48:22 -0500, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>
> >Bullshit. Saddam Hussein was paying bounties to families of Palestinian
> >suicide bombers in Israel. If that isn't exporting terrorism, what is?
> >
> >"jeffc" <jeffc226@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:vNn2h.4330$nG1.208@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
> >>
> >> And this is a good thing? Bush created a terrorist nation where none
> >> existed before. Nice job.
>
> Bush CONCENTRATED a world terrorist movement against the West into a
> relatively small area-- where we can send our gladiators to kill them.
> His choices were simple, either fight them in Iraq or try to find them
> after they leveled NYC. Only an idiot would allow them to destroy
> his country.
>
> larry
That's ridiculous. All the terrorists are now in one place where we can
wipe them all out and once we do, no more terrorism! Do you really
believe that? Can you really be that ill-informed? There are
anti-American jihadists and would-be jihadists all over the Muslim
world and outside the Muslim world as well. Do you think the ones who
tried to hijack planes at Heathrow and blow them up over the Atlantic
were just taking a break from their holy war in Iraq? It's very
convenient for conservatives to think that what's going on in Iraq
today is USA vs. the terrorists. But that's not what's going on at all.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 11:33:43
From: larry
Subject: Re: A new Direction?
|
On 2 Nov 2006 09:56:40 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>larry wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 10:48:22 -0500, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Bullshit. Saddam Hussein was paying bounties to families of Palestinian
>> >suicide bombers in Israel. If that isn't exporting terrorism, what is?
>> >
>> >"jeffc" <jeffc226@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:vNn2h.4330$nG1.208@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
>> >>
>> >> And this is a good thing? Bush created a terrorist nation where none
>> >> existed before. Nice job.
>>
>> Bush CONCENTRATED a world terrorist movement against the West into a
>> relatively small area-- where we can send our gladiators to kill them.
>> His choices were simple, either fight them in Iraq or try to find them
>> after they leveled NYC. Only an idiot would allow them to destroy
>> his country.
>>
>> larry
>
>That's ridiculous. All the terrorists are now in one place where we can
>wipe them all out and once we do, no more terrorism! Do you really
>believe that? Can you really be that ill-informed? There are
>anti-American jihadists and would-be jihadists all over the Muslim
>world and outside the Muslim world as well. Do you think the ones who
>tried to hijack planes at Heathrow and blow them up over the Atlantic
>were just taking a break from their holy war in Iraq? It's very
>convenient for conservatives to think that what's going on in Iraq
>today is USA vs. the terrorists. But that's not what's going on at all.
Nope. Radical Islam extremists have told the world they are
determined to kill all non-believers-- and especially to bring down
the decadent West. They will continue to attack "easy" targets such
as UK, France, Indonesia, Spain, even Russia, and all over the world
during our war to hold Iraq-- while continuing their war to get Iraqi
oil and combine their foothold in the Middle East. They have not
attacked the US again simply because they can't-- Bush has blocked
them by listening to their communications and intercepting their money
transfers and much else--no thanks to democrats who voted against
these vital tools, btw.
If they get Iraq, they will combine Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Saudia
Arabia, Lebanon, and basically every country in the Middle East except
Israel. The other Arab countries would either fall in line or be wiped
out. Then they would blackmail the US by withholding oil-- and trade
that oil for nuclear weapons-- to be used to wipe us out. They will
force Israel to use nukes to defend themselves. So Iraq is the
lynchpin. We CANNOT allow them to get control there.
Their goal is childishly simple to understand--and essentially no
thinking person can refute what they intend to do. There a BILLION
of them-- and many suspect essentially all of them share the common
goal of world domination-- since the Koran definitely says they cannot
coexist with non-believers.
Why is that it difficult for liberals to understand? What you would
do is give them a major advantage in their ch against us.
Larry
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 12:49:08
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: A new Direction?
|
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:33:43 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com >
wrote:
>Nope. Radical Islam extremists have told the world they are
>determined to kill all non-believers-- and especially to bring down
>the decadent West.
And Radical Christian extremists have said they plan on killing the
Muslims.
|
| | | | |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 11:55:38
From: larry
Subject: Re: A new Direction?
|
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 12:49:08 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:33:43 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Nope. Radical Islam extremists have told the world they are
>>determined to kill all non-believers-- and especially to bring down
>>the decadent West.
>
>And Radical Christian extremists have said they plan on killing the
>Muslims.
Wow! That is just ridiculous. Where did you hear such a thing?
Every Christian I know would try to convert Muslims--- to show them
the light-- to bring them to Jesus-- No good Christian wants to kill
anybody; they believe we are all God's children, even radical muslims.
Larry
|
| | | | | |
Date: 03 Nov 2006 04:30:59
From: JJK
Subject: Re: A new Direction?
|
"larry" wrote:
> >>Nope. Radical Islam extremists have told the world they are
> >>determined to kill all non-believers-- and especially to bring down
> >>the decadent West.
Howard Brazee wrote:
> >And Radical Christian extremists have said they plan on killing the
> >Muslims.
Larry wrote:
> Wow! That is just ridiculous. Where did you hear such a thing?
> Every Christian I know would try to convert Muslims--- to show them
> the light-- to bring them to Jesus-- No good Christian wants to kill
> anybody; they believe we are all God's children, even radical muslims.
Wow, Larry. You've ignored a great deal of European history! Shazam!
|
| |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 09:08:02
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: A new Direction?
|
larry wrote:
> > The stock ket is at a new all-time high and America's 401K's are
> back.
No doubt, it is a great time to be rich in America.
>
> Oil prices are plummeting. A new direction from there means what?
Plummeting? You mean the recent election time drop the Saudis promised
Bush?
Did you forget about where they were when Bush was elected or where
they were this Summer? $10 Billion in quarterly profits say hi.
> The Federal deficit is down almost 50%, just as predicted over last
> year. A new direction from there means what?
50% from where? The Repugs ran up the deficit astronomically and now
they wanna take credit when it comes back down? That's kinda like the
kid who killed both his parents and then threw himself on the mercy of
the court for being a poor orphan.
> Home valuations are up 200% over the past 3.5 years. A new direction
> from there means what?
The housing industry is currently slumping. There was a boom recently
but 40% of the new home sales were second homes bought by rich people
as investments, for rental, or just for second homes. As I said, it is
a great time to be rich in America.
> Not a single terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11/01. A new
> direction from there means what?
No terrorist attacks at all. If you take credit for the time since
9/11 then you must also take blame for 9/11 itself. I also noticed you
(or whoever you copied this from) qualified your statement with "on US
soil." That is a nice way to forget about the many attacks around the
globe that were inspired or casued by Bush's actions.
>
> Osama bin Laden is living under a rock in a dark cave, having not
> surfaced in years, if he's alive at all, while 95% of Al Qaeda's top
> dogs are either dead or in custody, cooperating with US Intel. A new
> direction from there means what?
Capturing Osama and not invading countries under false pretenses.
>
> Just as Bush had planned and foretold us of on a number of occasions,
> Iraq was to be made "ground zero" for the war on terrorism -- and just
> as Bush said they would, terrorist cells from all over the region are
> alighting the shadows of their hiding places and flooding into Iraq in
> order to get their faces blown off by US ines rather than boarding
> planes and heading to the United States to wage war on us here. A new
> direction from there means what?
Hey dumbass, Bush created the terroism in Iraq!
> It's easy for the Democrats to attempt to discredit, disgrace and
> defame our commander in chief, George W. Bush -- that's what they do.
> What's not so easy for them to do is to refute irrefutable facts, no
> matter how they might try.
The irrefutable fact is that Bush ignored many warnings about 9/11 from
Richard Clarke, the CIA, and even Bill Clinton himself. His ignorance
is responsible for the loss of thousands of innocent lives all over the
world. A record to be proud of, I'm sure.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 14:42:28
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: A new Direction?
|
On 2 Nov 2006 09:08:02 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
>larry wrote:
>> > The stock ket is at a new all-time high and America's 401K's are
>> back.
>
>No doubt, it is a great time to be rich in America.
Actually, 70% of Americans have money in stocks. In addition, the
retirement plans of lots of other people not directly involved in
stocks are better off because of the bull ket.
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 17:21:10
From: The World Wide Wade
Subject: Re: A new Direction?
|
In article <7dikk2ll8jdtiij26cendjr3mv64eepid2@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
> On 2 Nov 2006 09:08:02 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >larry wrote:
> >> > The stock ket is at a new all-time high and America's 401K's are
> >> back.
> >
> >No doubt, it is a great time to be rich in America.
>
> Actually, 70% of Americans have money in stocks. In addition, the
> retirement plans of lots of other people not directly involved in
> stocks are better off because of the bull ket.
The stock ket is not at an all time high. The DJIA is at an
all time high, although it has essentially gone nowhere over 6 or
7 years. But that is an overhyped and narrow measure. The S&P
500, much more indicative of how pensions and 401k's have done,
is now at 1367; its all time high is around 1550. The Nasdaq -
the stock ket for the 21st century - is down over 50% from its
all time high. Small-cap stocks have done much better over the
same span.
|
| |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 15:03:55
From: jeffc
Subject: Re: A new Direction?
|
"larry" <larry@deldata.com > wrote in message
news:3g8ik2d2jr0sdle84p5tfdq1oh2u2c9usd@4ax.com...
> Just as Bush had planned and foretold us of on a number of occasions,
> Iraq was to be made "ground zero" for the war on terrorism -- and just
> as Bush said they would, terrorist cells from all over the region are
> alighting the shadows of their hiding places and flooding into Iraq
And this is a good thing? Bush created a terrorist nation where none
existed before. Nice job.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 09:27:06
From: larry
Subject: Re: A new Direction?
|
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:03:55 GMT, "jeffc" <jeffc226@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
>"larry" <larry@deldata.com> wrote in message
>news:3g8ik2d2jr0sdle84p5tfdq1oh2u2c9usd@4ax.com...
>
>> Just as Bush had planned and foretold us of on a number of occasions,
>> Iraq was to be made "ground zero" for the war on terrorism -- and just
>> as Bush said they would, terrorist cells from all over the region are
>> alighting the shadows of their hiding places and flooding into Iraq
>
>And this is a good thing? Bush created a terrorist nation where none
>existed before. Nice job.
Read a book. Radical Islam has been rising since the 70's, slowly
acquiring the means to attack the West--they are in a "1000 year war"
that will not end in our or our grandchildren's lifetimes. They have
been growing around the world-- and have been attacking a dozen
countries in addition to the US.
It was by GW Bush's design that they are concentrating in Iraq-- where
we can kill them with our armored gladiators.
If it were not for Iraq, they would be attacking Los Angeles, San
Francisco, and New York-- That is going to happen anyhow-- but not on
GW Bush's watch.
I strongly suspect that anyone reading this who knew what GW Bush
learned after 9/11-- would have done what he did-- or else become the
president who presided over the demise of America. You would have
invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and done whatever else was necessary to
divert them. You would have learned that they were coming again, and
again....
Larry
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 14:52:32
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: A new Direction?
|
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:27:06 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com >
wrote:
>Read a book. Radical Islam has been rising since the 70's, slowly
>acquiring the means to attack the West--they are in a "1000 year war"
>that will not end in our or our grandchildren's lifetimes. They have
>been growing around the world-- and have been attacking a dozen
>countries in addition to the US.
Modern Muslim radicalism can be traced to the Muslim Brotherhood which
started in Egypt in the 1930s. Groups like Hamas and Hezbollah are
direct descendants and are based on the same model of having social
programs like schools and services for the poor, a political wing and
a militant wing. In reality, the purpose of the political and the
social wings are to recruit for the militant wing.
In any case, the idea that the US, and its allies, shouldn't respond
to threats because it will make Muslims mad is illogical. If things
have to come to a head, then the earlier the better.
|
| | | | |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 12:02:13
From: larry
Subject: Re: A new Direction?
|
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 14:52:32 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:27:06 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Read a book. Radical Islam has been rising since the 70's, slowly
>>acquiring the means to attack the West--they are in a "1000 year war"
>>that will not end in our or our grandchildren's lifetimes. They have
>>been growing around the world-- and have been attacking a dozen
>>countries in addition to the US.
>
>
>Modern Muslim radicalism can be traced to the Muslim Brotherhood which
>started in Egypt in the 1930s. Groups like Hamas and Hezbollah are
>direct descendants and are based on the same model of having social
>programs like schools and services for the poor, a political wing and
>a militant wing. In reality, the purpose of the political and the
>social wings are to recruit for the militant wing.
>
>In any case, the idea that the US, and its allies, shouldn't respond
>to threats because it will make Muslims mad is illogical. If things
>have to come to a head, then the earlier the better.
Exactly right!!! And the very idea that we are not at war, the
denial of this threat simply because of partisan politics, because
democrats MUST oppose what GW Bush says, is the most dangerous
possible situation for America. Nancy Pelosi said we are not at war!
They would give Radical Islam an opportunity to regroup simply because
that is not what our President wants--and they would do it even though
it might lead to a monstrous attack on the US. Democrats voted
against the Patriot Act, they opposed wiretapping, they opposed
tracing fund transfers. The only possible logical conclusion for
those irresponsible votes is that Democrats WANT Radical Islam to
succeed.
We must keep not let them near the reins of government.
Larry
|
| | | | | |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 23:27:00
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: A new Direction?
|
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 12:02:13 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com >
wrote:
>>In any case, the idea that the US, and its allies, shouldn't respond
>>to threats because it will make Muslims mad is illogical. If things
>>have to come to a head, then the earlier the better.
In addition, an interesting report was published yesterday by the
CSIS. It seems that the US is winning the hearts and minds of the
people in the Middle East. Of course, this is not due to the people
liking the US more, but rather due to the fact that they see terrorist
tactics as doing more harm than good.
"Arab Public Opinion and Perceptions of Violence
What is Changing?
Overall support for violent tactics has waned in the Middle East over
the past few years, Fares Braizat told a CSIS seminar on October 10.
Braizat is a visiting fellow in the CSIS Middle East Program and a
researcher at the Center for Strategic Studies at the University of
Jordan in Amman.
Braizat examined trends in Arab public opinion on violent tactics
employed by militant Islamist movements such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and
al Qaeda. He contended that Arabs are questioning the effectiveness of
violence, which has done little to stem U.S. and Israeli actions in
the Middle East. This has led to what he sees as a gradual
delegitimization of militant groups in the region, especially among
the populations these groups purport to represent.
Braizat pointed to public opinion polls from the Arab world that show
a general downward trends in support for militant groups. For example,
the percentage of Jordanians approving of violence against Israeli
civilians dropped significantly between 2000 and 2005. In addition, a
growing percentage but still a minority of Arabs define
Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorist organizations. In Jordan, an
increasing number view al Qaeda as a terrorist organization, and
similarly view attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq, Israeli civilians,
and the World Trade Center as such.
Braizat concluded that these numbers, while subject to short-term
fluctuations, indicate a long-term trend of diminishing support for
violence. Jordanians are less likely to view Hamas, Hezbollah, and al
Qaeda as legitimate resistance groups today than they were in 2004
Braizat then pointed out an evolving paradox in the opinion polls.
While U.S. and Israeli foreign policies continue to draw Arab contempt
(and send them looking for ways to resist foreign interference),
populations are increasingly displeased with militants
operating within their own borders. In Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine,
local militant movements are losing popularity. This is especially
true for Hezbollah, whose approval ratings are universally stronger
outside Lebanon than they are inside. Braizat explained
that when a population feels the consequences of having an active
militant group operating in its country, the movements lose some of
their appeal. People will support militants as long as they do not
have to pay for it, said Braizat. As long as they are in
the neighbor’s backyard, they are fine with it. But when it is in
their own back yard, they will reconsider."
Here's the whole article.
http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_pubs/task,view/id,3568/type,1/
|
| | |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 10:48:22
From: sfb
Subject: Re: A new Direction?
|
Bullshit. Saddam Hussein was paying bounties to families of Palestinian
suicide bombers in Israel. If that isn't exporting terrorism, what is?
"jeffc" <jeffc226@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:vNn2h.4330$nG1.208@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
>
> And this is a good thing? Bush created a terrorist nation where none
> existed before. Nice job.
>
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 09:31:49
From: larry
Subject: Re: A new Direction?
|
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 10:48:22 -0500, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote:
>Bullshit. Saddam Hussein was paying bounties to families of Palestinian
>suicide bombers in Israel. If that isn't exporting terrorism, what is?
>
>"jeffc" <jeffc226@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:vNn2h.4330$nG1.208@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
>>
>> And this is a good thing? Bush created a terrorist nation where none
>> existed before. Nice job.
Bush CONCENTRATED a world terrorist movement against the West into a
relatively small area-- where we can send our gladiators to kill them.
His choices were simple, either fight them in Iraq or try to find them
after they leveled NYC. Only an idiot would allow them to destroy
his country.
larry
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Nov 2006 04:30:59
From: JJK
Subject: Re: A new Direction?
|
"jeffc" wrote:
> >> And this is a good thing? Bush created a terrorist nation where none
> >> existed before. Nice job.
sfb wrote:
> >Bullshit. Saddam Hussein was paying bounties to families of Palestinian
> >suicide bombers in Israel. If that isn't exporting terrorism, what is?
"larry" wrote:
> Bush CONCENTRATED a world terrorist movement against the West into a
> relatively small area-- where we can send our gladiators to kill them.
> His choices were simple, either fight them in Iraq or try to find them
> after they leveled NYC. Only an idiot would allow them to destroy
> his country.
Larry, based on your last comment, I'm eternally grateful that you're not in
charge of this country.
|
| | | | |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 20:59:12
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: A new Direction?
|
In article <0oakk2ldrt16s9hc4amiuhdks40srg81t0@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 10:48:22 -0500, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>
> >Bullshit. Saddam Hussein was paying bounties to families of Palestinian
> >suicide bombers in Israel. If that isn't exporting terrorism, what is?
> >
> >"jeffc" <jeffc226@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:vNn2h.4330$nG1.208@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
> >>
> >> And this is a good thing? Bush created a terrorist nation where none
> >> existed before. Nice job.
>
> Bush CONCENTRATED a world terrorist movement against the West into a
> relatively small area-- where we can send our gladiators to kill them.
> His choices were simple, either fight them in Iraq or try to find them
> after they leveled NYC. Only an idiot would allow them to destroy
> his country.
>
> larry
Pardon me, Larry, but you're going to have to explain that.
Why would the terrorists rush to Iraq rather than continue with acts of
terrorism?
I mean, I can see why fighting them in Iraq would be preferable, but can
you explain why they'd let that happen?
--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 17:15:40
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: A new Direction?
|
larry wrote:
> A new direction?
>
> What does that mean?
>
> By now you've seen the Democrats' latest campaign slogan:
>
> *"A New Direction for America -- Vote DEMOCRATIC!"*
>
> Let's analyze this empty and misleading promise.
>
> The stock ket is at a new all-time high and America's 401K's are
> back. A new direction from there means what?
>
> Unemployment is at 25 year lows. A new direction from there means
> what?
>
> Oil prices are plummeting. A new direction from there means what?
>
> Taxes are at 20 year lows. A new direction from there means what?
>
> Federal tax revenues are at all-time highs. A new direction from there
> means what?
>
> The Federal deficit is down almost 50%, just as predicted over last
> year. A new direction from there means what?
>
> Home valuations are up 200% over the past 3.5 years. A new direction
> from there means what?
>
> Inflation is in check, hovering at 20 year lows. A new direction from
> there means what?
>
> Not a single terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11/01. A new
> direction from there means what?
>
The Republicans did all that? Vow, those guys are good. F
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 14:55:50
From: John B.
Subject: Re: A new Direction?
|
larry wrote:
> A new direction?
>
> What does that mean?
>
> By now you've seen the Democrats' latest campaign slogan:
>
> *"A New Direction for America -- Vote DEMOCRATIC!"*
>
> Let's analyze this empty and misleading promise.
>
> The stock ket is at a new all-time high and America's 401K's are
> back. A new direction from there means what?
>
> Unemployment is at 25 year lows. A new direction from there means
> what?
>
> Oil prices are plummeting. A new direction from there means what?
>
> Taxes are at 20 year lows. A new direction from there means what?
>
> Federal tax revenues are at all-time highs. A new direction from there
> means what?
>
> The Federal deficit is down almost 50%, just as predicted over last
> year. A new direction from there means what?
>
> Home valuations are up 200% over the past 3.5 years. A new direction
> from there means what?
>
> Inflation is in check, hovering at 20 year lows. A new direction from
> there means what?
>
> Not a single terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11/01. A new
> direction from there means what?
>
> Osama bin Laden is living under a rock in a dark cave, having not
> surfaced in years, if he's alive at all, while 95% of Al Qaeda's top
> dogs are either dead or in custody, cooperating with US Intel. A new
> direction from there means what?
>
> Several major terrorist attacks already thwarted by US and British
> Intel, including the recent planned attack involving 10 Jumbo Jets
> being exploded in mid-air over major US cities in order to celebrate
> the anniversary of the 9/11/01 attacks A new direction from there
> means what?
>
> Just as Bush had planned and foretold us of on a number of occasions,
> Iraq was to be made "ground zero" for the war on terrorism -- and just
> as Bush said they would, terrorist cells from all over the region are
> alighting the shadows of their hiding places and flooding into Iraq in
> order to get their faces blown off by US ines rather than boarding
> planes and heading to the United States to wage war on us here. A new
> direction from there means what?
>
> Moreover, bear in mind that all of the above occurred in the face of
> the 1999 tech crash, the epidemic of corporate scandals throughout the
> 90's, and the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks on NYC years in the planning
> which collectively sucked 24 trillions dollars and 7.8 million jobs
> out of the US economy even before G. W. Bush had time to unpack his
> suitcases in the White House.
>
> It's easy for the Democrats to attempt to discredit, disgrace and
> defame our commander in chief, George W. Bush -- that's what they do.
> What's not so easy for them to do is to refute irrefutable facts, no
> matter how they might try.
Give up, Larry. It's over. The Republicans are going to lose the House
and maybe the Senate, too. Posting propaganda in a golf newsgroup isn't
going to change anything.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 15:30:49
From: larry
Subject: Re: A new Direction?
|
On 1 Nov 2006 14:55:50 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>larry wrote:
>> A new direction?
>>
>> What does that mean?
>>
>> By now you've seen the Democrats' latest campaign slogan:
>>
>> *"A New Direction for America -- Vote DEMOCRATIC!"*
>>
>> Let's analyze this empty and misleading promise.
>>
>> The stock ket is at a new all-time high and America's 401K's are
>> back. A new direction from there means what?
>>
>> Unemployment is at 25 year lows. A new direction from there means
>> what?
>>
>> Oil prices are plummeting. A new direction from there means what?
>>
>> Taxes are at 20 year lows. A new direction from there means what?
>>
>> Federal tax revenues are at all-time highs. A new direction from there
>> means what?
>>
>> The Federal deficit is down almost 50%, just as predicted over last
>> year. A new direction from there means what?
>>
>> Home valuations are up 200% over the past 3.5 years. A new direction
>> from there means what?
>>
>> Inflation is in check, hovering at 20 year lows. A new direction from
>> there means what?
>>
>> Not a single terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11/01. A new
>> direction from there means what?
>>
>> Osama bin Laden is living under a rock in a dark cave, having not
>> surfaced in years, if he's alive at all, while 95% of Al Qaeda's top
>> dogs are either dead or in custody, cooperating with US Intel. A new
>> direction from there means what?
>>
>> Several major terrorist attacks already thwarted by US and British
>> Intel, including the recent planned attack involving 10 Jumbo Jets
>> being exploded in mid-air over major US cities in order to celebrate
>> the anniversary of the 9/11/01 attacks A new direction from there
>> means what?
>>
>> Just as Bush had planned and foretold us of on a number of occasions,
>> Iraq was to be made "ground zero" for the war on terrorism -- and just
>> as Bush said they would, terrorist cells from all over the region are
>> alighting the shadows of their hiding places and flooding into Iraq in
>> order to get their faces blown off by US ines rather than boarding
>> planes and heading to the United States to wage war on us here. A new
>> direction from there means what?
>>
>> Moreover, bear in mind that all of the above occurred in the face of
>> the 1999 tech crash, the epidemic of corporate scandals throughout the
>> 90's, and the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks on NYC years in the planning
>> which collectively sucked 24 trillions dollars and 7.8 million jobs
>> out of the US economy even before G. W. Bush had time to unpack his
>> suitcases in the White House.
>>
>> It's easy for the Democrats to attempt to discredit, disgrace and
>> defame our commander in chief, George W. Bush -- that's what they do.
>> What's not so easy for them to do is to refute irrefutable facts, no
>> matter how they might try.
>
>
>Give up, Larry. It's over. The Republicans are going to lose the House
>and maybe the Senate, too. Posting propaganda in a golf newsgroup isn't
>going to change anything.
I wouldn't bet my house on it if I were you. This country is ster
than the liberal media thinks--
Larry
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 06:39:07
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: A new Direction?
|
"larry" <larry@deldata.com > wrote in message
news:iebik2tvrbe44pmb5ih80kp4oi3oithj4c@4ax.com...
> On 1 Nov 2006 14:55:50 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>larry wrote:
>>> A new direction?
>>>
>>> What does that mean?
>>>
>>> By now you've seen the Democrats' latest campaign slogan:
>>>
>>> *"A New Direction for America -- Vote DEMOCRATIC!"*
>>>
>>> Let's analyze this empty and misleading promise.
>>>
>>> The stock ket is at a new all-time high and America's 401K's are
>>> back. A new direction from there means what?
>>>
>>> Unemployment is at 25 year lows. A new direction from there means
>>> what?
>>>
>>> Oil prices are plummeting. A new direction from there means what?
>>>
>>> Taxes are at 20 year lows. A new direction from there means what?
>>>
>>> Federal tax revenues are at all-time highs. A new direction from there
>>> means what?
>>>
>>> The Federal deficit is down almost 50%, just as predicted over last
>>> year. A new direction from there means what?
>>>
>>> Home valuations are up 200% over the past 3.5 years. A new direction
>>> from there means what?
>>>
>>> Inflation is in check, hovering at 20 year lows. A new direction from
>>> there means what?
>>>
>>> Not a single terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11/01. A new
>>> direction from there means what?
>>>
>>> Osama bin Laden is living under a rock in a dark cave, having not
>>> surfaced in years, if he's alive at all, while 95% of Al Qaeda's top
>>> dogs are either dead or in custody, cooperating with US Intel. A new
>>> direction from there means what?
>>>
>>> Several major terrorist attacks already thwarted by US and British
>>> Intel, including the recent planned attack involving 10 Jumbo Jets
>>> being exploded in mid-air over major US cities in order to celebrate
>>> the anniversary of the 9/11/01 attacks A new direction from there
>>> means what?
>>>
>>> Just as Bush had planned and foretold us of on a number of occasions,
>>> Iraq was to be made "ground zero" for the war on terrorism -- and just
>>> as Bush said they would, terrorist cells from all over the region are
>>> alighting the shadows of their hiding places and flooding into Iraq in
>>> order to get their faces blown off by US ines rather than boarding
>>> planes and heading to the United States to wage war on us here. A new
>>> direction from there means what?
>>>
>>> Moreover, bear in mind that all of the above occurred in the face of
>>> the 1999 tech crash, the epidemic of corporate scandals throughout the
>>> 90's, and the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks on NYC years in the planning
>>> which collectively sucked 24 trillions dollars and 7.8 million jobs
>>> out of the US economy even before G. W. Bush had time to unpack his
>>> suitcases in the White House.
>>>
>>> It's easy for the Democrats to attempt to discredit, disgrace and
>>> defame our commander in chief, George W. Bush -- that's what they do.
>>> What's not so easy for them to do is to refute irrefutable facts, no
>>> matter how they might try.
>>
>>
>>Give up, Larry. It's over. The Republicans are going to lose the House
>>and maybe the Senate, too. Posting propaganda in a golf newsgroup isn't
>>going to change anything.
>
> I wouldn't bet my house on it if I were you. This country is ster
> than the liberal media thinks--
>
> Larry
So -- if the House becomes Democratic --- are you saying YOU are stupid or
are you saying the same voters that elected Bush are stupid?
Take your pick.
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Nov 2006 04:30:59
From: JJK
Subject: Re: A new Direction?
|
"larry" wrote:
<snip >
> >>> It's easy for the Democrats to attempt to discredit, disgrace and
> >>> defame our commander in chief, George W. Bush -- that's what they do.
> >>> What's not so easy for them to do is to refute irrefutable facts, no
> >>> matter how they might try.
John B." wrote:
> >>Give up, Larry. It's over. The Republicans are going to lose the House
> >>and maybe the Senate, too. Posting propaganda in a golf newsgroup isn't
> >>going to change anything.
> >
> > I wouldn't bet my house on it if I were you. This country is ster
> > than the liberal media thinks--
"A Brick in the Wall" wrote
> So -- if the House becomes Democratic --- are you saying YOU are stupid or
> are you saying the same voters that elected Bush are stupid?
>
> Take your pick.
I'd say that Larry is foolish no matter what the election outcome will be.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 03 Nov 2006 19:18:19
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: A new Direction?
|
"JJK" <surpher@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:7Cz2h.5195$Z66.2826@trnddc07...
> "larry" wrote:
> <snip>
>> >>> It's easy for the Democrats to attempt to discredit, disgrace and
>> >>> defame our commander in chief, George W. Bush -- that's what they do.
>> >>> What's not so easy for them to do is to refute irrefutable facts, no
>> >>> matter how they might try.
>
> John B." wrote:
>> >>Give up, Larry. It's over. The Republicans are going to lose the House
>> >>and maybe the Senate, too. Posting propaganda in a golf newsgroup isn't
>> >>going to change anything.
>> >
>> > I wouldn't bet my house on it if I were you. This country is ster
>> > than the liberal media thinks--
>
> "A Brick in the Wall" wrote
>> So -- if the House becomes Democratic --- are you saying YOU are stupid
>> or
>> are you saying the same voters that elected Bush are stupid?
>>
>> Take your pick.
>
>
> I'd say that Larry is foolish no matter what the election outcome will be.
>
He WAS st enought to hide from giving an answer.
>
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2006 01:39:24
From: JJK
Subject: Re: A new Direction?
|
"larry" spewed:
> > <snip>
> >> >>> It's easy for the Democrats to attempt to discredit, disgrace and
> >> >>> defame our commander in chief, George W. Bush -- that's what they
do.
> >> >>> What's not so easy for them to do is to refute irrefutable facts,
no
> >> >>> matter how they might try.
> >
> > John B." wrote:
> >> >>Give up, Larry. It's over. The Republicans are going to lose the
House
> >> >>and maybe the Senate, too. Posting propaganda in a golf newsgroup
isn't
> >> >>going to change anything.
> >> >
> >> > I wouldn't bet my house on it if I were you. This country is ster
> >> > than the liberal media thinks--
> >
> > "A Brick in the Wall" wrote
> >> So -- if the House becomes Democratic --- are you saying YOU are stupid
> >> or
> >> are you saying the same voters that elected Bush are stupid?
> >>
> >> Take your pick.
JJK wrote:
> > I'd say that Larry is foolish no matter what the election outcome will
be.
"A Brick in the Wall" wrote:
> He WAS st enought to hide from giving an answer.
About as st as a deer gazing into oncoming headlights?
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Nov 2006 23:10:55
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: A new Direction?
|
"JJK" <surpher@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:gbS2h.338$Bk5.182@trnddc06...
> "larry" spewed:
>> > <snip>
>> >> >>> It's easy for the Democrats to attempt to discredit, disgrace and
>> >> >>> defame our commander in chief, George W. Bush -- that's what they
> do.
>> >> >>> What's not so easy for them to do is to refute irrefutable facts,
> no
>> >> >>> matter how they might try.
>> >
>> > John B." wrote:
>> >> >>Give up, Larry. It's over. The Republicans are going to lose the
> House
>> >> >>and maybe the Senate, too. Posting propaganda in a golf newsgroup
> isn't
>> >> >>going to change anything.
>> >> >
>> >> > I wouldn't bet my house on it if I were you. This country is
>> >> > ster
>> >> > than the liberal media thinks--
>> >
>> > "A Brick in the Wall" wrote
>> >> So -- if the House becomes Democratic --- are you saying YOU are
>> >> stupid
>> >> or
>> >> are you saying the same voters that elected Bush are stupid?
>> >>
>> >> Take your pick.
>
> JJK wrote:
>> > I'd say that Larry is foolish no matter what the election outcome will
> be.
>
> "A Brick in the Wall" wrote:
>> He WAS st enought to hide from giving an answer.
>
>
> About as st as a deer gazing into oncoming headlights?
>
>
I think the deer would win a battle of wits...
|
|
