| |
Main
Date: 07 Dec 2006 21:47:03
From: annika1980
Subject: Bush still doesn't get it
|
After listening to the Bush/Blair press conference today it is apparent
that George Bush will never figure it out. More of the same failed
policies, just called by different names.
"A New Way Forward."
Sounds a lot better than, "OK, I fucked up!'
I can see a cartoon where Bush leads us on a ch, but comes to a
point on a huge cliff where one more step means disaster.
"We can't go back," he says. "We just need a new way forward."
Might make a good cartoon, but nobody's laughing.
Somebody impeach this idiot.
|
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 05:37:01
From: Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
On 7 Dec 2006 21:47:03 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
>After listening to the Bush/Blair press conference today it is apparent
>that George Bush will never figure it out. More of the same failed
>policies, just called by different names.
>
>"A New Way Forward."
>Sounds a lot better than, "OK, I fucked up!'
>
>I can see a cartoon where Bush leads us on a ch, but comes to a
>point on a huge cliff where one more step means disaster.
>"We can't go back," he says. "We just need a new way forward."
>Might make a good cartoon, but nobody's laughing.
>
>Somebody impeach this idiot.
He's just doing what the jooz order him to.
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 02:02:36
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 13:55:30 -0500, Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 11 Dec 2006 09:02:50 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
>>Saddam was NEVER a threat to us.
>
> I disagree. There is no doubt that Saddam wanted to develop nuclear
> weapons. While his program was not active in the Spring of 2003, it was
> clear that once sanction were lifted that he would take up the task
> again.
And this was clear, just how exactly? You have ESP or something?
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 09:02:50
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
>
> Al Qaeda do not have the resources to develop a nuclear weapon, but
> Saddam did, and Iran does. The threat posed by Saddam is over and
> Iran is next in line. Bush is focusing his efforts exactly where they
> should be focused, which is to remove the greatest threats. It's not
> that difficult to understand that Iraq in total chaos is less of a
> threat to the US than an Iraq under Saddam.
Saddam was NEVER a threat to us.
Our invasion of Iraq, however, has created even more enemies in the
Arab world who worry about the US invading their country. Rather than
learning from his mistakes in Iraq Bush seems poised to repeat them in
Iran. Rather than agreeing to talk with Iran, he alienates them
further by refusing to have any meaningful dialogue with them. But
then that's what Bush does best ... he is "The Great Divider."
Wouldn't it be nice if Bush sought to remove the reasons for Iran to
want a nuclear weapon rather than forcing them thru intimidation to
hurry up their nuclear program?
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 13:55:30
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
On 11 Dec 2006 09:02:50 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:
>Jack Hollis wrote:
>>
>> Al Qaeda do not have the resources to develop a nuclear weapon, but
>> Saddam did, and Iran does. The threat posed by Saddam is over and
>> Iran is next in line. Bush is focusing his efforts exactly where they
>> should be focused, which is to remove the greatest threats. It's not
>> that difficult to understand that Iraq in total chaos is less of a
>> threat to the US than an Iraq under Saddam.
>
>Saddam was NEVER a threat to us.
I disagree. There is no doubt that Saddam wanted to develop nuclear
weapons. While his program was not active in the Spring of 2003, it
was clear that once sanction were lifted that he would take up the
task again. Why wait, the US had the chance to get rid of him and
took it. Well done.
>Our invasion of Iraq, however, has created even more enemies in the
>Arab world who worry about the US invading their country. Rather than
>learning from his mistakes in Iraq Bush seems poised to repeat them in
>Iran. Rather than agreeing to talk with Iran, he alienates them
>further by refusing to have any meaningful dialogue with them.
There's nothing to talk with Iran about other than having them give up
their nuclear weapons program. Until they do that, there can be no
constructive talks on any issue. Right now, what's happening in Iran
is of much more consequence than what's happening in Iraq.
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 16:49:44
From: multi
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 13:55:30 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:
>There is no doubt that Saddam wanted to develop nuclear
>weapons. While his program was not active in the Spring of 2003, it
>was clear that once sanction were lifted that he would take up the
>task again. Why wait, the US had the chance to get rid of him and
>took it. Well done.
Right, because the horrific mess we have now is so much better than,
say, maintaining the sanctions would have been.
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 15:16:13
From: larry
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 13:55:30 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:
>On 11 Dec 2006 09:02:50 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Jack Hollis wrote:
>>>
>>> Al Qaeda do not have the resources to develop a nuclear weapon, but
>>> Saddam did, and Iran does. The threat posed by Saddam is over and
>>> Iran is next in line. Bush is focusing his efforts exactly where they
>>> should be focused, which is to remove the greatest threats. It's not
>>> that difficult to understand that Iraq in total chaos is less of a
>>> threat to the US than an Iraq under Saddam.
>>
>>Saddam was NEVER a threat to us.
>
>I disagree. There is no doubt that Saddam wanted to develop nuclear
>weapons. While his program was not active in the Spring of 2003, it
>was clear that once sanction were lifted that he would take up the
>task again. Why wait, the US had the chance to get rid of him and
>took it. Well done.
>
>
>>Our invasion of Iraq, however, has created even more enemies in the
>>Arab world who worry about the US invading their country. Rather than
>>learning from his mistakes in Iraq Bush seems poised to repeat them in
>>Iran. Rather than agreeing to talk with Iran, he alienates them
>>further by refusing to have any meaningful dialogue with them.
>
>There's nothing to talk with Iran about other than having them give up
>their nuclear weapons program. Until they do that, there can be no
>constructive talks on any issue. Right now, what's happening in Iran
>is of much more consequence than what's happening in Iraq.
Lets get real. There were dozens of good books about Islam, Iran,
Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, etc. The State Department has rooms full of PhD
Islam experts who knew exactly what would happen when we invaded
Iraq--and when we established an Infidel presence in this Arab
country. We knew well that Islamic radicals would converge there
from around the world--that they would focus all their assets on
preventing establishment of a government in Iraq that would NOT allow
a safe base and money for planning future attacks on the Infidel
world. It worked. There have been no further attacks on America
since 9/11.
But if our nutcase left forces a "cut and run" pullout from Iraq--
radical Islam will establish a beautiful safe planning base there, use
Iraq's oil and Iran's nuclear weapons-- and we could expect a WAVE of
devastating attacks on America and our allies to start in only months.
And it won't take much to do TRILLIONS of dollars damage to America.
The first successful large scale attack on NYC will crush our monetary
system-- as the world withdraws the investments that are carrying Wall
Street. There would be no way to stop them because like the 9/11
bombers, they do not come from a country we can attack.
If you have bought the liberal media's attacks on Bush and this
delaying tactic war, it will be your fault. If you have kids, they
will never see a happy life like you had.
Larry
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 23:52:14
From: Not me
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
In article <q1prn2du3r6ge163r3fvv1g6cn2f4hjvmd@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 13:55:30 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On 11 Dec 2006 09:02:50 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Jack Hollis wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Al Qaeda do not have the resources to develop a nuclear weapon, but
> >>> Saddam did, and Iran does. The threat posed by Saddam is over and
> >>> Iran is next in line. Bush is focusing his efforts exactly where they
> >>> should be focused, which is to remove the greatest threats. It's not
> >>> that difficult to understand that Iraq in total chaos is less of a
> >>> threat to the US than an Iraq under Saddam.
> >>
> >>Saddam was NEVER a threat to us.
> >
> >I disagree. There is no doubt that Saddam wanted to develop nuclear
> >weapons. While his program was not active in the Spring of 2003, it
> >was clear that once sanction were lifted that he would take up the
> >task again. Why wait, the US had the chance to get rid of him and
> >took it. Well done.
> >
> >
> >>Our invasion of Iraq, however, has created even more enemies in the
> >>Arab world who worry about the US invading their country. Rather than
> >>learning from his mistakes in Iraq Bush seems poised to repeat them in
> >>Iran. Rather than agreeing to talk with Iran, he alienates them
> >>further by refusing to have any meaningful dialogue with them.
> >
> >There's nothing to talk with Iran about other than having them give up
> >their nuclear weapons program. Until they do that, there can be no
> >constructive talks on any issue. Right now, what's happening in Iran
> >is of much more consequence than what's happening in Iraq.
>
> Lets get real. There were dozens of good books about Islam, Iran,
> Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, etc. The State Department has rooms full of PhD
> Islam experts who knew exactly what would happen when we invaded
> Iraq--and when we established an Infidel presence in this Arab
> country. We knew well that Islamic radicals would converge there
> from around the world--that they would focus all their assets on
> preventing establishment of a government in Iraq that would NOT allow
> a safe base and money for planning future attacks on the Infidel
> world. It worked. There have been no further attacks on America
> since 9/11.
You've never explained *why* they would converge there, Larry...
Why is that?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 16:45:24
From: larry
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 23:52:14 GMT, Not me <user@foobar.com > wrote:
>In article <q1prn2du3r6ge163r3fvv1g6cn2f4hjvmd@4ax.com>,
> larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 13:55:30 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On 11 Dec 2006 09:02:50 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>Jack Hollis wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Al Qaeda do not have the resources to develop a nuclear weapon, but
>> >>> Saddam did, and Iran does. The threat posed by Saddam is over and
>> >>> Iran is next in line. Bush is focusing his efforts exactly where they
>> >>> should be focused, which is to remove the greatest threats. It's not
>> >>> that difficult to understand that Iraq in total chaos is less of a
>> >>> threat to the US than an Iraq under Saddam.
>> >>
>> >>Saddam was NEVER a threat to us.
>> >
>> >I disagree. There is no doubt that Saddam wanted to develop nuclear
>> >weapons. While his program was not active in the Spring of 2003, it
>> >was clear that once sanction were lifted that he would take up the
>> >task again. Why wait, the US had the chance to get rid of him and
>> >took it. Well done.
>> >
>> >
>> >>Our invasion of Iraq, however, has created even more enemies in the
>> >>Arab world who worry about the US invading their country. Rather than
>> >>learning from his mistakes in Iraq Bush seems poised to repeat them in
>> >>Iran. Rather than agreeing to talk with Iran, he alienates them
>> >>further by refusing to have any meaningful dialogue with them.
>> >
>> >There's nothing to talk with Iran about other than having them give up
>> >their nuclear weapons program. Until they do that, there can be no
>> >constructive talks on any issue. Right now, what's happening in Iran
>> >is of much more consequence than what's happening in Iraq.
>>
>> Lets get real. There were dozens of good books about Islam, Iran,
>> Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, etc. The State Department has rooms full of PhD
>> Islam experts who knew exactly what would happen when we invaded
>> Iraq--and when we established an Infidel presence in this Arab
>> country. We knew well that Islamic radicals would converge there
>> from around the world--that they would focus all their assets on
>> preventing establishment of a government in Iraq that would NOT allow
>> a safe base and money for planning future attacks on the Infidel
>> world. It worked. There have been no further attacks on America
>> since 9/11.
>
>You've never explained *why* they would converge there, Larry...
>
>Why is that?
"We knew well that Islamic radicals would converge there
> from around the world--that they would focus all their assets on
> preventing establishment of a government in Iraq that would NOT allow
> a safe base and money for planning future attacks on the Infidel
> world."
The Arab world and especially the radical Islam faction, could not
abide a country with a democratic government in their midst. Theie
world goal requires them to take Iraq and annex it to Iran and Syria.
Their ideal is what Afghanistan was-- a tightly controlled government
by clerics ruling by Sharia Law, hands cut off, flogging, beheadings,
etc. In fact that is their ideal for the entire world! As recently
as yesterday a prominent Muslim cleric said that "soon" America would
be under Sharia law. They expect to take over this country-- as well
as Spain, France, Germany, Turkey, and every other country in the
world. Iraq would be their war base.
All who do not believe this threat is the most important in America's
history are fools. Don Rumsfeld believes it-- and he was the most
qualified Defense Secretary in American history. Did you forget 9/11?
That attack started our entry into WWII, but people seem to have
forgotten this attack which was at least as large.
Larry
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 07:16:02
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 03:28:55 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On 10 Dec 2006 18:25:24 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> Taliban out in Afghanistan and Saddam out in Iraq.
> >>
> >>I doubt that there is even one Iraqi who thinks thing are better there
> >>today than they were under SH.
> >
> >I bet there are a lot. Certainly not a majority though.
>
> Probably a majority a couple of years ago. Most of those are now
> dead.
I'll amend my previous post and say most or all of the Kurds are
happier now than they were then.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 11:14:14
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
On 11 Dec 2006 07:16:02 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>I'll amend my previous post and say most or all of the Kurds are
>happier now than they were then.
And about three quarters of the Shia , which makes up 61% of the
nation.
|
| |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 18:25:24
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 16:07:44 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
> wrote:
>
> > So what lasting solution has Bush created for his
> >problems?
>
> Taliban out in Afghanistan and Saddam out in Iraq.
I doubt that there is even one Iraqi who thinks thing are better there
today than they were under SH. And I hate to tell you this, but the
Taliban are not "gone" from Afghanistan. They're just not in charge.
There is a very distinct possibility that they'll be back in power
someday.
>
> > (I am already reading how the right is blaming the left
> >for the future failure of the mid-east policy).
>
> I can't see any result in the Middle East worse than Saddam still
> being in power, so success is already assured. However, the left is
> certainly giving the terrorists hope that the US will withdraw from
> Iraq. The recommendation of the Iraq Commission will also give
> comfort to the enemy. Luckily, Bush will ignore most of it. That's
> called leadership in the face of defeatism.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 11:02:25
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
On 10 Dec 2006 18:25:24 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>And I hate to tell you this, but the
>Taliban are not "gone" from Afghanistan. They're just not in charge.
>There is a very distinct possibility that they'll be back in power
>someday.
Not in charge is the definitive statement and more to the point, their
Al Qaeda training bases have been closed.
And, I don't see any way that they will be back in power if NATO stays
around.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 10:59:30
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
On 10 Dec 2006 18:25:24 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>Jack Hollis wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 16:07:44 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > So what lasting solution has Bush created for his
>> >problems?
>>
>> Taliban out in Afghanistan and Saddam out in Iraq.
>
>I doubt that there is even one Iraqi who thinks thing are better there
>today than they were under SH.
Actually a majority of Iraqi's feel that it was worth it to oust
Saddam and if you remove the Sunni from the mix, it's an overwhelming
majority with 75% of the Shia and 81% of the Kurds stating that it was
worth it to oust Saddam. So you're wrong about that one. The poll was
conducted in Sept of 2006.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/250.php?nid=&id=&pnt=250&lb=hmpg1
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 03:28:55
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
On 10 Dec 2006 18:25:24 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>> Taliban out in Afghanistan and Saddam out in Iraq.
>
>I doubt that there is even one Iraqi who thinks thing are better there
>today than they were under SH.
I bet there are a lot. Certainly not a majority though.
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 21:38:01
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 03:28:55 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:
>On 10 Dec 2006 18:25:24 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Taliban out in Afghanistan and Saddam out in Iraq.
>>
>>I doubt that there is even one Iraqi who thinks thing are better there
>>today than they were under SH.
>
>I bet there are a lot. Certainly not a majority though.
Probably a majority a couple of years ago. Most of those are now
dead.
|
| |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 18:22:46
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 17:21:44 GMT, Carbon
> <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >> That GWB will go down in history as one of America's great Presidents.
> >
> >Mm hmm. And what will your excuse be 20 years from now when Bush is
> >universally recognized as the worst president in American history?
>
>
> That's what they said about Reagan and as time goes by his legacy
> grows larger. Bush will grow in stature as the years go by.
>
> Hopefully, Bush will deal with Iran before he leaves office which will
> make his administration even more successful than it already is.
Who said that about Reagan? Not a single Republican, that's for sure.
They were practically nominating hom for sainthood the day after he
left office. Bush's support diminishes every day, even in his own
party. To think that he's going to someday enjoy the same reverance as
Ronald Reagan is ludicrous. But then, that's what we've come to expect
from you.
|
| |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 14:30:18
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
>
> > So what lasting solution has Bush created for his
> >problems?
>
> Taliban out in Afghanistan and Saddam out in Iraq.
The Taliban left Afghanistan? When? Must've been this morning.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 15:11:18
From: multi
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
On 10 Dec 2006 14:30:18 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:
>Jack Hollis wrote:
>>
>> > So what lasting solution has Bush created for his
>> >problems?
>>
>> Taliban out in Afghanistan and Saddam out in Iraq.
>
>The Taliban left Afghanistan? When? Must've been this morning.
Maybe they felt bad after Karzai's speech today, when he was reduced
to tears in describing the deaths of women and children from Taliban
terrorists and US/NATO bombs.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1104AP_Afghan_Karzai.html
|
| |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 06:30:39
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
jeffc wrote:
> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1165556823.202847.196260@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> > After listening to the Bush/Blair press conference today it is apparent
> > that George Bush will never figure it out.
>
> It's the American people who will never figure it out. Bush has been in
> power for 2 terms as president - he's doing something right (in terms of
> being in power for 8 years - or his administration is.)
And what would that be?
|
| | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 08:49:02
From: larryrsf
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
On Dec 11, 5:02 pm, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com > wrote:
> larry wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 13:55:30 -0500, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >On 11 Dec 2006 09:02:50 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com>
> > >wrote:
>
> > >>Jack Hollis wrote:
>
> > >>> Al Qaeda do not have the resources to develop a nuclear weapon, but
> > >>> Saddam did, and Iran does. The threat posed by Saddam is over and
> > >>> Iran is next in line. Bush is focusing his efforts exactly where they
> > >>> should be focused, which is to remove the greatest threats. It's not
> > >>> that difficult to understand that Iraq in total chaos is less of a
> > >>> threat to the US than an Iraq under Saddam.
>
> > >>Saddam was NEVER a threat to us.
>
> > >I disagree. There is no doubt that Saddam wanted to develop nuclear
> > >weapons. While his program was not active in the Spring of 2003, it
> > >was clear that once sanction were lifted that he would take up the
> > >task again. Why wait, the US had the chance to get rid of him and
> > >took it. Well done.
>
> > >>Our invasion of Iraq, however, has created even more enemies in the
> > >>Arab world who worry about the US invading their country. Rather than
> > >>learning from his mistakes in Iraq Bush seems poised to repeat them in
> > >>Iran. Rather than agreeing to talk with Iran, he alienates them
> > >>further by refusing to have any meaningful dialogue with them.
>
> > >There's nothing to talk with Iran about other than having them give up
> > >their nuclear weapons program. Until they do that, there can be no
> > >constructive talks on any issue. Right now, what's happening in Iran
> > >is of much more consequence than what's happening in Iraq.
>
> > Lets get real. There were dozens of good books about Islam, Iran,
> > Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, etc. The State Department has rooms full of PhD
> > Islam experts who knew exactly what would happen when we invaded
> > Iraq--and when we established an Infidel presence in this Arab
> > country. We knew well that Islamic radicals would converge there
> > from around the world--that they would focus all their assets on
> > preventing establishment of a government in Iraq that would NOT allow
> > a safe base and money for planning future attacks on the Infidel
> > world. It worked. There have been no further attacks on America
> > since 9/11.Larry, your ignorance will never cease to amaze me. You're right: the
> State Dept. had lots of Middle East experts and lots of post-conflict
> reconstruction experts who had a pretty good idea of what would happen
> in Iraq post-SH. They produced volumes of reports on it. And you know
> what? The White House and the Pentagon refused to have anything to do
> with them. Rumsfeld forbade anybody from DoD from attending any
> meetings at the State Dept. that had to do with post-invasion Iraq
> planning. You know what else? Pretty much everything they said would
> happen did happen -- looting, sectarian violence, revenge killings,
> etc. Utter chaos. And the people Rumsfeld sent over there to put Iraq
> back together after SH was overthrown had absolutely no idea what to do
> about it. I defy you to find one statement from the administration to
> bear out your contention that they knew Islamic radicals would go
> streaming into Iraq after we took out SH. If you were right about this,
> that would be a crushing indictment of the Bush regime: they knew Iraq
> would be flooded with terrorists, yet they did nothing to prepare for
> that.
Our Commander-in-Chief cannot tell America what the overall plan is--He
cannot divulge his strategy without also telling the enemy. Duh.
Once they understand that they are being purposefully attracted to
Iraq-- so they will not attack NYC-- they would find a way to divert
resources to attack America again.
Our own liberal media understands the strategy--knows well the risk and
the strategic purpose of Iraq-- but philosophically hates this (and
all) conservative governments MORE than they love their country. It
is sickening but this has been true for 60+ years. If we had listened
to the liberals we would have lost every important conflict in modern
history. In EVERY ONE they were screaming for us to just get out, cut
and run, give up, quit, surrender, whatever.
Our duty as citizens is to read and watch everything-- and do NOT be so
easily led.
Bush is simply doing his priy duty regardless of the cost to his
personal popularity-- which is to "protect and defend." When he is
retired in 2 years, someone else will have that priy duty-- and I
absolutely guarantee that he will do EXACTLY what Bush is doing once he
has the responsibility and learns the stark alternatives-- which would
be to watch NYC and LA and SF be bombed and millions killed in
SuperBowls, etc. It is easy to criticize and call him names, but
only one person has the ultimate responsibility to protect us.
Larry >
>
>
> > But if our nutcase left forces a "cut and run" pullout from Iraq--
> > radical Islam will establish a beautiful safe planning base there, use
> > Iraq's oil and Iran's nuclear weapons-- and we could expect a WAVE of
> > devastating attacks on America and our allies to start in only months.
> > And it won't take much to do TRILLIONS of dollars damage to America.
> > The first successful large scale attack on NYC will crush our monetary
> > system-- as the world withdraws the investments that are carrying Wall
> > Street. There would be no way to stop them because like the 9/11
> > bombers, they do not come from a country we can attack.
>
> > If you have bought the liberal media's attacks on Bush and this
> > delaying tactic war, it will be your fault. If you have kids, they
> > will never see a happy life like you had.
>
> > Larry- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 11:07:10
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
On 12 Dec 2006 08:49:02 -0800, "larryrsf" <larry@deldata.com >
wrote:
<clip unbelievable blind following of extreme right thinking >
Actually, much worse than that. LLLLLarrrry, you are, without doubt,
the most inane person that has ever posted here. That includes your
golf idiocy as well as the head-up-your-ass political rants. This
leads me to conclude that either you know better and are trolling, or
that you're incredibly stupid. Either way, you're one of a kind.
___,
\o
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 12:22:50
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:67otn2lc82icljcj83isp02kfh8qd5krkn@4ax.com...
> On 12 Dec 2006 08:49:02 -0800, "larryrsf" <larry@deldata.com>
> wrote:
>
> <clip unbelievable blind following of extreme right thinking>
>
> Actually, much worse than that. LLLLLarrrry, you are, without doubt,
> the most inane person that has ever posted here.
He's got nothing on Tysm0.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 12:31:16
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:22:50 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:
>
>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:67otn2lc82icljcj83isp02kfh8qd5krkn@4ax.com...
>> On 12 Dec 2006 08:49:02 -0800, "larryrsf" <larry@deldata.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> <clip unbelievable blind following of extreme right thinking>
>>
>> Actually, much worse than that. LLLLLarrrry, you are, without doubt,
>> the most inane person that has ever posted here.
>
>He's got nothing on Tysm0.
>
About 1,000 more posts.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 17:02:10
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
larry wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 13:55:30 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On 11 Dec 2006 09:02:50 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Jack Hollis wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Al Qaeda do not have the resources to develop a nuclear weapon, but
> >>> Saddam did, and Iran does. The threat posed by Saddam is over and
> >>> Iran is next in line. Bush is focusing his efforts exactly where they
> >>> should be focused, which is to remove the greatest threats. It's not
> >>> that difficult to understand that Iraq in total chaos is less of a
> >>> threat to the US than an Iraq under Saddam.
> >>
> >>Saddam was NEVER a threat to us.
> >
> >I disagree. There is no doubt that Saddam wanted to develop nuclear
> >weapons. While his program was not active in the Spring of 2003, it
> >was clear that once sanction were lifted that he would take up the
> >task again. Why wait, the US had the chance to get rid of him and
> >took it. Well done.
> >
> >
> >>Our invasion of Iraq, however, has created even more enemies in the
> >>Arab world who worry about the US invading their country. Rather than
> >>learning from his mistakes in Iraq Bush seems poised to repeat them in
> >>Iran. Rather than agreeing to talk with Iran, he alienates them
> >>further by refusing to have any meaningful dialogue with them.
> >
> >There's nothing to talk with Iran about other than having them give up
> >their nuclear weapons program. Until they do that, there can be no
> >constructive talks on any issue. Right now, what's happening in Iran
> >is of much more consequence than what's happening in Iraq.
>
> Lets get real. There were dozens of good books about Islam, Iran,
> Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, etc. The State Department has rooms full of PhD
> Islam experts who knew exactly what would happen when we invaded
> Iraq--and when we established an Infidel presence in this Arab
> country. We knew well that Islamic radicals would converge there
> from around the world--that they would focus all their assets on
> preventing establishment of a government in Iraq that would NOT allow
> a safe base and money for planning future attacks on the Infidel
> world. It worked. There have been no further attacks on America
> since 9/11.
>
Larry, your ignorance will never cease to amaze me. You're right: the
State Dept. had lots of Middle East experts and lots of post-conflict
reconstruction experts who had a pretty good idea of what would happen
in Iraq post-SH. They produced volumes of reports on it. And you know
what? The White House and the Pentagon refused to have anything to do
with them. Rumsfeld forbade anybody from DoD from attending any
meetings at the State Dept. that had to do with post-invasion Iraq
planning. You know what else? Pretty much everything they said would
happen did happen -- looting, sectarian violence, revenge killings,
etc. Utter chaos. And the people Rumsfeld sent over there to put Iraq
back together after SH was overthrown had absolutely no idea what to do
about it. I defy you to find one statement from the administration to
bear out your contention that they knew Islamic radicals would go
streaming into Iraq after we took out SH. If you were right about this,
that would be a crushing indictment of the Bush regime: they knew Iraq
would be flooded with terrorists, yet they did nothing to prepare for
that.
> But if our nutcase left forces a "cut and run" pullout from Iraq--
> radical Islam will establish a beautiful safe planning base there, use
> Iraq's oil and Iran's nuclear weapons-- and we could expect a WAVE of
> devastating attacks on America and our allies to start in only months.
> And it won't take much to do TRILLIONS of dollars damage to America.
> The first successful large scale attack on NYC will crush our monetary
> system-- as the world withdraws the investments that are carrying Wall
> Street. There would be no way to stop them because like the 9/11
> bombers, they do not come from a country we can attack.
>
> If you have bought the liberal media's attacks on Bush and this
> delaying tactic war, it will be your fault. If you have kids, they
> will never see a happy life like you had.
>
> Larry
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 19:07:41
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
On 11 Dec 2006 17:02:10 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
<clip LLLLarry's memorized crap >
>>
>Larry, your ignorance will never cease to amaze me.
You're kidding. I believe that most here take it for granted.
___,
\o
|
| | |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 10:59:52
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
On 10 Dec 2006 06:30:39 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>jeffc wrote:
>> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1165556823.202847.196260@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>> > After listening to the Bush/Blair press conference today it is apparent
>> > that George Bush will never figure it out.
>>
>> It's the American people who will never figure it out. Bush has been in
>> power for 2 terms as president - he's doing something right (in terms of
>> being in power for 8 years - or his administration is.)
>
>And what would that be?
That GWB will go down in history as one of America's great Presidents.
Actually, the amount of hate directed at him from the left is a sure
sign of his greatness.
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 08:42:29
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
MnMikew wrote:
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1166026310.644683.264140@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > GaryC_47 wrote:
> >> "larry" <larry@deldata.com> wrote in message
> >> news:jnprn2lpp2vkrcnuie5scc3tafem8fer4i@4ax.com...
> >> > On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 12:21:44 -0800, multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 09:14:54 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com>
> >> >>wrote:
> >> >>>Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats
> >> >>>the
> >> >>>world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S. yet has a
> >> >>>great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The
> >> >>>most
> >> >>>blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about
> >> >>>what we
> >> >>>don't have and what we hate about the country instead of thanking
> >> >>>the
> >> >>>good Lord we live here.
> >> >>
> >> >>I think you're being much too hard on the selfish bastards who
> >> >>stand
> >> >>by and watch morons like Bush destroy this country's freedoms,
> >> >>reputation, and safety, just because he promises to lower their
> >> >>taxes.
> >> >
> >> > There is a good example: "destroy this country's freedoms" he
> >> > says,
> >> > but he cannot offer even one tiny proof. He cannot cite one
> >> > "freedom"
> >> > that the Bush Administration has restricted or reduced. He
> >> > cannot,
> >> > yet he hates-- I would be ashamed to have been so easily led.
> >> >
> >> > Larry
> >>
> >> How about Jose Padilla - the American citizen detained on U.S. soil
> >> as an "enemy combatant" in 2002. He was kept in a military prison
> >> and tortured for over three and a half years without being charged
> >> with anything and was denied access to a lawyer for two years. Once
> >> the Bush administration was forced to charge him, since the supremes
> >> were about to rule on the legality of his treatment, all the
> >> original accusations against him have been dropped. And now the
> >> federal judge presiding over his trial has said the case against him
> >> is "very light on facts" and has order the prosecutors twice to
> >> provide more details about the charges. In the meantime Padilla has
> >> been treated inhumanely to the point he may not be mentally capable
> >> of standing trial.
> >>
> >> Under your system of government the president doesn't have the power
> >> to unilaterally declare people guilty and then treat them as
> >> criminals. Habeas Corpus has, however, disappeared in America. Be
> >> very careful Larry, it could happen to you.
> >
> > Jose Padilla is being held in solitary confinement. A few days ago,
> > they took him out of his cell in restraints, blindfolded and wearing
> > ear protectors to keep him from hearing anything so they could walk him
> > down the hall to get his teeth worked on by a dentist. Doesn't that
> > make you proud to be an American?
> >
> Happens everyday in your typical supermax prison, nothing new.
Inmates in you typical supermax prison have been tried, convicted and
sentenced. My understanding is that Padilla hasn't even been charged
with anything.
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 11:23:28
From: larry
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
On 13 Dec 2006 08:42:29 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>MnMikew wrote:
>> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1166026310.644683.264140@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > GaryC_47 wrote:
>> >> "larry" <larry@deldata.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:jnprn2lpp2vkrcnuie5scc3tafem8fer4i@4ax.com...
>> >> > On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 12:21:44 -0800, multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 09:14:54 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com>
>> >> >>wrote:
>> >> >>>Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats
>> >> >>>the
>> >> >>>world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S. yet has a
>> >> >>>great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The
>> >> >>>most
>> >> >>>blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about
>> >> >>>what we
>> >> >>>don't have and what we hate about the country instead of thanking
>> >> >>>the
>> >> >>>good Lord we live here.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>I think you're being much too hard on the selfish bastards who
>> >> >>stand
>> >> >>by and watch morons like Bush destroy this country's freedoms,
>> >> >>reputation, and safety, just because he promises to lower their
>> >> >>taxes.
>> >> >
>> >> > There is a good example: "destroy this country's freedoms" he
>> >> > says,
>> >> > but he cannot offer even one tiny proof. He cannot cite one
>> >> > "freedom"
>> >> > that the Bush Administration has restricted or reduced. He
>> >> > cannot,
>> >> > yet he hates-- I would be ashamed to have been so easily led.
>> >> >
>> >> > Larry
>> >>
>> >> How about Jose Padilla - the American citizen detained on U.S. soil
>> >> as an "enemy combatant" in 2002. He was kept in a military prison
>> >> and tortured for over three and a half years without being charged
>> >> with anything and was denied access to a lawyer for two years. Once
>> >> the Bush administration was forced to charge him, since the supremes
>> >> were about to rule on the legality of his treatment, all the
>> >> original accusations against him have been dropped. And now the
>> >> federal judge presiding over his trial has said the case against him
>> >> is "very light on facts" and has order the prosecutors twice to
>> >> provide more details about the charges. In the meantime Padilla has
>> >> been treated inhumanely to the point he may not be mentally capable
>> >> of standing trial.
>> >>
>> >> Under your system of government the president doesn't have the power
>> >> to unilaterally declare people guilty and then treat them as
>> >> criminals. Habeas Corpus has, however, disappeared in America. Be
>> >> very careful Larry, it could happen to you.
>> >
>> > Jose Padilla is being held in solitary confinement. A few days ago,
>> > they took him out of his cell in restraints, blindfolded and wearing
>> > ear protectors to keep him from hearing anything so they could walk him
>> > down the hall to get his teeth worked on by a dentist. Doesn't that
>> > make you proud to be an American?
>> >
>> Happens everyday in your typical supermax prison, nothing new.
>
>Inmates in you typical supermax prison have been tried, convicted and
>sentenced. My understanding is that Padilla hasn't even been charged
>with anything.
But are you accountable for the damage your irresponsible words may
have caused? When you finally learn the truth--when you learn that
you were totally wrong when you popped off will you be required to go
back and recant? No, like the New York Times and other irresponsible
voices in America, you are free to say what you want without
accountability.
So those working in our government, those with the actual
responsibility for protecting this country, are obliged to simply
ignore the millions and millions who have been brainwashed-- by a
media whose priy intent is to make the populace hate the current
government.
I am amazed that anyone wants to take those jobs. We are very very
lucky that good people do step forward under these circumstances.
Larry
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 11:20:48
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1166028149.006068.302000@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> MnMikew wrote:
>> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1166026310.644683.264140@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > GaryC_47 wrote:
>> >> "larry" <larry@deldata.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:jnprn2lpp2vkrcnuie5scc3tafem8fer4i@4ax.com...
>> >> > On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 12:21:44 -0800, multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 09:14:54 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com>
>> >> >>wrote:
>> >> >>>Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats
>> >> >>>the
>> >> >>>world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S. yet has a
>> >> >>>great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The
>> >> >>>most
>> >> >>>blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about
>> >> >>>what we
>> >> >>>don't have and what we hate about the country instead of thanking
>> >> >>>the
>> >> >>>good Lord we live here.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>I think you're being much too hard on the selfish bastards who
>> >> >>stand
>> >> >>by and watch morons like Bush destroy this country's freedoms,
>> >> >>reputation, and safety, just because he promises to lower their
>> >> >>taxes.
>> >> >
>> >> > There is a good example: "destroy this country's freedoms" he
>> >> > says,
>> >> > but he cannot offer even one tiny proof. He cannot cite one
>> >> > "freedom"
>> >> > that the Bush Administration has restricted or reduced. He
>> >> > cannot,
>> >> > yet he hates-- I would be ashamed to have been so easily led.
>> >> >
>> >> > Larry
>> >>
>> >> How about Jose Padilla - the American citizen detained on U.S. soil
>> >> as an "enemy combatant" in 2002. He was kept in a military prison
>> >> and tortured for over three and a half years without being charged
>> >> with anything and was denied access to a lawyer for two years. Once
>> >> the Bush administration was forced to charge him, since the supremes
>> >> were about to rule on the legality of his treatment, all the
>> >> original accusations against him have been dropped. And now the
>> >> federal judge presiding over his trial has said the case against him
>> >> is "very light on facts" and has order the prosecutors twice to
>> >> provide more details about the charges. In the meantime Padilla has
>> >> been treated inhumanely to the point he may not be mentally capable
>> >> of standing trial.
>> >>
>> >> Under your system of government the president doesn't have the power
>> >> to unilaterally declare people guilty and then treat them as
>> >> criminals. Habeas Corpus has, however, disappeared in America. Be
>> >> very careful Larry, it could happen to you.
>> >
>> > Jose Padilla is being held in solitary confinement. A few days ago,
>> > they took him out of his cell in restraints, blindfolded and wearing
>> > ear protectors to keep him from hearing anything so they could walk him
>> > down the hall to get his teeth worked on by a dentist. Doesn't that
>> > make you proud to be an American?
>> >
>> Happens everyday in your typical supermax prison, nothing new.
>
> Inmates in you typical supermax prison have been tried, convicted and
> sentenced. My understanding is that Padilla hasn't even been charged
> with anything.
>
From CNN
Padilla was charged with three counts -- conspiracy to murder U.S.
nationals, conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists and
providing material support to terrorists.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 03:47:27
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote in message
news:4uar3hF17ajiiU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>>
>> Inmates in you typical supermax prison have been tried, convicted and
>> sentenced. My understanding is that Padilla hasn't even been charged
>> with anything.
>>
> From CNN
>
> Padilla was charged with three counts -- conspiracy to murder U.S.
> nationals, conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists and
> providing material support to terrorists.
>
From JURIST's Paper Chase
US District Judge cia Cooke has dismissed one of the charges brought
against terror suspect Jose Padilla and his two co-defendants, ruling that
the charge is "multiplicitous" and violates the Double Jeopardy Clause.
US District Judge cia Cooke said that the indictment against Padilla is
"light on facts" linking Padilla and his co-defendants to specific terrorist
acts and ordered the government to provide the defense team with the names
of co-conspirators not included in the indictment, descriptions of the
intended victims of alleged violent acts, and specifics about false
statements allegedly made by Padilla's co-defendant Adham Amin Hassoun.
Scott
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 11:53:29
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
On 13 Dec 2006 08:42:29 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>Inmates in you typical supermax prison have been tried, convicted and
>sentenced. My understanding is that Padilla hasn't even been charged
>with anything.
Your understanding is wrong.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 11:28:11
From: larry
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:53:29 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:
>On 13 Dec 2006 08:42:29 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Inmates in you typical supermax prison have been tried, convicted and
>>sentenced. My understanding is that Padilla hasn't even been charged
>>with anything.
>
>Your understanding is wrong.
Thank you. Amazing how many people have the USA Today level of
knowledge of current events-- yet talk like they know-- and speak
strongly and make absolute statements, condemn government officials,
etc. etc. But where will they be with the facts are revealed-- when
we learn that the government knew things that completely justified
their legal actions? Gone, the irresponsible will have moved on to
another rumor.
Larry
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 15:58:54
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:28:11 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com >
wrote:
>>>Inmates in you typical supermax prison have been tried, convicted and
>>>sentenced. My understanding is that Padilla hasn't even been charged
>>>with anything.
>>
>>Your understanding is wrong.
>
>Thank you. Amazing how many people have the USA Today level of
>knowledge of current events-- yet talk like they know-- and speak
>strongly and make absolute statements, condemn government officials,
>etc. etc. But where will they be with the facts are revealed-- when
>we learn that the government knew things that completely justified
>their legal actions? Gone, the irresponsible will have moved on to
>another rumor.
>
>Larry
Jose Padilla in no way was denied his day in court. Nothing that the
government did in his case violated his constitutional rights. To
think otherwise is at variance with the facts of the case.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 15:16:09
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
In article <08q0o2li75s7s1me0cc6lh4k2ljhs401dd@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:28:11 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>>Inmates in you typical supermax prison have been tried, convicted and
> >>>sentenced. My understanding is that Padilla hasn't even been charged
> >>>with anything.
> >>
> >>Your understanding is wrong.
> >
> >Thank you. Amazing how many people have the USA Today level of
> >knowledge of current events-- yet talk like they know-- and speak
> >strongly and make absolute statements, condemn government officials,
> >etc. etc. But where will they be with the facts are revealed-- when
> >we learn that the government knew things that completely justified
> >their legal actions? Gone, the irresponsible will have moved on to
> >another rumor.
> >
> >Larry
>
>
> Jose Padilla in no way was denied his day in court. Nothing that the
> government did in his case violated his constitutional rights. To
> think otherwise is at variance with the facts of the case.
In a word, bullshit!
While I think Padilla is a criminal, and should be convicted and sent to
jail, his rights were violated up and down the line.
Some tort lawyer will come along one of these days and help him sue
those responsible.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 16:40:09
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:16:09 -0600, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:
>> Jose Padilla in no way was denied his day in court. Nothing that the
>> government did in his case violated his constitutional rights. To
>> think otherwise is at variance with the facts of the case.
>
>In a word, bullshit!
The final court ruling says that Padilla's imprisonment as an enemy
combatant was legal. This is a ruling that says that the President's
constitutional rights during wartime give him powers that he otherwise
does not have. There are a number of precedents in constitutional law
that support this. The USSC decided not to hear the appeal in this
case, so the 4th Circuit ruling stands,
I understand that you don't agree with this but the courts make the
decisions that count.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 03:07:44
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:oas0o2l3gled4c1isar16vr8otjbrnsoi1@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:16:09 -0600, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>>> Jose Padilla in no way was denied his day in court. Nothing that the
>>> government did in his case violated his constitutional rights. To
>>> think otherwise is at variance with the facts of the case.
>>
>>In a word, bullshit!
>
>
> The final court ruling says that Padilla's imprisonment as an enemy
> combatant was legal. This is a ruling that says that the President's
> constitutional rights during wartime give him powers that he otherwise
> does not have. There are a number of precedents in constitutional law
> that support this. The USSC decided not to hear the appeal in this
> case, so the 4th Circuit ruling stands,
Wrong. The final court ruling says that - given the gamey indictment of
Padilla prior to the petition for cert - any further review would be on
strictly hypothetical grounds. The Bush Administration asked the 4th
Circuit to vacate the very ruling you are referring to. Why? Because it
would mean there was no basis for a writ of cert to be issued by the SC.
Why were they concerned about a writ of cert being granted? Because they
were about to be humiliated.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/12/us-wants-padilla-appeals-ruling.php
>
> I understand that you don't agree with this but the courts make the
> decisions that count.
Let's see what happens if Bush decides to exercise those wartime powers you
were referring to. He's been given some very strong hints that it would be
a bad idea for him to push the point. Of course, the hints came from
extreme left-wingers like Chief Justice Roberts.
"Padilla, moreover, retains the option of seeking a writ of habeas corpus in
this Court...
That Padilla's claims raise fundamental issues respecting the separation of
powers, including consideration of the role and function of the courts, also
counsels against addressing those claims when the course of legal
proceedings has made them, at least for now, hypothetical. This is
especially true given that Padilla's current custody is part of the relief
he sought, and that its lawfulness is uncontested.
These are the reasons for my vote to deny certiorari."
Justice Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Stevens
Scott
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 21:43:58
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
In article <oas0o2l3gled4c1isar16vr8otjbrnsoi1@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:16:09 -0600, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >> Jose Padilla in no way was denied his day in court. Nothing that the
> >> government did in his case violated his constitutional rights. To
> >> think otherwise is at variance with the facts of the case.
> >
> >In a word, bullshit!
>
>
> The final court ruling says that Padilla's imprisonment as an enemy
> combatant was legal. This is a ruling that says that the President's
> constitutional rights during wartime give him powers that he otherwise
> does not have. There are a number of precedents in constitutional law
> that support this. The USSC decided not to hear the appeal in this
> case, so the 4th Circuit ruling stands,
>
> I understand that you don't agree with this but the courts make the
> decisions that count.
So -- and please explain if I've misunderstood you -- if the
administration wants to toss you in jail with no recourse to habeus
corpus all they need to do is declare you an enemy combatant, ...
...right?
--
'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)
'Solaris is just a keting rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 17:14:59
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:43:58 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net >
wrote:
>So -- and please explain if I've misunderstood you -- if the
>administration wants to toss you in jail with no recourse to habeus
>corpus all they need to do is declare you an enemy combatant, ...
>
>...right?
The courts rule on the facts of the case. If I did what Padilla did,
then the court would rule my detention as an enemy combatant as legal.
If the government just arbitrarily decided to rule me an enemy
combatant they would have to make their case as to why they did it. As
an American citizen, I have the right to challenge that classification
in court.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 03:12:52
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:eju0o21dp2qrbgedk8oefc6sphjo298pho@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:43:58 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
>>So -- and please explain if I've misunderstood you -- if the
>>administration wants to toss you in jail with no recourse to habeus
>>corpus all they need to do is declare you an enemy combatant, ...
>>
>>...right?
>
> The courts rule on the facts of the case. If I did what Padilla did,
> then the court would rule my detention as an enemy combatant as legal.
> If the government just arbitrarily decided to rule me an enemy
> combatant they would have to make their case as to why they did it. As
> an American citizen, I have the right to challenge that classification
> in court.
Not according to the ruling you refer to. That's the whole point of the
Bush argument. He doesn't have to explain it, and you don't get to
challenge it.
If you did what Padilla did (what exactly is that? I wonder what he was
indicted for...), then the court would rule as you say if it just happens to
be the 4th Circuit CoA. If it were two of the other courts who reviewed the
Padilla case, then you would be wrong. Even with the 4th Circuit CoA, you
have to wonder how much they like being overturned. Perhaps they can
read...
Scott
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 22:51:28
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
In article <eju0o21dp2qrbgedk8oefc6sphjo298pho@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:43:58 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >So -- and please explain if I've misunderstood you -- if the
> >administration wants to toss you in jail with no recourse to habeus
> >corpus all they need to do is declare you an enemy combatant, ...
> >
> >...right?
>
> The courts rule on the facts of the case. If I did what Padilla did,
> then the court would rule my detention as an enemy combatant as legal.
> If the government just arbitrarily decided to rule me an enemy
> combatant they would have to make their case as to why they did it. As
> an American citizen, I have the right to challenge that classification
> in court.
The courts ruled on the *law* of that case.
--
'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)
'Solaris is just a keting rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 21:14:01
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
In article <08q0o2li75s7s1me0cc6lh4k2ljhs401dd@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:28:11 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>>Inmates in you typical supermax prison have been tried, convicted and
> >>>sentenced. My understanding is that Padilla hasn't even been charged
> >>>with anything.
> >>
> >>Your understanding is wrong.
> >
> >Thank you. Amazing how many people have the USA Today level of
> >knowledge of current events-- yet talk like they know-- and speak
> >strongly and make absolute statements, condemn government officials,
> >etc. etc. But where will they be with the facts are revealed-- when
> >we learn that the government knew things that completely justified
> >their legal actions? Gone, the irresponsible will have moved on to
> >another rumor.
> >
> >Larry
>
>
> Jose Padilla in no way was denied his day in court. Nothing that the
> government did in his case violated his constitutional rights. To
> think otherwise is at variance with the facts of the case.
Imprisoning him for years with no charges...
--
'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)
'Solaris is just a keting rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 16:31:32
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:14:01 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net >
wrote:
>> Jose Padilla in no way was denied his day in court. Nothing that the
>> government did in his case violated his constitutional rights. To
>> think otherwise is at variance with the facts of the case.
>
>Imprisoning him for years with no charges...
Ruled to be within the constitutional rights granted to the President.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 02:51:04
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:j6s0o2dt5diftc8igtai0264v8t9onok5h@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:14:01 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> Jose Padilla in no way was denied his day in court. Nothing that the
>>> government did in his case violated his constitutional rights. To
>>> think otherwise is at variance with the facts of the case.
>>
>>Imprisoning him for years with no charges...
>
> Ruled to be within the constitutional rights granted to the President.
By 1 out of 4 courts who have ruled. The other 3 disagreed, sometimes in
very strong terms. Conveniently, the President decided to indict very soon
after the last ruling was appealed, the only one where his silly position
was supported Seeing as the Bush Admin position in the Hamdi case was more
in the ballpark than in Padilla's, it was about to be a very embarrassing
day at the SC for Bush and Co.
As a nifty coincidence, the ruling you are referring to was issued by the
CoA Fourth Circuit, which happens to be the same court that issued the Hamdi
ruling subsequently vacated by the Supreme Court. I wonder what the SC
would have done with the Padilla case had Bush not indicted???
In order to save us all unnecessary typing, the SC denied cert to Padilla's
appeal of the 4th Circuit decision, but I'd advise you to actually read
their opinions before you counter with that bit. The fact that there are
opinions to be read in a denial of cert is a very big clue.
Curiously, the Government had gone so far as to request that the 4th Circuit
withdraw it's ruling in their favor prior to the SC's denial of cert. I
wonder why they would do that? It's the very decision you are referring to!
Their position vis a vis the petition for cert was that it should be
denied - not because of the merits of the original decision, but because
their subsequent indictment of Padilla made SC review irrelevant. I wonder
why they would make such an argument?
The opinion issued at the time of denial of cert doesn't really work very
well for your side of the argument, but I'm more than happy to discuss it
with you if you wish.
Scott
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 08:11:50
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
GaryC_47 wrote:
> "larry" <larry@deldata.com> wrote in message
> news:jnprn2lpp2vkrcnuie5scc3tafem8fer4i@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 12:21:44 -0800, multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
> >
> >>On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 09:14:54 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>>Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats
> >>>the
> >>>world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S. yet has a
> >>>great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The
> >>>most
> >>>blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about
> >>>what we
> >>>don't have and what we hate about the country instead of thanking
> >>>the
> >>>good Lord we live here.
> >>
> >>I think you're being much too hard on the selfish bastards who
> >>stand
> >>by and watch morons like Bush destroy this country's freedoms,
> >>reputation, and safety, just because he promises to lower their
> >>taxes.
> >
> > There is a good example: "destroy this country's freedoms" he
> > says,
> > but he cannot offer even one tiny proof. He cannot cite one
> > "freedom"
> > that the Bush Administration has restricted or reduced. He
> > cannot,
> > yet he hates-- I would be ashamed to have been so easily led.
> >
> > Larry
>
> How about Jose Padilla - the American citizen detained on U.S. soil
> as an "enemy combatant" in 2002. He was kept in a military prison
> and tortured for over three and a half years without being charged
> with anything and was denied access to a lawyer for two years. Once
> the Bush administration was forced to charge him, since the supremes
> were about to rule on the legality of his treatment, all the
> original accusations against him have been dropped. And now the
> federal judge presiding over his trial has said the case against him
> is "very light on facts" and has order the prosecutors twice to
> provide more details about the charges. In the meantime Padilla has
> been treated inhumanely to the point he may not be mentally capable
> of standing trial.
>
> Under your system of government the president doesn't have the power
> to unilaterally declare people guilty and then treat them as
> criminals. Habeas Corpus has, however, disappeared in America. Be
> very careful Larry, it could happen to you.
Jose Padilla is being held in solitary confinement. A few days ago,
they took him out of his cell in restraints, blindfolded and wearing
ear protectors to keep him from hearing anything so they could walk him
down the hall to get his teeth worked on by a dentist. Doesn't that
make you proud to be an American?
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 10:27:42
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1166026310.644683.264140@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>
> GaryC_47 wrote:
>> "larry" <larry@deldata.com> wrote in message
>> news:jnprn2lpp2vkrcnuie5scc3tafem8fer4i@4ax.com...
>> > On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 12:21:44 -0800, multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 09:14:54 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com>
>> >>wrote:
>> >>>Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats
>> >>>the
>> >>>world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S. yet has a
>> >>>great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The
>> >>>most
>> >>>blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about
>> >>>what we
>> >>>don't have and what we hate about the country instead of thanking
>> >>>the
>> >>>good Lord we live here.
>> >>
>> >>I think you're being much too hard on the selfish bastards who
>> >>stand
>> >>by and watch morons like Bush destroy this country's freedoms,
>> >>reputation, and safety, just because he promises to lower their
>> >>taxes.
>> >
>> > There is a good example: "destroy this country's freedoms" he
>> > says,
>> > but he cannot offer even one tiny proof. He cannot cite one
>> > "freedom"
>> > that the Bush Administration has restricted or reduced. He
>> > cannot,
>> > yet he hates-- I would be ashamed to have been so easily led.
>> >
>> > Larry
>>
>> How about Jose Padilla - the American citizen detained on U.S. soil
>> as an "enemy combatant" in 2002. He was kept in a military prison
>> and tortured for over three and a half years without being charged
>> with anything and was denied access to a lawyer for two years. Once
>> the Bush administration was forced to charge him, since the supremes
>> were about to rule on the legality of his treatment, all the
>> original accusations against him have been dropped. And now the
>> federal judge presiding over his trial has said the case against him
>> is "very light on facts" and has order the prosecutors twice to
>> provide more details about the charges. In the meantime Padilla has
>> been treated inhumanely to the point he may not be mentally capable
>> of standing trial.
>>
>> Under your system of government the president doesn't have the power
>> to unilaterally declare people guilty and then treat them as
>> criminals. Habeas Corpus has, however, disappeared in America. Be
>> very careful Larry, it could happen to you.
>
> Jose Padilla is being held in solitary confinement. A few days ago,
> they took him out of his cell in restraints, blindfolded and wearing
> ear protectors to keep him from hearing anything so they could walk him
> down the hall to get his teeth worked on by a dentist. Doesn't that
> make you proud to be an American?
>
Happens everyday in your typical supermax prison, nothing new.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 10:52:24
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
In article <4uao00F17jri3U1@mid.individual.net >,
"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote:
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1166026310.644683.264140@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > GaryC_47 wrote:
> >> "larry" <larry@deldata.com> wrote in message
> >> news:jnprn2lpp2vkrcnuie5scc3tafem8fer4i@4ax.com...
> >> > On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 12:21:44 -0800, multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 09:14:54 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com>
> >> >>wrote:
> >> >>>Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats
> >> >>>the
> >> >>>world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S. yet has a
> >> >>>great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The
> >> >>>most
> >> >>>blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about
> >> >>>what we
> >> >>>don't have and what we hate about the country instead of thanking
> >> >>>the
> >> >>>good Lord we live here.
> >> >>
> >> >>I think you're being much too hard on the selfish bastards who
> >> >>stand
> >> >>by and watch morons like Bush destroy this country's freedoms,
> >> >>reputation, and safety, just because he promises to lower their
> >> >>taxes.
> >> >
> >> > There is a good example: "destroy this country's freedoms" he
> >> > says,
> >> > but he cannot offer even one tiny proof. He cannot cite one
> >> > "freedom"
> >> > that the Bush Administration has restricted or reduced. He
> >> > cannot,
> >> > yet he hates-- I would be ashamed to have been so easily led.
> >> >
> >> > Larry
> >>
> >> How about Jose Padilla - the American citizen detained on U.S. soil
> >> as an "enemy combatant" in 2002. He was kept in a military prison
> >> and tortured for over three and a half years without being charged
> >> with anything and was denied access to a lawyer for two years. Once
> >> the Bush administration was forced to charge him, since the supremes
> >> were about to rule on the legality of his treatment, all the
> >> original accusations against him have been dropped. And now the
> >> federal judge presiding over his trial has said the case against him
> >> is "very light on facts" and has order the prosecutors twice to
> >> provide more details about the charges. In the meantime Padilla has
> >> been treated inhumanely to the point he may not be mentally capable
> >> of standing trial.
> >>
> >> Under your system of government the president doesn't have the power
> >> to unilaterally declare people guilty and then treat them as
> >> criminals. Habeas Corpus has, however, disappeared in America. Be
> >> very careful Larry, it could happen to you.
> >
> > Jose Padilla is being held in solitary confinement. A few days ago,
> > they took him out of his cell in restraints, blindfolded and wearing
> > ear protectors to keep him from hearing anything so they could walk him
> > down the hall to get his teeth worked on by a dentist. Doesn't that
> > make you proud to be an American?
> >
> Happens everyday in your typical supermax prison, nothing new.
Except those in supermax prisons have been convicted of a crime.
Padilla hasn't been.
So which county jail do you know that treats accused this way? Hell,
which federal holding facility does this? Other than the one dealing
directly with Padilla.
I think Padilla is most likely guilty of something, but the fact that he
has been held this long and not had his day in court is a travesty of
justice. Someone should be in the cell with him, and that someone is on
our federal payroll.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 11:25:13
From: larry
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 10:52:24 -0600, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:
>In article <4uao00F17jri3U1@mid.individual.net>,
> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1166026310.644683.264140@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > GaryC_47 wrote:
>> >> "larry" <larry@deldata.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:jnprn2lpp2vkrcnuie5scc3tafem8fer4i@4ax.com...
>> >> > On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 12:21:44 -0800, multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 09:14:54 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com>
>> >> >>wrote:
>> >> >>>Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats
>> >> >>>the
>> >> >>>world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S. yet has a
>> >> >>>great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The
>> >> >>>most
>> >> >>>blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about
>> >> >>>what we
>> >> >>>don't have and what we hate about the country instead of thanking
>> >> >>>the
>> >> >>>good Lord we live here.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>I think you're being much too hard on the selfish bastards who
>> >> >>stand
>> >> >>by and watch morons like Bush destroy this country's freedoms,
>> >> >>reputation, and safety, just because he promises to lower their
>> >> >>taxes.
>> >> >
>> >> > There is a good example: "destroy this country's freedoms" he
>> >> > says,
>> >> > but he cannot offer even one tiny proof. He cannot cite one
>> >> > "freedom"
>> >> > that the Bush Administration has restricted or reduced. He
>> >> > cannot,
>> >> > yet he hates-- I would be ashamed to have been so easily led.
>> >> >
>> >> > Larry
>> >>
>> >> How about Jose Padilla - the American citizen detained on U.S. soil
>> >> as an "enemy combatant" in 2002. He was kept in a military prison
>> >> and tortured for over three and a half years without being charged
>> >> with anything and was denied access to a lawyer for two years. Once
>> >> the Bush administration was forced to charge him, since the supremes
>> >> were about to rule on the legality of his treatment, all the
>> >> original accusations against him have been dropped. And now the
>> >> federal judge presiding over his trial has said the case against him
>> >> is "very light on facts" and has order the prosecutors twice to
>> >> provide more details about the charges. In the meantime Padilla has
>> >> been treated inhumanely to the point he may not be mentally capable
>> >> of standing trial.
>> >>
>> >> Under your system of government the president doesn't have the power
>> >> to unilaterally declare people guilty and then treat them as
>> >> criminals. Habeas Corpus has, however, disappeared in America. Be
>> >> very careful Larry, it could happen to you.
>> >
>> > Jose Padilla is being held in solitary confinement. A few days ago,
>> > they took him out of his cell in restraints, blindfolded and wearing
>> > ear protectors to keep him from hearing anything so they could walk him
>> > down the hall to get his teeth worked on by a dentist. Doesn't that
>> > make you proud to be an American?
>> >
>> Happens everyday in your typical supermax prison, nothing new.
>
>Except those in supermax prisons have been convicted of a crime.
>Padilla hasn't been.
>
>So which county jail do you know that treats accused this way? Hell,
>which federal holding facility does this? Other than the one dealing
>directly with Padilla.
>
>I think Padilla is most likely guilty of something, but the fact that he
>has been held this long and not had his day in court is a travesty of
>justice. Someone should be in the cell with him, and that someone is on
>our federal payroll.
I would make a BIG bet that you don't know all the facts. Yet you pop
off. Amazing.
Larry
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 14:58:17
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
In article <krk0o2lr5rumc47eu47qetlqglqvns90u4@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 10:52:24 -0600, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <4uao00F17jri3U1@mid.individual.net>,
> > "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1166026310.644683.264140@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > GaryC_47 wrote:
> >> >> "larry" <larry@deldata.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:jnprn2lpp2vkrcnuie5scc3tafem8fer4i@4ax.com...
> >> >> > On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 12:21:44 -0800, multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 09:14:54 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com>
> >> >> >>wrote:
> >> >> >>>Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats
> >> >> >>>the
> >> >> >>>world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S. yet has a
> >> >> >>>great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The
> >> >> >>>most
> >> >> >>>blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about
> >> >> >>>what we
> >> >> >>>don't have and what we hate about the country instead of thanking
> >> >> >>>the
> >> >> >>>good Lord we live here.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>I think you're being much too hard on the selfish bastards who
> >> >> >>stand
> >> >> >>by and watch morons like Bush destroy this country's freedoms,
> >> >> >>reputation, and safety, just because he promises to lower their
> >> >> >>taxes.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > There is a good example: "destroy this country's freedoms" he
> >> >> > says,
> >> >> > but he cannot offer even one tiny proof. He cannot cite one
> >> >> > "freedom"
> >> >> > that the Bush Administration has restricted or reduced. He
> >> >> > cannot,
> >> >> > yet he hates-- I would be ashamed to have been so easily led.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Larry
> >> >>
> >> >> How about Jose Padilla - the American citizen detained on U.S. soil
> >> >> as an "enemy combatant" in 2002. He was kept in a military prison
> >> >> and tortured for over three and a half years without being charged
> >> >> with anything and was denied access to a lawyer for two years. Once
> >> >> the Bush administration was forced to charge him, since the supremes
> >> >> were about to rule on the legality of his treatment, all the
> >> >> original accusations against him have been dropped. And now the
> >> >> federal judge presiding over his trial has said the case against him
> >> >> is "very light on facts" and has order the prosecutors twice to
> >> >> provide more details about the charges. In the meantime Padilla has
> >> >> been treated inhumanely to the point he may not be mentally capable
> >> >> of standing trial.
> >> >>
> >> >> Under your system of government the president doesn't have the power
> >> >> to unilaterally declare people guilty and then treat them as
> >> >> criminals. Habeas Corpus has, however, disappeared in America. Be
> >> >> very careful Larry, it could happen to you.
> >> >
> >> > Jose Padilla is being held in solitary confinement. A few days ago,
> >> > they took him out of his cell in restraints, blindfolded and wearing
> >> > ear protectors to keep him from hearing anything so they could walk him
> >> > down the hall to get his teeth worked on by a dentist. Doesn't that
> >> > make you proud to be an American?
> >> >
> >> Happens everyday in your typical supermax prison, nothing new.
> >
> >Except those in supermax prisons have been convicted of a crime.
> >Padilla hasn't been.
> >
> >So which county jail do you know that treats accused this way? Hell,
> >which federal holding facility does this? Other than the one dealing
> >directly with Padilla.
> >
> >I think Padilla is most likely guilty of something, but the fact that he
> >has been held this long and not had his day in court is a travesty of
> >justice. Someone should be in the cell with him, and that someone is on
> >our federal payroll.
>
> I would make a BIG bet that you don't know all the facts. Yet you pop
> off. Amazing.
>
> Larry
Of course, lack of facts has never stopped you!
The facts are that he was taken into custody as a US citizen, confined
with no charges for an extended length of time, denied counsel and a
whole host of other civil rights violations. All against the
constitution, and you are OK with it?
What a oon!
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 11:24:21
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-93EF86.10522413122006@individual.net...
>
> So which county jail do you know that treats accused this way? Hell,
> which federal holding facility does this? Other than the one dealing
> directly with Padilla.
>
Do you even know what a supermax is?
> I think Padilla is most likely guilty of something, but the fact that he
> has been held this long and not had his day in court is a travesty of
> justice. Someone should be in the cell with him, and that someone is on
> our federal payroll.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 11:35:29
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
In article <4uara6F15f6enU1@mid.individual.net >,
"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote:
> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:lloydparsons-93EF86.10522413122006@individual.net...
> >
> > So which county jail do you know that treats accused this way? Hell,
> > which federal holding facility does this? Other than the one dealing
> > directly with Padilla.
> >
> Do you even know what a supermax is?
>
>
> > I think Padilla is most likely guilty of something, but the fact that he
> > has been held this long and not had his day in court is a travesty of
> > justice. Someone should be in the cell with him, and that someone is on
> > our federal payroll.
Matter of fact I do. ion was the Supermax and I did lots of work out
there.
But, Padilla has not been convicted and should not be in a Supermax.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 11:30:50
From: larry
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:35:29 -0600, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:
>In article <4uara6F15f6enU1@mid.individual.net>,
> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in message
>> news:lloydparsons-93EF86.10522413122006@individual.net...
>> >
>> > So which county jail do you know that treats accused this way? Hell,
>> > which federal holding facility does this? Other than the one dealing
>> > directly with Padilla.
>> >
>> Do you even know what a supermax is?
>>
>>
>> > I think Padilla is most likely guilty of something, but the fact that he
>> > has been held this long and not had his day in court is a travesty of
>> > justice. Someone should be in the cell with him, and that someone is on
>> > our federal payroll.
>
>Matter of fact I do. ion was the Supermax and I did lots of work out
>there.
Sweeping and cleaning toilets in a federal prison does NOT make you an
expert on federal criminal law
larry
>
>But, Padilla has not been convicted and should not be in a Supermax.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 14:59:53
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
In article <r5l0o21djckt8o2ma3ti20ae1p5kvu0gk4@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:35:29 -0600, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <4uara6F15f6enU1@mid.individual.net>,
> > "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in message
> >> news:lloydparsons-93EF86.10522413122006@individual.net...
> >> >
> >> > So which county jail do you know that treats accused this way? Hell,
> >> > which federal holding facility does this? Other than the one dealing
> >> > directly with Padilla.
> >> >
> >> Do you even know what a supermax is?
> >>
> >>
> >> > I think Padilla is most likely guilty of something, but the fact that he
> >> > has been held this long and not had his day in court is a travesty of
> >> > justice. Someone should be in the cell with him, and that someone is on
> >> > our federal payroll.
> >
> >Matter of fact I do. ion was the Supermax and I did lots of work out
> >there.
>
> Sweeping and cleaning toilets in a federal prison does NOT make you an
> expert on federal criminal law
>
> larry
> >
> >But, Padilla has not been convicted and should not be in a Supermax.
Since you know literally nothing about what I did for a living, I
suggest you FOAD!
Like you, I am a military careerist. Followed by a civilian job in the
computer industry. Hell, I was probably doing document imaging before
you were.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 12:16:27
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-9BDA82.11352913122006@individual.net...
> In article <4uara6F15f6enU1@mid.individual.net>,
> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in message
>> news:lloydparsons-93EF86.10522413122006@individual.net...
>> >
>> > So which county jail do you know that treats accused this way? Hell,
>> > which federal holding facility does this? Other than the one dealing
>> > directly with Padilla.
>> >
>> Do you even know what a supermax is?
>>
>>
>> > I think Padilla is most likely guilty of something, but the fact that
>> > he
>> > has been held this long and not had his day in court is a travesty of
>> > justice. Someone should be in the cell with him, and that someone is
>> > on
>> > our federal payroll.
>
> Matter of fact I do. ion was the Supermax and I did lots of work out
> there.
>
> But, Padilla has not been convicted and should not be in a Supermax.
If he's a threat to other inmates or sucidal he should be.
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 17:21:44
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 10:59:52 -0500, Jack Hollis wrote:
> That GWB will go down in history as one of America's great Presidents.
Mm hmm. And what will your excuse be 20 years from now when Bush is
universally recognized as the worst president in American history?
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 16:19:55
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 17:21:44 GMT, Carbon
<nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com > wrote:
>> That GWB will go down in history as one of America's great Presidents.
>
>Mm hmm. And what will your excuse be 20 years from now when Bush is
>universally recognized as the worst president in American history?
That's what they said about Reagan and as time goes by his legacy
grows larger. Bush will grow in stature as the years go by.
Hopefully, Bush will deal with Iran before he leaves office which will
make his administration even more successful than it already is.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 02:50:22
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: Hillary's too vane to be president
|
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 20:27:56 -0600, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> In article <1165803365.439250.203770@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>,
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There's a difference between carrying out a vendetta with impeachment
>> resolutions and so on and carrying out responsible oversight of the
>> executive branch. That is part of Congress' responsibility. And the
>> current Congress has completely abdicated it. I wouldn't object to
>> hearings aimed at exposing the incompetence, stupidity, arrogance and
>> corruption that have gotten us to where we are in Iraq. But I think the
>> House members who are making noises about drafting articles of
>> impeachment ought to be bound and gagged.
>
> I'm with you, but probably not for the same reason. While I think that
> impeachment could be successful against Bush, if it was that would leave
> Cheney in charge.
>
> As bad as Bush is, Cheney is just downright scary!
Cheney's even more culpable than Bush. By all accounts he's a total
ideologue and is largely responsible for the failure in Iraq. Bush just
tries to read the teleprompter. Why should he take all the heat?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 19:27:56
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> Hopefully, Bush will deal with Iran before he leaves office which will
> make his administration even more successful than it already is.
OK; now that was some funny stuff. Every now and then you outdo yourself.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 13:30:34
From: multi
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 16:19:55 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:
>Hopefully, Bush will deal with Iran before he leaves office which will
>make his administration even more successful than it already is.
Hopefully, Paris Hilton will sing a duet with William Hung before she
retires, which will make her recording career even more successful
than it already is.
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 16:07:44
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 10:59:52 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:
>That GWB will go down in history as one of America's great Presidents.
That title gets bestowed on those who overcome great adversity with a
lasting solution. (A president who is good enough to avoid adversity
gets ignored). So what lasting solution has Bush created for his
problems? (I am already reading how the right is blaming the left
for the future failure of the mid-east policy).
But failure is failure, no matter what the cause. Greatness
overcomes adversity, even if that adversity is named Hillary.
>Actually, the amount of hate directed at him from the left is a sure
>sign of his greatness.
Does that indicate that the amount of hate directed towards the
Clintons is equally a sure sign of their greatnesses?
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 16:26:37
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 16:07:44 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:
> So what lasting solution has Bush created for his
>problems?
Taliban out in Afghanistan and Saddam out in Iraq.
> (I am already reading how the right is blaming the left
>for the future failure of the mid-east policy).
I can't see any result in the Middle East worse than Saddam still
being in power, so success is already assured. However, the left is
certainly giving the terrorists hope that the US will withdraw from
Iraq. The recommendation of the Iraq Commission will also give
comfort to the enemy. Luckily, Bush will ignore most of it. That's
called leadership in the face of defeatism.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 06:55:11
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> In article <cL2gh.1118$Us1.905@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
>
> > William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > > larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
> > >> I am military retired and also retired very senior government
> > >> official. You are a fool to think what you do-and I guarantee that
> > >> -you are 180 degrees wrong. But then in America you are free to be
> > >> a fool and say anything you want to-- Don't try that anyplace else
> > >> on Earth, not even the UK.
> > >>
> > >> Larry
> > >
> > > "Very senior government official" is it now? Just when I thought Larry
> > > had fallen off his perch after November elections, here he comes, as
> > > full of overblown BS as ever.
> >
> > Actually William; he was allegedly an inspector for the NRC.
> > http://www.deldata.com/about.htm
>
> Which doesn't quite match up to 'very senior government official'
When I hear the term "very senior govt. official," I think of, say,
Secretary of the Treasury or National Security Adviser. NRC inspector,
which is probably about a GS-13 position, doesn't rise quite to that
level in my way of thinking. But if Larry says its "very senior," who
am I to argue?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 09:09:23
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
On 14 Dec 2006 06:55:11 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> In article <cL2gh.1118$Us1.905@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
>> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
>>
>> > William A. T. Clark wrote:
>> > > larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
>> > >> I am military retired and also retired very senior government
>> > >> official. You are a fool to think what you do-and I guarantee that
>> > >> -you are 180 degrees wrong. But then in America you are free to be
>> > >> a fool and say anything you want to-- Don't try that anyplace else
>> > >> on Earth, not even the UK.
>> > >>
>> > >> Larry
>> > >
>> > > "Very senior government official" is it now? Just when I thought Larry
>> > > had fallen off his perch after November elections, here he comes, as
>> > > full of overblown BS as ever.
>> >
>> > Actually William; he was allegedly an inspector for the NRC.
>> > http://www.deldata.com/about.htm
>>
>> Which doesn't quite match up to 'very senior government official'
>
>
>When I hear the term "very senior govt. official," I think of, say,
>Secretary of the Treasury or National Security Adviser. NRC inspector,
>which is probably about a GS-13 position, doesn't rise quite to that
>level in my way of thinking. But if Larry says its "very senior," who
>am I to argue?
Just someone with common sense.
___,
\o
|
| | | | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 08:43:47
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
larry wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 10:49:17 -0500, "GaryC_47" <garyc_47@myrealbox.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"larry" <larry@deldata.com> wrote in message
> >news:jnprn2lpp2vkrcnuie5scc3tafem8fer4i@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 12:21:44 -0800, multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 09:14:54 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>>Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats
> >>>>the
> >>>>world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S. yet has a
> >>>>great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The
> >>>>most
> >>>>blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about
> >>>>what we
> >>>>don't have and what we hate about the country instead of thanking
> >>>>the
> >>>>good Lord we live here.
> >>>
> >>>I think you're being much too hard on the selfish bastards who
> >>>stand
> >>>by and watch morons like Bush destroy this country's freedoms,
> >>>reputation, and safety, just because he promises to lower their
> >>>taxes.
> >>
> >> There is a good example: "destroy this country's freedoms" he
> >> says,
> >> but he cannot offer even one tiny proof. He cannot cite one
> >> "freedom"
> >> that the Bush Administration has restricted or reduced. He
> >> cannot,
> >> yet he hates-- I would be ashamed to have been so easily led.
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> >How about Jose Padilla - the American citizen detained on U.S. soil
> >as an "enemy combatant" in 2002. He was kept in a military prison
> >and tortured for over three and a half years without being charged
> >with anything and was denied access to a lawyer for two years. Once
> >the Bush administration was forced to charge him, since the supremes
> >were about to rule on the legality of his treatment, all the
> >original accusations against him have been dropped. And now the
> >federal judge presiding over his trial has said the case against him
> >is "very light on facts" and has order the prosecutors twice to
> >provide more details about the charges. In the meantime Padilla has
> >been treated inhumanely to the point he may not be mentally capable
> >of standing trial.
> >
> >Under your system of government the president doesn't have the power
> >to unilaterally declare people guilty and then treat them as
> >criminals. Habeas Corpus has, however, disappeared in America. Be
> >very careful Larry, it could happen to you.
>
> I am military retired and also retired very senior government
> official. You are a fool to think what you do-and I guarantee that
> -you are 180 degrees wrong. But then in America you are free to be a
> fool and say anything you want to-- Don't try that anyplace else on
> Earth, not even the UK.
>
> Larry
I'm curious. What "very senior" government position did you hold?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 16:31:51
From: larryrsf
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
On Dec 12, 4:09 pm, "Ken Meltzer" <commsp...@aol.com > wrote:
> annika1980 wrote:
> > Remember the old show, The Three Stooges?
> > You had Moe, Curly, and Shemp at one point and then Shemp left and that
> > other guy took over. Gee, what was his name? You know the guy I mean,
> > the really stupid one with the bad hair. The dumbest of all stooges.
> > Gosh, what WAS his name???Joe Besser? (;-)
> Best,
> Ken
Bored? I am. Just not even interested in getting this group inflamed
with a topic that will generate a thousand posts--as I have done in the
past--just to prove I can do it. Every few days I would just check in
to my topic and fan the flames, ha. It would be more interesting if
some other minds were here-- people other than the 90 IQ RSG regulars
like BK and about 10 others-- who apparently get up in the morning turn
on their computer, bring up the Usenet and sit there ALL DAY LONG--
posting in several dozen threads only a few about golf these days.
Frankly, who cares what such empty heads think!
They are way past the 'get a life' syndrome.
Larry
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 18:34:43
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
On 12 Dec 2006 16:31:51 -0800, "larryrsf" <larry@deldata.com >
wrote:
>Bored? I am. Just not even interested in getting this group inflamed
>with a topic that will generate a thousand posts--as I have done in the
>past--just to prove I can do it. Every few days I would just check in
>to my topic and fan the flames, ha. It would be more interesting if
>some other minds were here-- people other than the 90 IQ RSG regulars
>like BK and about 10 others-- who apparently get up in the morning turn
>on their computer, bring up the Usenet and sit there ALL DAY LONG--
>posting in several dozen threads only a few about golf these days.
>Frankly, who cares what such empty heads think!
>
>They are way past the 'get a life' syndrome.
>
>Larry
Do you ever wonder why someone might be online a lot during the day?
I guess you don't manage your own portfolio. But then, with your
intelligence, who could blame you?
Have any more incorrect English lessons sir dolt?
___,
\o
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 16:09:54
From: Ken Meltzer
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
annika1980 wrote:
> Remember the old show, The Three Stooges?
> You had Moe, Curly, and Shemp at one point and then Shemp left and that
> other guy took over. Gee, what was his name? You know the guy I mean,
> the really stupid one with the bad hair. The dumbest of all stooges.
> Gosh, what WAS his name???
Joe Besser? (;-)
Best,
Ken
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 16:04:48
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> Actually, much worse than that. LLLLLarrrry, you are, without doubt,
> the most inane person that has ever posted here. That includes your
> golf idiocy as well as the head-up-your-ass political rants. This
> leads me to conclude that either you know better and are trolling, or
> that you're incredibly stupid. Either way, you're one of a kind.
Remember the old show, The Three Stooges?
You had Moe, Curly, and Shemp at one point and then Shemp left and that
other guy took over. Gee, what was his name? You know the guy I mean,
the really stupid one with the bad hair. The dumbest of all stooges.
Gosh, what WAS his name???
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 15:39:01
From: larryrsf
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
On Dec 12, 9:07 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net > wrote:
> On 12 Dec 2006 08:49:02 -0800, "larryrsf" <l...@deldata.com>
> wrote:
>
> <clip unbelievable blind following of extreme right thinking>
>
>> the most inane person
Main Entry: 1inane
Pronunciation: i-'nAn
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): inan=B7er; -est
Etymology: Latin inanis
Date: 1662
1 : EMPTY, INSUBSTANTIAL
2 : lacking significance, meaning, or point : SILLY
synonym see INSIPID
- inane=B7ly adverb
- inane=B7ness /-'nAn-n&s/ noun
Actions or even assertions can be "inane" but people cannot. Learn
English, Bobby, then post--you wouldn't appear so stupid (which is a
perfectly acceptable description of a person).
Larry
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 18:07:52
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
On 12 Dec 2006 15:39:01 -0800, "larryrsf" <larry@deldata.com >
wrote:
>Actions or even assertions can be "inane" but people cannot. Learn
>English, Bobby, then post--you wouldn't appear so stupid (which is a
>perfectly acceptable description of a person).
>
>Larry
Incidentally, wrong Mr English expert. Inane is an adjective that can
certainly modify the noun "person".
Again and again you put your foot in your mouth.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 17:46:21
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
On 12 Dec 2006 15:39:01 -0800, "larryrsf" <larry@deldata.com >
wrote:
>
>
>On Dec 12, 9:07 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>> On 12 Dec 2006 08:49:02 -0800, "larryrsf" <l...@deldata.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> <clip unbelievable blind following of extreme right thinking>
>>
>>> the most inane person
>
>Main Entry: 1inane
>Pronunciation: i-'nAn
>Function: adjective
>Inflected Form(s): inan·er; -est
>Etymology: Latin inanis
>Date: 1662
>1 : EMPTY, INSUBSTANTIAL
>2 : lacking significance, meaning, or point : SILLY
>synonym see INSIPID
>- inane·ly adverb
>- inane·ness /-'nAn-n&s/ noun
>
>Actions or even assertions can be "inane" but people cannot. Learn
>English, Bobby, then post--you wouldn't appear so stupid (which is a
>perfectly acceptable description of a person).
>
>Larry
If you aren't a silly,empty or insipid person, no one is.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 02:34:48
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 16:26:37 -0500, Jack Hollis wrote:
> I can't see any result in the Middle East worse than Saddam still being
> in power,
WRT your obvious hard-on for Saddam, there are folks who represent a much
greater threat. There's this one guy, what's his name, Osama something?
Boy, what a dickhead that guy was. Wonder what ever happened to him? Oh
well, at least we have Saddam!
|
| |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 02:30:21
From: jeffc
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1165556823.202847.196260@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> After listening to the Bush/Blair press conference today it is apparent
> that George Bush will never figure it out.
It's the American people who will never figure it out. Bush has been in
power for 2 terms as president - he's doing something right (in terms of
being in power for 8 years - or his administration is.)
|
| | |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 09:29:39
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
"jeffc" <jeffc226@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1jKeh.7032$it.4003@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
>
> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1165556823.202847.196260@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>> After listening to the Bush/Blair press conference today it is apparent
>> that George Bush will never figure it out.
>
> It's the American people who will never figure it out. Bush has been in
> power for 2 terms as president - he's doing something right (in terms of
> being in power for 8 years - or his administration is.)
Jeff, I'm afraid you don't get it. Let me spell it out for you.
Your government, America even, has been taken over
by a bunch of fascist thugs whose sole interest is in the
oil wealth of the Middle East. They used a false flag
event and control of the media to confuse the American
people and have set your country back by over a century
in it's credibility with the outside world. You are rapidly
becoming a pariah amongst nations.
Hitler tried to do exactly the same thing over 70 years ago
using the Reichstag fire to come to power and launching
preemptive wars in his ch east for oil.
This episode has been an utter disaster for America, and
particularly the ordinary people of America, and the sooner
you wake up to the awful reality of the dire situation that
you are in then the better it will be for all of us.
I voiced these exact sentiments on this newsgroup in 2002
before the Iraq war and a simple google will confirm this if
you are so inclined.
Yours in disbelief (at the gullibility of Americans),
Alan.
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 16:30:38
From:
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
Head Shot wrote:
> lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > Iran with nukes.
>
> Why would Iran attack USA with their 3 or 4 nukes when USA has 12,000 nukes?
> I think they just want to be in the club. And let's not forget their sworn
> enemy (our beloved ally Israel) has 400 nukes and never used them.
Oh Lord, you must be kidding. Iran wont attack us directly but they
will provide a nuke to someone who will. Why do you think that W
addressed that in a very non-Reaganistic way. He was way too subtle.
As far as Israel, they may very well be our ace in the hole. They WILL
NOT sit back (like it appears so many Americans are willing to do) and
allow Iran to develop. They will attack Iran and guess where that
leaves us? The mid-east is a powder keg with a lit fuse.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 20:40:14
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> Head Shot wrote:
>> lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>> Iran with nukes.
>>
>> Why would Iran attack USA with their 3 or 4 nukes when USA has
>> 12,000 nukes? I think they just want to be in the club. And let's
>> not forget their sworn enemy (our beloved ally Israel) has 400 nukes
>> and never used them.
>
> Oh Lord, you must be kidding. Iran wont attack us directly but they
> will provide a nuke to someone who will.
If someone wanted a nuke that bad; why didn't they buy them on the black
ket when USSR broke up. Aren't there hundreds of missing ones? I have
read that nuclear residue is like a fingerprint - if a nuke goes off you
can tell exactly where the fissible material came from. I think Iran would
be concerned that if it points to her that USA would level her with dozens
of nukes. She wants those nukes for a bargaining chip - not to start WW
III. Same with North Korea - she never nuked California or Japan like the
paranoics said she would.
> Why do you think that W
> addressed that in a very non-Reaganistic way. He was way too subtle.
It's hard for me to take anything Bushtard says seriously. His cocaine and
alcohol abuse, this thing about talking to Jesus - the guy is a whack job.
I refuse to let Bushtard define my views. Come on now - admit that the guy
is a clown.
> As far as Israel, they may very well be our ace in the hole. They WILL
> NOT sit back (like it appears so many Americans are willing to do) and
> allow Iran to develop.
I don't think anyone will stop Iran from having nukes. She either gets them
or doesn't; and nobody but she will decide if it's worth it to have them.
I also think with the increase of muzzies in the USA; Jews are going to be
less and less important of a minority so that USA won't make a move on the
behalf of Jews such as myself.
> They will attack Iran and guess where that
> leaves us? The mid-east is a powder keg with a lit fuse.
I wish Israel would level Iran; but she won't.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 14:37:31
From:
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
annika1980 wrote:
> After listening to the Bush/Blair press conference today it is apparent
> that George Bush will never figure it out. More of the same failed
> policies, just called by different names.
>
> "A New Way Forward."
> Sounds a lot better than, "OK, I fucked up!'
>
> I can see a cartoon where Bush leads us on a ch, but comes to a
> point on a huge cliff where one more step means disaster.
> "We can't go back," he says. "We just need a new way forward."
> Might make a good cartoon, but nobody's laughing.
>
> Somebody impeach this idiot.
Every single one of you is looking at the past. You better learn to
look forward to the real problem.......Iran with nukes. You better be
willing to use massive military force, or our very survival is in
question.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 18:58:35
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> Iran with nukes.
Why would Iran attack USA with their 3 or 4 nukes when USA has 12,000 nukes?
I think they just want to be in the club. And let's not forget their sworn
enemy (our beloved ally Israel) has 400 nukes and never used them.
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 14:03:14
From: Miss Anne Thrope
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
What I hope Bush DOES get, is a roid so big that it slithers up and
chokes him to death in his sleep.
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 22:32:18
From:
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
Carbon wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 21:48:54 -0500, Skip Lunch wrote:
>
> > The democrats couldn't impeach Bush in eight years let alone the
> > remaining two years he'll be around... I mean if a womanizer immoral
> > Clinton survived impeachment, a true national embarrassment... oh well
> > let's talk golf anyway.
>
> Right, golf. Because how can a blowjob possibly compare to the ongoing oil
> war in Iraq? What's a half a trillion dollars and ~3000 dead? It's a
> matter of decency, for God's sake!
I'd much rather have the blowjob, myself.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 11:04:33
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
frisbieinstein@yahoo.com wrote:
> I'd much rather have the blowjob, myself.
Blowjobs are better with a female; not by yourself.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 17:09:49
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
>
> I particularly liked the part where he said, he's disappointed "because
> success has been so slow in coming." Hey jackass, there is no success,
> fast, slow, or any other way.
There were some successes... the last one may have been the elections
and that's been a while.
Lately there's been more setback that progress.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 21:48:54
From: Skip Lunch
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
dsc wrote:
>> I particularly liked the part where he said, he's disappointed "because
>> success has been so slow in coming." Hey jackass, there is no success,
>> fast, slow, or any other way.
>
>
> There were some successes... the last one may have been the elections
> and that's been a while.
> Lately there's been more setback that progress.
>
The democrats couldn't impeach Bush in eight years let alone the
remaining two years he'll be around... I mean if a womanizer immoral
Clinton survived impeachment, a true national embarrassment... oh well
let's talk golf anyway.
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 15:38:39
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 21:48:54 -0500, Skip Lunch <nospam@P90.com > wrote:
>The democrats couldn't impeach Bush in eight years let alone the
>remaining two years he'll be around... I mean if a womanizer immoral
>Clinton survived impeachment, a true national embarrassment... oh well
>let's talk golf anyway.
Impeachment isn't about embarrassments nor womanizing.
And morality is more about actions that hurt others than about sex.
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 03:21:39
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 21:48:54 -0500, Skip Lunch wrote:
> The democrats couldn't impeach Bush in eight years let alone the
> remaining two years he'll be around... I mean if a womanizer immoral
> Clinton survived impeachment, a true national embarrassment... oh well
> let's talk golf anyway.
Right, golf. Because how can a blowjob possibly compare to the ongoing oil
war in Iraq? What's a half a trillion dollars and ~3000 dead? It's a
matter of decency, for God's sake!
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 06:12:32
From: George Hibbard
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
"glfnaz" <glfnaz@qwesttrash.com > wrote in message
news:457a2d68$0$91106$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
>
> "George Hibbard" <gh@perfectimpact.com> wrote in message
> news:Km1eh.1278$BL4.1248@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>> So in three years AMERICANS have killed close to 50,000 fellow
>> Americans.
>>
>> In the same last three years, about 3000 Americans have been killed in
>> Iraq.
>
> In the last 3 years Iraq people have killed 650,000 Iraq people
> You said you care about human life.
> You don't care about Iraq people?
> Or is 650,000 not important?
1) You believe those numbers?
2) Do you care about human life?
3) Do you believe the invasion of D-day was "worth it?"
4) Do you realize you totally missed my point?
I'll answer what you'll say:
1) Yes (statistically accurate plus or minus 10000%)
2) Possibly. But by hiding from problems, living in a "gated" community,
other people's problems are not mine.
3) No, too many Americans killed. We could have brought everyone home.
4) What WAS your point?
(that's just it: you missed it! A simple "wow! for anyone simply to think
about!)
|
| | | | | |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 06:55:37
From: George Hibbard
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
"George Hibbard" <gh@perfectimpact.com > wrote in message
news:xSweh.3411$hD6.2039@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>
> "glfnaz" <glfnaz@qwesttrash.com> wrote in message
> news:457a2d68$0$91106$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
>>
>> "George Hibbard" <gh@perfectimpact.com> wrote in message
>> news:Km1eh.1278$BL4.1248@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>>> So in three years AMERICANS have killed close to 50,000 fellow
>>> Americans.
>>>
>>> In the same last three years, about 3000 Americans have been killed in
>>> Iraq.
>>
>> In the last 3 years Iraq people have killed 650,000 Iraq people
>> You said you care about human life.
>> You don't care about Iraq people?
>> Or is 650,000 not important?
Saddam himself was a weapon of mass destruction. 300,000 civilians, was it?
Brad - or whoever: the VERY DAY that we entered that arena I happened to
read in the book of Exodus a series of warnings: they all started with "woe
to you if...." and there were some pretty serious no-nos listed.
One of them read: "Woe to you if you find your neighbor's life in danger and
you fail to come to his assistance." I was deeply struck by that, as I do
consider myself a neighbor to the innocents in Iraq, Darfur, Israel, Harlem,
Somalia, Watts, China, and ..... and I served voluntarily in Korea to
assist our neighbors there. You may remember WE were not attacked in So.
Korea...
Nowadays we have a much thornier problem: those who oppose peace now do not
stand on THAT side of the fence wearing Red uniforms and identifying
themselves [you guys stand there and we'll stand here and let's shoot at
each other]: they move among us, they hide in churches and streets and
buildings next to us, they hide their weapons in schools, they use ICBMs,
and they kill for the sake of killing.
If you have the answer, please tell the president and the pentagon. Of if
you think: it will go away if WE go away, well, ..... What's the saying
about freedom isn't free? The human lives given in one generation provide
the privileges of freedom for the next one - or something similar.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 11:12:18
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
George Hibbard wrote:
> Saddam himself was a weapon of mass destruction.
Saddam was horrible. The people in Iraq should have risen up against him
and stopped him. Be it his army or a civilian population. USA always seems
to think that when a ruler crosses the line and becomes a threat to his own
people; that USA troops should be the ones to take over for the locals and
right the wrongs of the planet. If Saddam's actions against the Kurds
were not important enough to 500,000 armed Iraqi troops and 28,000,000 Iraqi
citizens; then it shouldn't have been important enough for 4,000 American
troops to die half a planet away.
"Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and
harmony with all... The Nation which indulges toward another an habitual
hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to
its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it
astray from its duty and its interest ... Tis our true policy to steer clear
of permanent alliances, with any portion of the foreign world." - George
Washington, Farewell Address, 17 Sept. 1796 .
"America... well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her
own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve
herself beyond the power of extraction, in all the wars of interest and
intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors
and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy
would insensibly change from liberty to force... She might become dictatress
of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit." - John
Quincy Adams; Address, 4 July 1821
"I hope we may still keep clear of [the broils of Europe],... and that time
may be given us to... find some means of shielding ourselves in future from
foreign influence, political, commercial, or in whatever other form it may
be attempted. I can scarcely withhold myself from joining in the wish of
Silas Deane that there were an ocean of fire between us and the old
world." --Thomas Jefferson, 1797.
"Do what is right, leaving the people of Europe to act their follies and
crimes among themselves, while we pursue in good faith the paths of peace
and prosperity." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1823.
"I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none,
and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking
ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field
of slaughter to preserve their balance, or joining in the confederacy of
Kings to war against the principles of liberty."
--Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799.
"I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take
active part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are
entirely distinct from ours. Their mutual jealousies, their balance of
power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of
government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war. All
their energies are expended in the destruction of the labor, property and
lives of their people." --Thomas Jefferson to James
Monroe, 1823.
"I sincerely join... in abjuring all political connection with every
foreign power; and though I cordially wish well to the progress of liberty
in all nations, and would forever give it the weight of our countenance,
yet they are not to be touched without contamination from their other bad
principles. Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our
motto." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Lomax, 1799.
"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling
alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our
government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its
administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address, 1801.
"We wish not to meddle with the internal affairs of any country, nor with
the general affairs of Europe. Peace with all nations, and the right which
that gives us with respect to all nations, are our object." --Thomas
Jefferson to C. W. F. Dumas, 1793.
"I wish that all nations may recover and retain their independence; that
those which are overgrown may not advance beyond safe measures of power;
that a salutary balance may be ever maintained among nations; and that our
peace, commerce and friendship may be sought and cultivated by
all." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Leiper, 1815.
"I see... not much harm in annihilating the whole treaty-making power
except as to making peace" --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1796.
"We wish to let every treaty we have drop off without renewal... The
interest which European nations feel as well as ourselves in the mutual
patronage of commercial intercourse is a sufficient stimulus on both sides
to ensure that patronage. A treaty contrary to that interest renders war
necessary to get rid of it." --Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1801.
"Nothing is so important as that America shall separate herself from the
systems of Europe, and establish one of her own. Our circumstances, our
pursuits, our interests, are distinct. The principles of our policy should
be so also. All entanglements with that quarter of the globe should be
avoided if we mean that peace and
justice shall be the polar stars of the American societies." --Thomas
Jefferson to J. Correa de Serra, 1820.
"It ought to be the very first object of our pursuits to have nothing to do
with the European interests and politics. Let them be free or slaves at
will, navigators or agriculturists, swallowed into one government or
divided into a thousand, we have nothing to fear from them in any
orm." --Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1801.
"Our nation has wisely avoided entangling itself in the system of European
interests, has taken no side between its rival powers, attached itself to
none of its ever-changing confederacies." --Thomas Jefferson to Baltimore
Baptists, 1808.
"The fundamental principle of our government [is] never to entangle us with
the broils of Europe." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823.
"Our first and fundamental maxim should be never to entangle ourselves in
the broils of Europe. Our second, never to suffer Europe to intermeddle
with
cross-Atlantic affairs. America, North and South, has a set of interests
distinct from those of Europe and peculiarly her own. She should therefore
have a system of her own, separate and apart from that of Europe. While the
last is laboring to become the domicile of despotism, our endeavor should
surely be to make our hemisphere that of freedom." --Thomas Jefferson to
James Monroe, 1823.
"Exhortations to avoid taking part in the war... raging in Europe... were
a confirmation of the policy I had myself pursued, and which I thought and
still think should be the governing canon of our republic." --Thomas
Jefferson to Mme de Stael-Holstein, 1815.
"I hope we may still keep clear of [the broils of Europe],... and that time
may be given us to... find some means of shielding ourselves in future from
foreign influence, political, commercial, or in whatever other form it may
be attempted. I can scarcely withhold myself from joining in the wish of
Silas Deane that there were an ocean of fire between us and the old
world." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1797.
"[Our] object [in this hemisphere] is to introduce and establish the
American system, of keeping out of our land all foreign powers, of never
permitting those of Europe to intermeddle with the affairs of our
nations." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1823.
"We begin to broach the idea that we consider the whole Gulf Stream as of
our waters, in which hostilities and cruising are to be frowned on for the
present, and prohibited so soon as either consent or force will permit us.
We shall never permit another privateer to cruise within it, and shall
forbid our harbors to national cruisers. This is essential for our
tranquillity and commerce." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1806.
"When our strength will permit us to give the law of our hemisphere, it
should be that the meridian of the mid-Atlantic should be the line of
dekation between war and peace, on this side of which no act of hostility
should be committed, and the lion and the lamb lie down in peace
together." --Thomas Jefferson to John Crawford, 1812.
"We aim not at the acquisition of any of [Europe's American]
possessions,... we will not stand in the way of any amicable arrangement
between them
and the Mother country; but... we will oppose, with all our means, the
forcible interposition of any other power, as auxiliary, stipendiary, or
under any other form or pretext, and most especially, their transfer to any
power by conquest, cession, or acquisition in any other way." --Thomas
Jefferson to James Monroe, 1823.
"Our attachment to no nation on earth should supplant our attachment to
liberty." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration on Taking Up Arms, 1775.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 07:20:25
From: multi
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 06:55:37 -0500, "George Hibbard"
<gh@perfectimpact.com > wrote:
>Saddam himself was a weapon of mass destruction. 300,000 civilians, was it?
So we've killed about twice as many in three years as he did in 20.
Cool. That might be even more impressive than the fact that we wailed
about Saddam skimming $2 billion over eight years or so from his own
oil sales, and then allowed Halliburton and the other Bush cronies to
lose $9 billion of US taxpayer money in two years. That's not the
overspending and waste, which was bad enough. That's money completely
unaccounted for and lost, nobody knows where, except for tales of
duffel bags full of C-notes going home with people.
>Brad - or whoever: the VERY DAY that we entered that arena I happened to
>read in the book of Exodus a series of warnings: they all started with "woe
>to you if...." and there were some pretty serious no-nos listed.
>
>One of them read: "Woe to you if you find your neighbor's life in danger and
>you fail to come to his assistance." I was deeply struck by that, as I do
>consider myself a neighbor to the innocents in Iraq, Darfur, Israel, Harlem,
>Somalia, Watts, China, and .....
It also says this in Exodus 31:15 --- "Six days may work be done; but
in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever
doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death."
If you're so worried about your neighbors and the Word of God, why not
kill your neighbor the next time he mows his lawn on a Sunday (or
Saturday, depending on your interpretation of the eternal and
unchanging Scriptures).
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 05:20:33
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
On 8-Dec-2006, "glfnaz" <glfnaz@qwesttrash.com > wrote:
> In the last 3 years Iraq people have killed 650,000 Iraq people
Bogus numbers, bogus gram
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 22:11:57
From: George Orwell
Subject: Re: Bush still doesn't get it
|
In article <1165556823.202847.196260@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com >
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
>
> After listening to the Bush/Blair press conference today it is apparent
> that George Bush will never figure it out. More of the same failed
> policies, just called by different names.
>
> "A New Way Forward."
> Sounds a lot better than, "OK, I fucked up!'
>
> I can see a cartoon where Bush leads us on a ch, but comes to a
> point on a huge cliff where one more step means disaster.
> "We can't go back," he says. "We just need a new way forward."
> Might make a good cartoon, but nobody's laughing.
>
> Somebody impeach this idiot.
I particularly liked the part where he said, he's disappointed "because
success has been so slow in coming." Hey jackass, there is no success,
fast, slow, or any other way. Some call it head in the sand. We know he
has it tucked some other place, just as dark and maybe a little stinkier.
Oh, and his safeguard against impeachment is Dick Cheney. Do we want dumb
and evil, or evil-st?
|
|
